My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
11-09-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 2:38:29 PM
Creation date
12/1/2015 2:32:01 PM
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.
/
352
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, October 19, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 17 <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the height, spacing, and the number of trees in a row defines a living wall and that <br />trimming the tree down to six feet would be one way to mitigate that. The property owner could also <br />increase the spacing or reduce the number of trees. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the goal is to create a view by breaking down a living wall, and the nuisance remedy <br />has to be in maintaining the view that is opened by mitigating the nuisance. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if the City has received any commentary related to non-lakeshore living walls. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the more notable complaints are associated with the lakeshore lots but that there have <br />been some concerns expressed with living walls near an intersection. <br /> <br />McGrann stated it feels like the City is being selective on what views to protect and that they may run into <br />challenges in the future. <br />Barnhart stated this is a drastic change to the City’s ordinances and that it will be an enforcement <br />challenge. Barnhart stated due to the City’s history of protecting lake views, he is recommending it. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the ordinance should not allow grandfathering in. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the second component of the ordinance deals with lighting. The most common, non- <br />regulatory solution is for the property owner to willingly adjust or shield lights so that it does not impact a <br />neighbor. For situations where that does not occur, the proposed regulatory solution establishes <br />measurable lighting at the property line as a nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the <br />code, including citations and mitigation. Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulating lighting in the <br />zoning ordinance only but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring properties <br />would be considered legal non-conforming and allowed to continue in perpetuity. <br /> <br />Staff is proposing the City Code be amended by adding the following: “Fully shielded luminaire means a <br />light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly <br />from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture, <br />is projected below the horizontal plane through the fixture’s lowest light-emitting part. Light emitting <br />part, for the purposes of this section, may include bulb, diode, or tube.” Lighting that casts light on
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.