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 6 <br /> <br />Laurel MacLachlan, 3565 Sixth Avenue North, stated the original intent of the park was to keep it passive <br />so all the animals would be able to live there without any obstruction. MacLachlan stated she is in <br />agreement that the fence should be moved further back. MacLachlan stated in her view most dog parks <br />are in that 1 to 7 acre range and not 30 or 35 acres. MacLachlan stated if the dog park encompasses a lot <br />of acreage, it will impede on some of the wildlife, and when the dog park is that big and the dogs are off <br />leash, it will be difficult to pick up after them. MacLachlan stated she would like to see the dog park <br />restricted further. <br /> <br />MacLachlan stated she also is not sure that a 4-foot fence is not jumpable by a number of larger dogs, and <br />if a dog does jump that fence, it is a risk to the other animals that may or may not be there. <br /> <br />MacLachlan noted she did write some comments down and submitted those about how the change to the <br />park came about and about the lack of public notice. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what the height of the fence is. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated it is 47 inches. <br /> <br />Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked specifically what the Planning Commission is being asked to address tonight. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 />wildlife corridor.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.