Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 23, 1987 <br />LMCD REPORT CONTINUED <br />Ms. Hurr stated she would correct the package to reflect <br />Council's opinion on this. She noted that Orono does a <br />good job with protecting the 0 -75' lakeshore area, <br />however some cities do not. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Sandy Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive, suggested <br />that the Council agendas be published in the paper prior <br />to the meeting in order to give the public more <br />opportunity for input on issues of concern to them. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson stated that generally <br />there is not enough lead time in finalizing the agenda <br />to have it published. <br />Councilmember Goetten noted that publication is made on <br />all land use applications prior to the Planning <br />Commission meeting. <br />Mayor Grabek suggested that general issues with definite <br />agenda dates may possibly be published prior to the <br />Council meeting. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson stated staff will work on <br />this. <br />-WING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />343 BRUCE CURTISS <br />1920 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD <br />CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE APPLICATION <br />Bruce & Camille Curtiss were present for this matter. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this <br />application was tabled at the last meeting to provide <br />the Council and applicants time for further review and <br />consideration. He explained staff's recommendation to <br />reconsider the Planning Commmission's recommendation to <br />allow a 3 -1/2' fence within the lakeshore protected area <br />if the prime purpose is for the protection of the <br />children. Staff presented a compromised sketch which <br />would allow a 3 -1/2' fence along the roadway, wetland <br />area, and shoreline with plantings allowed to provide <br />additional privacy (plantings not to exceed 3 -1/2' in <br />height within the view protection area as noted on the <br />sketch). <br />Camille Curtiss felt that staff's proposal was extremely <br />restrictive, did not meet their need of privacy and <br />child protections, and consisted of three times the <br />fencing compared to what currently exists. They felt <br />fencing was not needed along the wetlands because the <br />wetlands serve as a natural barrier which the children <br />will not go beyond. <br />W <br />