Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> stated the particular walls that are being focused on are the arborvitaes and that perhaps the ordinance <br /> could be more narrowly focused since they are not talking about spruce trees that are 20 feet apart. <br /> Barnhart agreed the majority of the complaints relate to arborvitaes. Barnhart noted the earlier draft had <br /> much closer spacing but it was widened based on Planning Commission feedback. Barnhart stated the <br /> Planning Commission could table the draft ordinance and Staff could review it a little bit more. Barnhart <br /> stated he is not sure what the solution is, but that it appears the main issue is the nuisance and whether the <br /> trees/shrubs should be grandfathered. Another option is the Planning Commission could move forward <br /> with that being a strong concern. Staff could work with the City Attorney on it and present the challenges <br /> or reasons or responses to those challenges to the Council. <br /> Landgraver stated he would like to advance it and that there will never be a perfect solution. Landgraver <br /> stated there might be something responsive to the citizens that is enforceable but that there likely will be <br /> some negative feedback from the residents. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there is value and concerns with the ordinance and that he would suggest Staff ask the <br /> City Council how they would like to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated even if someone is in favor of it, it is <br /> apparent it will have negative connotations and would be difficult to enforce. <br /> Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has vetted some key issues but that they are getting <br /> diminished returns on the discussion. Landgraver suggested Staff look at the ordinance further based on <br /> tonight's discussion. <br /> Barnhart asked what thoughts the Planning Commission had on the lighting portion of the ordinance. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view one candlelight measurement is too liberal versus the .4. <br /> Barnhart stated originally it was .4 for three minutes or five minutes. At the suggestion of the City <br /> Attorney, the time limit was removed and the higher candle limit was included. Barnhart stated whoever <br /> enforces it would need to be on site for that time period, and if the person flips off the light for one <br /> minute, the time period would start over. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the City could require the light to be off for a certain period of time. <br /> Barnhart noted lighting offers securing and regulating the limit of time or how frequently it needs to be <br /> off is very dangerous and he would not recommend it. <br /> Landgraver stated the typical measurement by the City is the power of the light. Landgraver noted there <br /> was a concern raised by one of the residents about enforcement and having to go through the police <br /> department. Landgraver stated that resident suggested some type of inediation. <br /> Lemke stated he is not sure whether it should be one foot candle or half a candle. Lemke noted he is able <br /> to see his neighbor's light that is around 200 feet away. Lemke stated he would like to see more shielding <br /> not just on lakeshore properties but non-lakeshore properties as well. <br /> Schoenzeit stated clearly new light fixtures should have shielding regardless of whether they are <br /> lakeshore properties or elsewhere. <br /> Page 27 of 29 <br />