11-09-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 9, 2015 7:00 o'clock p.m. 11. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGULATING LIVING WALLS (continued) At the last meeting the City Council had some discussion about living walls and how the City should address that concern. The Planning Commission seemed comfortable in recognizing the problem but they did not have a strong consensus of what the solution should be. Living walls are proposed to be defined by the ordinance as a combination of three or more evergreen plants that are six feet or more in height and planted in such a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of the plant. The City of Orono has placed great importance on the lake views enjoyed from homes on lakeshore properties. Barnhart stated he wants to be cautious with regulating landscaping and that most cities do not regulate it. The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance when placed within the average lakeshore setback. A living wall must be evergreen plants planted. Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae and spruce. Other plants, such as lilac, dogwoods, etc., that may provide similar screening characteristics part of the year are purposefully not included as these varieties are not likely to be chosen for nuisance landscaping. Trees placed by nature, regardless of size, type, and location, are not a living wall. Non -evergreen trees planted are not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Living walls for landscaping meeting that definition are frequently used for screening throughout the City. Barnhart stated he is looking for Council input tonight. Barnhart noted this is a Council initiated action and that there are no time limits to be worried about. McMillan stated Staff and Planning Commission have attempted to get a handle on this and that the City is looking at this due to some complaints it has received. McMillan stated the City is very protective of lake views but at the same time it is a whole new area of restriction. Walsh stated there are a lot of unintended consequences with the ordinance, such as whether things should be grandfathered in and who has the right to complain about the view and what type of view someone should have. Walsh stated given all those variables, he is not sure how that can be regulated McMillan stated the City is attempting to protect a certain type of view shed and that the question is whether it should be taken to the next step to prevent someone from intentionally blocking someone's view of the lake with landscaping. Levang noted the City has been very protective of that view and that the Council has denied variances in the past for anything blocking it. Levang stated a living wall absolutely does block that neighbor's view and that she is in favor of crafting something. Levang stated the language should only apply to somebody who is directly impacted and not someone that lives three doors down. Levang stated in her view some type of limitation could be put on who has the right to complain. Levang stated in looking at the draft ordinance, it says of any considerable number of members of the public. Levang stated she is not sure if that means one or more persons or whether one homeowner can be the only person making a complaint. Barnhart stated he is not proposing to change that language at the present time Page 18 of 24