01-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11,1995 (#13 - #2086 Robert and Janice Callan - Continued) George Stickney, 2590 Countryside Dr., took issue with the 3/2 vote noting two recalls on the voting. In response to the idea of no compelling reason, Stickney noted that other agencies had no problem with the proposal, referring to the DNR, the MCWD (whose approval was pending approval from Orono), and the Corp of Engineers. Stickney said Mark Gronberg had also been at the Planning Commission meeting and had noted that the wetland area had increased dramatically in size when adjacent drain tile on a farm had not been properly maintained. Stickney said Callan's proposal for the pond also was for mitigation of dry buildable on the other side of the lot for type 2 wetland. Stickney said the number one reason for the pond was to control the distance between the rear of the lot and the yard to secure the boundary. The lot is 380' surrounded by trees. Stickney said this was not effectively brought to the attention of the Planning Commission. Callahan asked again what was the compelling reason for the pond Stickney said it was to control the destiny of the rear of the house and to not lose consistency of the back yard. Callahan responded that wetlands fill in at times and did not see this as a compelling reason. Callahan said he was in favor of protecting wetland areas; and as a matter of policy, he saw no reason to approve the creation of the pond. The applicant, Callan commented that he loved the wetlands and did not wish to take away from it, but rather, enhance the wetlands. He felt the pond would provide an area for water fowl and various wildlife uses. He said the mitigation *vould e.xpand the area and allow for a greater amount of wetlands. Goetten commented that Orono had a policy in place regarding wetlands, and standards were such to maintain the naturalness of the wetland areas. Goetten felt if the applicant wished to attraa waterfowl, another approach could be taken. She was not in favor of approval for an open water area only Goetten noted that wetlands are used to filter the water that flows into Lake Minnetonka Stickney attain noted that the proposal was to increase the wetland. He noted that a neighboring property, the Carson's, had recently received approval for a type 1, 1 acre, wetland being used as a skating pond. Mabusth informed Stickney that this property was not a designated wetland and required a conditional use permit only, not a variance. Jabbour commented that type 1 and type 2 wetlands are treated difterently. Jabbour questioned if the idea was to enlarge a wetland, why create an area to hold water. Goetten questioned if the applicant felt the wetland was beautiftil, why change it and spend the amount of money it would take to create the open water area. I