Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 21,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 5. LA18-000041 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—GATES,7:07 P.M.—7:33 P.M. <br /> —Continued <br /> Libby stated it was more about visibility and how monuments could potentially obstruct someone's line <br /> of sight. Libby commented there are a lot of components and moving targets when dealing with safety. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. <br /> Ressler asked if these rules are unique to Orono. <br /> Curtis indicated some cities will not allow gates and other cities require a certain opacity and that it tends <br /> to be a community preference. Curtis noted she included some information from neighboring <br /> communities in the packet. <br /> Thiesse noted someone can run a fence right up to a monument that is 100 percent opaque. Thiesse stated <br /> in his view limiting the amount of opaqueness is a good idea. <br /> Seals asked whether the police and fire departments have weighed in on this. <br /> Curtis stated the police and fire departments have indicated they want to be able to access the gate in the <br /> event of an emergency. Curtis noted the lock box requirement is not changing under the draft ordinance. <br /> Landgraver stated to his understanding the original intent was to prevent a monotony along the streets and <br /> that during the Comprehensive Plan update,they have heard a lot about the openness of Orono. <br /> Landgraver questioned whether the City should be encouraging people to construct that type of barricade <br /> and that perhaps keeping some transparency or visibility would be a good idea. Landgraver asked who is <br /> going to measure the opacity and what will determine the right amount. Landgraver stated he does not <br /> have a good answer for that. <br /> Lemke commented he would like to see a little visibility to the gate since it helps to improve the <br /> appearance of the gate. Lemke stated the 25 percent makes sense for the opaqueness. <br /> Thiesse noted the City is not stopping someone from making the gate more transparent and that the <br /> ordinance would just allow somebody to have a little more privacy. Thiesse asked how many gates there <br /> are in Orono. <br /> Curtis indicated she did not do an inventory but that there are quite a few. <br /> Ressler stated he is okay with it being a lesser number and that requiring a gate to have 25 percent <br /> openness into a property where there is a privacy fence around the entire property still affords a lot of <br /> privacy. <br /> Ferrer stated in his situation it is open area with a driveway that has a gate and that it should be something <br /> that is subjective since every situation is different rather than just black and white. <br /> Barnhart stated the City has to make the language black and white rather than subjective. Barnhart <br /> commented this might be a little bit like a solution in search of a problem. Staff has provided some <br /> research from other cities and it is all over the board. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can <br /> debate whether it should be 35, 50, or 75 percent, but that he would like to avoid a situation where the <br /> Page 9 of 17 <br />