Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, December 10, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />(#07-3332 PRC Development Company, Continued) <br /> <br />Murphy asked if a variance would be required for the fence if it is 60 inches in height. <br /> <br />Turner indicated since this is a PRD, the Council does have some leeway on the fence and could find <br />that it fits the character of the development. <br /> <br />Murphy recommended the fence be incorporated into the topography to help minimize the visual impact <br />of the fence. <br /> <br />White asked whether anything could be located within the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the right-of-way would be dedicated on the plat but that the City could consider an <br />encroachment agreement, which would allow the property owner to use the right-of-way until the <br />County elects to widen the roadway. Mattick stated he also is unsure what the life cycle is on the septic <br />system. <br /> <br />White commented he has some reservations about not granting the wider right-of-way since the costs to <br />acquire that land in the future would have to be borne by the citizens of Orono. White stated one option <br />might be to have a dedicated easement in favor of the City. <br /> <br />Mattick stated he will research that option. <br /> <br />Seeland stated she is also worried about marketing the property if County Road 6 is widened. <br /> <br />McMillan stated there are no plans at the present time to widen County Road 6. <br /> <br />Nash stated the City of Forest Lake required them to plat that portion of the land dedicated as right-of- <br />way as an outlot, which gives the City the ability to control the property. <br /> <br />Bremer indicated she has no preference over whether it is an easement or an outlot. <br /> <br />Mattick stated an outlot would be fine. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the City did enter into a similar arrangement with Cliff Otten and that traditionally the <br />City has not granted the wider easements except in cases where it appeared likely that it would be <br />needed in the future. <br /> <br />Bremer stated the City does not want to put itself in the position where it has to purchase the property in <br />the future. <br /> <br />Murphy stated he can envision County Road 6 being widened at some point in the future and that he <br />would like to have the opinion of the City Attorney on this issue and the possible ramifications to the <br />City if the wider right-of-way along Homestead Trail is not given. Murphy questioned the language <br />contained in the resolution regarding the right-of-way and recommended it be clarified. <br /> <br />White recommended this application be tabled pending resolution of the right-of-way issue. <br /> <br /> <br />PAGE 8 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/14/08 <br />Approval of Council Minutes - 12/10/07 [Page 8 of 17]