Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> mitigation. Schoenzeit stated if that is not defined, in his view it is going to be an issue. Schoenzeit <br /> stated you can change the mathematical spacing but it might still be opaque, which will not solve any <br /> problems. <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 /> 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 /> Barnhart stated that is why the City reviews their ardinances annually. <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 /> 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 /> McGrann stated he would rather see two out of three trees removed. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the blocking factor should not be more than 50 percent. <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 i(legal but yet also recognizes that there are some challenges <br /> with certain individuals in how they choose to landscape their yard. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the number of trunks is irrelevant and perhaps they should adjust it to take into account <br /> the blocking factor of the trees. Schoenzeit stated if the living wall is blocking more than 50 percent of <br /> the view,then it should be considered a nuisance. <br /> Landgraver stated he would propose a height limit of six feet tall to help manage it. Landgraver stated it <br /> is likely the City will have to hire someone to measure the trees. <br /> Schoenzeit stated a nuisance is also the number of trunks, but if the stand of trees is mature and full, the <br /> mitigation should be the height. Schoenzeit stated if someone removed every one out of three trees,the <br /> view could still be mostly blocked and unimproved. Schoenzeit stated in his view the mitigation in that <br /> situation is not sufficient, but if they are cut down to six feet, it would be improved. <br /> Page 24 of 29 <br />