10/19/2015 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 19,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3790,City of Orono,PIN#34-118-23-22-0020,with the recommendation that the utility easement be retained. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 7. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 78-1 DEFINITIONS AND LAKE YARD LANDSCAPING,RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING,AND LIVING WALLS,8:28 P.M. - 9:25 P.M. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission reviewed this text amendment at its September meeting. Staff has attempted to address these issues in one ordinance but that the Planning Commission may wish to separate the two. Barnhart stated the City has a preriy rich history of preserving lake views from residential property into the lake area by prohibiting or regulating structures. It is recognized that landscaping can have the same effect as a structure and there has been some interest expressed by some residents that the City look at regulating landscaping in the zone near the lake. 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 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 and non- evergreen trees planted are not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Barnhart noted living walls are frequently used for screening throughout the city. The definition of a living wall in the ordinance means 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. Barnhart stated evergreens that grow on their own would not be considered a living wall. Schoenzeit asked what would happen if something meets the nuisance definition. Barnhart stated the property owner can trim the tree or shrub back to the point where it is no longer six feet high or widen the width of the plant space or they can remove part of the living wall providing an opening to the lake. Barnhart stated alternative aggressive solutions would likely be similar to how the City pursues other nuisance situations. Schoenzeit asked if it would be considered a living wall if there is a four feet space even though the row of trees is 100 feet long. Barnhart stated if there are three or more trees in a row and one is removed every so often, it would no longer be considered a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize that this is not a perfect solution but that Staff is attempting to balance reasonable landscape goals with the reasonable expectation of someone's view of the lake. Schoenzeit stated trimming it back to six feet would be enough to help mitigate it but removing every third tree would not be. Page 18 of 29