Laserfiche WebLink
L-f <br />t. <br />rl <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - NOVEMBER 25* 1B01 <br />#1691 - CONT. <br />Mabusth noted that the lots have already been reconfigured <br />because of the configuration of dry buildable area and the higher <br />elevations to the northeast, Lot 1, Block 2 must remain as <br />proposed. The developer will once again be asked to address the <br />Issue of relocating the force main, may not be possible to avoid <br />this easement. She asked the Council if they had any other <br />development criteria, or comments on the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation of covenant language. <br />Charles Kelley. Planning Commission representative, noted the <br />Commission's main goal was to protect Orono residents to the <br />south. He felt they should try to restrict uses such as home <br />occupation and accessory structure storage. <br />Butler noted the proposed berm along the southern lot line. <br />Kelley noted the first 3 lots along Orono Oaks Drive could be <br />harmed but after that the elevations prohibit berming. He noted <br />that trees may be used for screening these properties. He felt <br />the City has the option through the PRO process to add conditions <br />of development. <br />Mayor Peterson asked Barrett If he felt the covenant language was <br />specific enough. <br />Barrett felt that under the agreement with Long Lake, the City <br />can set forth reasonable requirements. He noted If the covenants <br />are too restrictive, the whole development may fall apart. He <br />felt the City should look at general conditions, and provide for <br />some procedure that would allow a developer to readjust the <br />covenants to a reasonable degree. <br />Jabbour asked about enforcing restrictive covenants. <br />Barrett noted they can be enforced by Injunction, which would <br />require applying to district court. He noted the plan Is to <br />provide the City with a legal document that gives authority In <br />specific areas. <br />Jabbour felt Orono should decide what Is essential to protect its <br />residents to the south of the development. <br />Jim Palmer felt the request for a berm had been misinterpreted, <br />as they were trying to limit access from owners of the new <br />development from their back yards to Orono Oaks Drive. <br />Barrett noted they can covenant that access could not be allowed <br />from these lots to Orono Oaks Drive. <br />Roos noted In the past they have found berms to be Ineffective <br />for this purpose, and felt that screening of another kind may be <br />more effective.