07-25-2016 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 11, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 25 7. LURTON PARK (continued) Levang stated the City could perhaps compromise on the fence line that Council Member Walsh commented on and still be true to what a dog park is. Levang noted the wetlands are being protected and that there will be plenty of area for people to bike over and walk who do not have dogs. Levang stated all of those revisions have resulted in a good plan and that she is hopeful the Council and neighbors can compromise tonight and do what is best for everyone. McMillan stated she has given this a lot of thought and that she appreciates the comments of the neighbors. McMillan stated in her view the park design has gone in a better direction. McMillan stated after reading the Planning Commission comments, she totally understands why they voted 5-0 against the variance and that she feels the same way about the fence variance. McMillan stated she does not feel the fence should be located in the 150-foot setback area at all and that the off-leash area would still be big enough if the fence is moved out of that area. McMillan stated since one of the goals is to provide an opportunity for socialization, she does not feel the off-leash area has to be located too much in the woods and that the main area can be designed without being located in the setbacks. McMillan stated the second comment she has relates to the small dog area and that the City should get a wetland delineation for that area. McMillan noted the City Council started talking a little bit about operations back in May and that she believes it is important for the neighborhood to understand what the operations are for the dog park. McMillan noted more work will need to be done on outlining the operations of the park and that she would like to see something on paper regarding the purchase of passes, whether there will be a limit on the passes, and hours of the park before the City spends more money on the park so it is clear for everyone. McMillan stated she would also like Staff to check with Prairie Restorations about how to best manage the prairie if it is being used for a dog park and that she would like to see some coordination with them since there has been a good investment in the prairie. McMillan stated she appreciate the neighbors’ comments on this application. McMillan stated whenever she sees a situation like this where the neighbors are caught off guard, the only thing she can do is to question how the City can do a better job of notifying the impacted landowners. McMillan stated she would like the Park Commission to have a policy that whenever there is a major revision to a park being proposed, the City will send out postcards to the neighborhood to notify them of what proposed improvements are being contemplated as well as hold a public hearing on the proposed improvements. Walsh stated when there was the original vote on the application, he felt there needed to be a time out due to some unanswered questions. Walsh stated getting all the logistics down is important and that he was not sure if 5-foot or 10-foot swaths would be necessary for the fence and some of the other logistics. Cornick asked if there are any dog parks that have invisible fencing. Edwards indicated he is not aware of any. Levang noted they would also require a special collar, which some dogs would not have. Edwards stated the invisible fence would also require the dogs to be trained.