My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-18-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
07-18-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:40:49 PM
Creation date
8/25/2016 2:49:34 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
228
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).
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 /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:04 pm. <br /> Leskinen stated the application is as straight forward as it gets. <br /> Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3838,A1 Musech <br /> on behalf of Thom and Laura Clapp,215 Hollander Road,granting of an easement vacation subject <br /> to a 10-foot drainage and utility easement being granted along the north property line. VOTE: <br /> Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 9. #16-3832 CITY OF ORONO,3580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,VARIANCES,8:05 <br /> P.M.—8:40 P.M. <br /> Barnhart stated in April of this year,the City Council approved a plan to develop a portion of Lurton Park <br /> as an off-leash park. The City is requesting setback variances from the lake and wetland boundaries to <br /> facilitate construction of fencing within the park. Other improvements approved by the Council include <br /> expansion of the parking lot, additional benches and tables within the park. <br /> Barnhart noted the plan presented in May differs from the plan being presented now. The proposed fence <br /> has been pulled back from the wetland buffer on the west side and has been pulled back from the private <br /> residential property to the north. The fence has mainly been pulled back from the wetland boundary on <br /> the east side of the property. Variances are necessary because the fence crosses mapped wetlands just to <br /> the east of the parking lot and is within 150 feet of the edge of Lake Classen. The fence within the <br /> wetland near the parking lot replaces an existing fence. <br /> Barnhart stated a fence is a normal part of a park and the proposed fence is the primary improvement to <br /> the park. When Staff looked at applying the practical difficulty standards in this situation,they looked at <br /> the fence as being the primary structure. In Staffls analysis, it was felt the fence does meet the <br /> requirements and goals of the ordinance in trying to minimize the impacts to the neighbors and the goals <br /> of the City. <br /> A letter of concern was received by the City regarding the change of the park to an off-leash park. <br /> During the public comment period at the Council meeting, neighboring property owners spoke in <br /> opposition to the conversion of the park to an off-leash park. The neighbors noted concerns that the fence <br /> would impact wildlife movement and habitat, and a fence adjacent to their property would negatively <br /> impact their property. The fence has been pulled back from the property line to allow for wildlife <br /> movement and to prevent interaction from the park to the private property. The comments received to <br /> date center more on the presence of fencing versus the location of the fencing. <br /> Lemke asked why the Planning Commission did not see this application previously. <br /> Barnhart stated the application was originally presented to the City Council, with the City Council having <br /> the opportunity to waive review by the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing if they deem <br /> appropriate. Barnhart stated because the City was under time constraints with bidding the project and had <br /> an opporlunity to hire a contractor in May, Staff felt it should go before the City Council. The City <br /> Council, however, felt a review by the Planning Commission was appropriate. <br /> --- ------ Page — — --- <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.