My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-20-2016 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
06-20-2016 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:57:32 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 2:57:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated he understands that,but his feeling is that he would treat it more like the coach's kid who <br /> gets a higher vision because they do not want to show any favoritism. Thiesse noted the City typically <br /> requires it from absolutely everybody and that it would have been nice to have one as he was walking the <br /> site. <br /> Edwards noted the City has a GIS system, which has fairly accurate data, and that the City also has access <br /> to all the wetland data from the DNR, which was used to place the fence. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he disagrees that the discussion is limited to the fence and that all questions should be <br /> allowed. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission does not have any say into whether a dog park is desirable at this <br /> location. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether there were any studies done on the amount this park will get used. Schoenzeit <br /> stated typically this park is empty when he goes by it and that to justify a$150,000 investment seems <br /> crazy. <br /> Thiesse noted that is not the choice of the Planning Commission. <br /> Schoenzeit commented he is an Orono taxpayer. <br /> Thiesse stated he will need to attend the City Council meeting to discuss that. <br /> Edwards stated the City does not keep attendance records at the park but that it is not a heavily used park, <br /> which is one of the reasons why it became a candidate for a dog park. Edwards stated the donating family <br /> brought the idea to the City. <br /> Thiesse noted it was the family of the donors and not the actual donors. <br /> Lemke asked whether the residents can tap into that same information bank that the City used in order to <br /> do the wetlands. <br /> Edwards stated the City did not do a wetland delineation but that they used the GIS data base to look at <br /> where the wetlands were plotted and then backed off from that. Edwards stated the topography in this <br /> area includes a fairly steep drop-off and it is not a gradual slope. <br /> Lemke asked if that same data could be made available to the residents if the City is confident with their <br /> wetland de(ineation in this case. <br /> Curtis stated it is not a delineation by WACA standards and that it is a delineation that is required by City <br /> Code. Curtis noted the Watershed District has authority over what is and is not a valid wetland <br /> delineation and that this application does not trigger the Watershed District's wetland delineation <br /> requirements. <br /> Gaffron stated while the general public may have access to specific parts of the City's data, it would be <br /> unusual to exempt them from doing a wetland delineation based on using that data. <br /> Page - _-- __..---�._ - — <br /> __ ._ _ _ --- - <br /> .. 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.