Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD MAY 24, 1993 <br />(#7) #1691 & #1702 CITY OF LONG LAKE, <br />130 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION #3284 <br />Kelley inquired about the landscape plan and a provision in the <br />covenants to ensure the plantings wi I I be installed. <br />Staunton replied there are provisions within the covenant that <br />would al low Orono to obtain an injunction and to take I itigation <br />to enforce if such violations are determined. <br />Mayor Ca I I ahan suggested the City shou Id contact Long Lake if a <br />provision is not being adhered to prior to litigation. He said the <br />City of Orono wi I I be the primary party to enforce the covenant, <br />not the residents, and added the covenants are perpetual. <br />Kelley questioned the time frame for the landscape screening to <br />occur. <br />Moorse replied as the properties are developed, screening wi I I be <br />planted. <br />It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt <br />Resolution #3284 for Application #1691 and #1702 the City of Long <br />Lake, 130 Orono Orchard ·Road, approving the p I anned resident i a I <br />development and plat of Fleming Trai I. Ayes 5, nays O. <br />(#8) #1734 JOHN BURGER, <br />3750 BAYSIDE ROAD -FINAL SUBDIVISION <br />It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour,· to table action on <br />Application #1734 John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, at the request <br />of staff, pending receipt of the required easement documents. <br />(#9) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, <br />3237 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCES <br />Mr. Remien was present. <br />Gaff ron exp I a i ned this is a request for a third renew a I of a <br />variance for lot area .and width originally approved in 1984. When <br />the original variance was granted the property was owned in common <br />by the property owner to the north. The property is in a half acre <br />zoning district, and contains 77% of the area requirement, and 55% <br />of the lot width. The Planning Commission voted in favor of this <br />on a vote of 3 to 2. A question has been raised about the <br />consistency with the DNR shoreland regulations. <br />7