Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart illustrated on the overhead the location of the fence and the areas where a variance would be <br /> required. The fence will be located within 150 feet of the lake and 35 feet of the wetland. <br /> Lemke stated his feeling is that by not granting the variance,the park still works perfectly well. Lemke <br /> stated the fence could be moved back to the proper line and it would still be a very valuable and viable <br /> park. <br /> Thiesse stated he thought so, too, at the beginning until he heard the comments of the neighbors. One of <br /> the comments was if the fence is pulled back, it would open up half that area for lake use and preserve the <br /> wild(ife corridor. <br /> Barnhart stated this part of the fence is not accessible without a variance based on the wetland and the <br /> GIS information. Barnhart stated there really is no other method to get through that area since the fence <br /> would block that finger-shaped piece off. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City plans on using a survey when locating the fence. <br /> Barnhart stated the City plans on field locating the fence with the contractor and the Watershed District. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the City should follow its own advice and obtain a survey since it helps to prevent <br /> problems with neighbors. <br /> Olson stated he does not necessarily like the fence as it stands right now but that he does not want to <br /> debate the necessity of the dog park. Olson asked if there is a way for pedestrians to use the park without <br /> going through the area being used by the dogs. <br /> Barnhart stated a person would not need a pet to use the park but that they would need to pay to park <br /> there. Barnhart noted there are no trails adjacent to this park that provide access to it. If someone wanted <br /> to walk through the park, they can still do that since there likely will not be very many dogs using the <br /> park. <br /> Barnhart stated currently people will let their dogs off leash even though it is clearly posted that dogs <br /> must be on a leash. Barnhart stated he does not expect it to be wall to wall dogs and that it is just more of <br /> an opportunity to use the park for an alternative use. If a pedestrian wanted to get through there,they <br /> would have to go through the fenced area but there will be gates that someone can walk through. <br /> Thiesse stated he is in agreement that the principal use has to include the dogs, and putting the fence <br /> where it is,the use behind the fence does create an impact. <br /> Leskinen noted No. 4 of the practical difficulties states that economic considerations alone do not <br /> constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists. Leskinen stated the question is <br /> whether someone can make reasonable use of a dog park if the fence is in a conforming location. <br /> Thiesse indicated he did do a little research with Three Rivers Park and to his knowledge there are nine <br /> parks within the area that allow dogs off leash and they range from three acres to 49 acres. At 13 acres, <br /> this would be about a median size. <br /> _ _ _ <br /> __ _ _ <br /> Page _ __. __ . <br /> _ 19 <br />