Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,July 5,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> passive park into a more active park. After some discussion,the City Council referred the matter back to <br /> the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then saw the revised plan that is displayed on the <br /> overhead and learned that the neighbors had some concerns how close the fence was to their property <br /> lines and the impact it would have on the wildlife. Following public comment and discussion of the <br /> matter,the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance. The application will now go back <br /> to the City Council on July 11. <br /> Edwards indicated he then went out and GPS'd all the trails at Lurton Park and placed them on the map <br /> that is depicted on the overhead. The orange line is the wood chipped trail going through the woods and <br /> is the most substantial trail out there. The green line that runs along the northern wetland and then back <br /> up into the prairie is fairly well established and can be used. The red line is a small footpath of pounded <br /> down earth that can be followed up to the boundary, and the yellow and white trails are more like game <br /> trails but also have some foot tracks and dog tracks. Edwards stated that trail does not seem to be heavily <br /> used. Edwards noted no trail is being considered for the wetland area outside of a footpath. <br /> Edwards pointed out the locations where the fence has been moved. Edwards indicated he moved the <br /> fence to provide a larger buffer to the neighbors to the north and to lessen the impact on the wildlife. <br /> Edwards indicated he also ran the fence along the north side of the established wood chipped trail and that <br /> a smaller connector will need to be constructed on the northwest side of it. Edwards indicated they could <br /> also hook into the white dashed trail where the on-leash park is located. Gates would also be installed <br /> from the off-leash area to the on-leash dog park. <br /> Meyers stated the relocation of the fence is a bit of a compromise with the neighbors,which would leave <br /> a portion of it as a natural park and then also a dog park. Meyers stated in his view it is a win/win <br /> situation and that Option 3B is a good proposal. Meyers noted the plan will be presented to the City <br /> Council for their review and approval. <br /> Edwards noted the other major change to the original plan was the relocation of the small dog park off to <br /> the southeast. <br /> Meyers commented that is a nice improvement. <br /> Brenda Johnson noted people will have to pay to park to use the park but that she has concerns about the <br /> two gates. Johnson asked how they will know that the gates will be shut by the people using the park. <br /> Johnson asked why they are being included. <br /> Meyers indicated it is an accommodation to the neighbors. <br /> Brenda Johnson stated in her view the two gates will be a problem. <br /> Meyers stated in his view the gates will not be a problem and that other parks have them. Meyers stated <br /> technically someone can put their dog on a leash and walk in that area. Meyers stated there is a little bit <br /> of a compromise involved in this and that the gates are one of the compromises. <br /> Brenda Johnson stated her concern related more to the gates not being shut by the users. <br /> Pesek stated in his view the plan looks good. <br /> Berg stated she also agrees the plan looks good. <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br />