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 10 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />Barnhart stated he does not have a solution to that at this time. Barnhart acknowledged that there are <br />landscaping, trees, and other natural improvements that do block views of the lake. Barnhart stated <br />someone can have a row of maple trees 20 feet apart that will block the view just as effectively as a row <br />of evergreen trees. Barnhart stated how the City mitigates the nuisance is to make sure the improvement <br />does not meet the definition of a living wall, and that mitigation could include trimming the tree or <br />removing the tree. Barnhart stated there are a lot of scenarios but that it depends on actual dimensions <br />and field work. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated they could also see if nuisance and mitigation brings any satisfaction to the issue; and if <br />not, it could be brought back before the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated that is why the City reviews their ordinances annually. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated people who have been impacted by a living wall might become frustrated if it is not <br />satisfied like they think it will be. Landgraver noted the proposed ordinance is attempting to have a <br />vertical and horizontal solution but that perhaps they should simply limit the trees to six feet tall. <br />Landgraver stated in that case it does not matter how close someone plants them together, but if it is over <br />six feet tall, it is a nuisance. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if you have two trees at six feet, you should need six feet of open space between the two <br />trees, which would severely disrupt the living wall. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he would rather see two out of three trees removed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the blocking factor should not be more than 50 percent. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated he understands the comments made so far. Barnhart indicated he is trying to craft an <br />ordinance that does not make everything illegal but yet also recognizes that there are some challenges <br />with certain individuals in how they choose to landscape their yard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.