My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
07-11-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 10:10:24 AM
Creation date
12/16/2016 9:46:00 AM
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.
/
860
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 />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br /> Page 1 <br /> <br />9. #16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, 3580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, VARIANCES, 8:05 <br />P.M. – 8:40 P.M. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 Staff’s 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 /> <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 /> <br />Lemke asked why the Planning Commission did not see this application previously. <br /> <br />Council <br />Exhibit E <br />16-3832
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.