Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated when the City is in the process of enforcing the ordinance, some type of guidance has to <br /> be given. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there are hundreds of examples of this in the City and that they need to know what the <br /> intention of the living wall is. Schoenzeit stated in his view taking out every third arborvitae is not going <br /> to mitigate this nuisance. <br /> Barnhart stated a living wall is defined in a specific way in the ordinance and the property owners will be <br /> advised what they need to do to ensure it is not a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize there will <br /> always be some visual impacts for property owners who choose to plant a tree in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission has some specific recommendations for enforcement, those <br /> can be incorporated. <br /> Schoenzeit stated currently there are neighbors feuding over this and that the City has an obligation to fix <br /> things, but if the nuisance enforcement does not have sufficient strength,the City will not solve anything. <br /> Lemke asked if he would have to trim the tree down to six feet if it grows over six feet and is located in <br /> the 0-75 foot zone. <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 /> 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 /> McGrann asked if the City has received any commentary related to non-lakeshore living walls. <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 /> 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 /> Schoenzeit stated the ordinance should not allow grandfathering in. <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 /> 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 /> Page 19 of 29 <br />