06-28-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 14, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (12. #04-3012 ROGER D. O’SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - RESOLUTION NO. 5195 continued) long as the area is maintained as proposed restoration then a hardship condition would exist and continue to exist; in this case, allowing a boardwalk is similar to the steps/stairs permitted on lakeshore slopes, as it provides access to the lake under a hardship condition. He stressed the need for requiring a condition for approving the restoration project to be maintained permanently. Mabusth interjected a summary of the Planning Commission minority opinion. If the boardwalk was to be permitted, it should be limited to a 4’ width and to a height no greater than 30” in order to avoid the Building Code requirement for a railing. Also, there was no landing approved. These conditions would minimize the structure’s visual impact. Curtis advised the proposed landing is 177 s.f. or about 10’ xl7 ’. McMillan and White expressed their opinion that some sort of landing at the end of a boardwalk would be needed for practical purposes. Gaffron pointed out the dock extends beyond the proposed landing. Murphy withdrew his comments supporting wide spacing upon hearing Gaffron’s reserv'ations and potential issues. McMillan added that she supports the need to control hardcover and structures in the 0-75’ zone to minimize hardcover impacts. White noted the Three Rivers Parks District successfully manages and utilizes boardwalks over metro area wetlands because boardwalks are not as invasive and allow people to get out to sec the natural settings. Sanscverc asked if there is no other access to the lake other than the proposed boardwalk. Steinwall explained there is grass turf there now but the applicant is very interested in the prairie restoration project and planting native floodplain shrubs and grasses. Murphy asked for a description of the proposed mesh fence material. Steinw all replied the fencing will be placed w ithin the shrubs and stated the existing road curv e and the need to be parallel to the roadway for security purposes cause the hardship. Curtis confimicd the fence is not proposed to be chainlink. Murphy questioned the reasons for denying the fence for the short distance when the fence within shrubbery is visually discreet. Gaffron pointed out the only hardship may be for security from the public road so close to a private lake access. Also, a proposed fence should not block others’ lakeshore view s. White indicated that he docs not support lakeshore fences but this site may warrant a fence variance, though he recommended the conditions be very specific, if approved. Sansevere questioned why the applicant docs not want to have turf rather than a boardwalk to the lake that could be w ider than 4’. Steinwall explained the applicant wants to have the look achieved by the floodplain restoration as an aesthetic and environmental positive to Lake Minnetonka. She added Mr. O’Shaughnessy would be a more eloquent proponent of his restoration project than she. Steinwall indicated that turf would be a fallback choice. Page II of22