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 <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 17, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Schoenzeit stated if there is a 10 -foot setback, the fire ring should not be located within that. <br />Barnhart stated a fire ring is similar to a planter or a similar structure that are less than two feet in height <br />but that a fire ring has to comply with additional requirements, such as a 25 -foot yard setback from the <br />house or other structure. <br />Barnhart stated it appears from aerial photographs that approximately one out of every three lots on the <br />lake has some sort of hardcover in the lake yard. Staff did receive a complaint, which is why this is being <br />brought forward. Barnhart stated he does not see this as a huge issue but that he wants to make sure the <br />intent of the ordinance is being met. <br />Leskinen commented she is not sure whether it is necessary to go to this level, especially since the <br />structures would be allowed to remain. Leskinen stated the things that are problematic to the lake are <br />addressed elsewhere in the code. <br />Schoenzeit asked if that reported situation is still compatible as far as material and size. <br />Barnhart indicated it is. <br />Thiesse asked if it is the City's intent to create an ordinance and then only enforce it when there is a <br />complaint. <br />Barnhart stated it is Staff's responsibility to adequately and accurately communicate the goals of the <br />ordinance to the residents and that Staff generally does not have the time to inspect people's properties for <br />possible violations. If the ordinance does not do what the Planning Commission envisioned, now is the <br />time to change it. <br />Landgraver stated he is not interpreting this as overreaching because the City was attempting to <br />accommodate flexibility and expandability and everybody was doing something that is tolerated. <br />Landgraver stated Staff is realistically not going to go out to these lots and tell them they have to remove <br />it. <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.