07-10-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 13. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE PLANNING PROPOSAL — Continued Meyers stated the object was to make the golf course a winter activity area for sledding and cross-country skiing. Meyers stated in his view it should be included in the plan and that the Council could either decide to approve it or not at a later time. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to accept Bolton and Menk's proposal to complete a concept plan for the Orono Golf Course for a fee not to exceed $5,800. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE/PARKS SUPERINTENDENT POSITION AND RECRUITING Edwards reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the adjustment of the duties and responsibilities of the Golf Course superintendent to include responsibility for all of the Orono parks and to begin the hiring process for the position. Walsh noted the City Council did discuss this earlier at a work session and that the City's organizational committee also discussed it. Walsh stated based on that discussion, it might be premature to approve the hiring of this position until the Council has a better idea of what functions the Public Works Department will encompass. Printup commented he likes the overall idea of this position but that he agrees with tabling it for the time being. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to table Item No. 15, Approval of a Golf Course/Parks Superintendent Position and Recruiting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 16. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON/JAMES FRANZEL, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 6774 Barnhart reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the proposed subdivision of a four acre property into three lots. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the preliminary plat, subject to several conditions, but did not support the lot width variance for Lot 1. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions, including revising the plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1. Walsh noted one of the conditions is that the house on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet the 75 -foot lake setback. Walsh stated it does not appear the property owner has a lot of options. Barnhart stated if you measure 75 feet back, the house would be moved back two feet. Barnhart stated the house is currently nonconforming and that the idea was to make the lot more conforming. Barnhart noted the average lakeshore setback will be done as part of the final plat document. Barnhart stated if the average lakeshore setback is not established and one of the other lots is developed, it could take away from the buildable area on Lot 3. Page 6 of 12