My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
08-14-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 8:22:04 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 8:08:47 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.
/
422
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 Council <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit B <br />Monday, July 17, 2017 17-3953 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />6. 17-3953 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT, NON -ENCROACHMENTS, 8:42 <br />P.M. — 9:10 P.M. <br />Barnhart stated in February the Planning Commission reviewed non -encroachments. Following a review <br />by the City Council, some changes were made to those. The amendment allowed retaining walls, planters <br />and similar structures in all required yards when certain conditions are met. <br />Retaining walls, planters and similar structures has been interpreted to include planter/landscaping edging <br />of stone, wood and plastic, boulder fire rings, and boulder lot line demarcation. Retaining walls are not <br />included in the hardcover calculations. It has come to Staff s attention that perhaps the intent was not to <br />include lake yards. <br />If the intent is not to allow planters or similar structures, such as boulder fire rings, landscaping edging or <br />flower beds, the ordinance should be amended. Staff is asking for clarification in terms of what the intent <br />is. Barnhart indicated he understood the ordinance to allow relatively modest improvements in a setback <br />situation that are not impactful to the neighbors. The challenge Staff has is that it is fairly prevalent along <br />the lake. Barnhart noted the ones that currently exist would be allowed to remain. <br />Thiesse stated one of the goals of the City is to protect the lake and that he is not sure how isolated, small <br />items that are not connected to the lake would cause a problem to the lake. <br />Schoenzeit stated if 20 percent of the homes have a fire ring and then all of a sudden the City makes them <br />non -conforming, that seems silly. <br />Thiesse commented there are also some children play structures that are very large near the lake. <br />Landgraver stated he always understood the ordinance to be in the context of side yards and that it has <br />been the City's desire to reduce impediments to people moving out to the side of their property. <br />Landgraver stated he does not believe the Planning Commission ever discussed the lake side. <br />Thiesse asked where fire rings would be allowed. <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.