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 7 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated as proposed it is the fence setback line and not the 75-foot line, which would cover the <br />view to the right. Schoenzeit stated the City’s proposal is more aggressive than the 75-foot line. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated previous versions were at the 75-foot line and that the more recent version reflects the <br />average lakeshore setback. <br /> <br />Joey Mandel stated the neighbor’s home is well away from this wall. <br /> <br />Barnhart displayed an aerial photograph of the property. <br /> <br />Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated the situation with this neighbor started ten years ago and <br />that he appreciates the City taking a look at this. Russin noted their property is not on the lake but that <br />they did have a view of the lake when they first purchased the property approximately 20 years ago. <br />Russin indicated they built a screen porch a number of years ago, and because of the living wall, they <br />cannot see the lake anymore. Russin stated if that living wall was put in to shield someone from looking <br />in that neighbor’s windows, that is one thing, but the house is far away from the trees and that it is not for <br />privacy. Russin stated the living wall was put in there because they complained about other things. <br /> <br />Russin stated their general concern with the proposal is having some type of relief valve for special <br />circumstances, and the reason for that is to deal with the white fence. Russin stated as the fence was <br />going in, he called the City, and after a couple of conversations, the City told him they were going to take <br />a pass on enforcing the ordinance. Russin stated the fence is ugly and white, but the biggest issue is, if <br />you look at the fence, there are gaps because one section is eight feet high and other sections are six, <br />which leaves a two-foot gap in some areas. Russin stated he also has watched the maintenance guy blow <br />all the leaves under the living wall into the Mandels’ property on a couple of occasions. Russin asked <br />how they can resolve that situation. <br /> <br />Russin stated the other issue relates to the lighting. Russin stated the general issue with the lighting is the <br />one-foot candle. Russin noted .4 is the lightness of the moon coming in but that moonlight is natural <br />light. Russin stated the neighbor has five commercial size lights that are extremely bright. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.