Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 14, 2004 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(12. #04 -3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY,1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD — <br />• VARIANCES /CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS — RESOLUTION NO. 5195 continued) <br />long as the area is maintained as proposed restoration then a hardship condition would exist and <br />continue to exist; in this case, allowing a boardwalk is similar to the steps /stairs permitted on <br />lakeshore slopes, as it provides access to the lake under a hardship condition. He stressed the need <br />for requiring a condition for approving the restoration project to be maintained permanently. <br />Mabusth interjected a summary of the Planning Commission minority opinion. If the boardwalk was <br />to be permitted, it should be limited to a 4' width and to a height no greater than 30" in order to avoid <br />the Building Code requirement for a railing. Also, there was no landing approved. These conditions <br />would minimize the structure's visual impact. <br />Curtis advised the proposed landing is 177 s. f. or about 10' x17'. McMillan and White expressed <br />their opinion that some sort of landing at the end of a boardwalk would be needed for practical <br />purposes. Gaffron pointed out the dock extends beyond the proposed landing. <br />Murphy withdrew his comments supporting wide spacing upon hearing Gaffron's reservations and <br />potential issues. McMillan added that she supports the need to control hardcover and structures in the <br />0 -75' zone to minimize hardcover impacts. White noted the Three Rivers Parks District successfully <br />manages and utilizes boardwalks over metro area wetlands because boardwalks are not as invasive <br />and allow people to get out to see the natural settings. <br />• Sansevere asked if there is no other access to the lake other than the proposed boardwalk. Steinwall <br />explained there is grass turf there now but the applicant is very interested in the prairie restoration <br />project and planting native floodplain shrubs and grasses. <br />• <br />Murphy asked for a description of the proposed mesh fence material. Steinwall replied the fencing <br />will be placed within the shrubs and stated the existing road curve and the need to be parallel to the <br />roadway for security purposes cause the hardship. Curtis confirmed the fence is not proposed to be <br />chainlink. Murphy questioned the reasons for denying the fence for the short distance when the fence <br />within shrubbery is visually discreet. <br />Gaffron pointed out the only hardship may be for security from the public road so close to a private <br />lake access. Also, a proposed fence should not block others' lakeshore views. White indicated that <br />he does not support lakeshore fences but this site may warrant a fence variance, though he <br />recommended the conditions be very specific, if approved. <br />Sansevere questioned why the applicant does not want to have turf rather than a boardwalk to the lake <br />that could be wider than 4'. Steinwall explained the applicant wants to have the look achieved by the <br />floodplain restoration as an aesthetic and environmental positive to Lake Minnetonka. She added Mr. <br />O'Shaughnessy would be a more eloquent proponent of his restoration project than she. Steinwall <br />indicated that turf would be a fallback choice. <br />Page 11 of 22 <br />