Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#15-3784 <br /> 21 September 2015 <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> only, but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring property would be <br /> considered legal non-conforming,and allowed to continue in perpetuity. Staffwas cautious about <br /> over regulating lights, recognizing that lights are very important features, directly linked to safety <br /> and security. Unfortunately, it is also recognized that lighting can annoy neighbors. <br /> Livin�walls. <br /> Concern: The City of Orono has placed great importance on the view of the lake from homes on <br /> shore properties, initiating the Average Lake Shore setback for structures in late 1974. No new <br /> structures may be placed within the required lake yard (75 feet for Lake Minnetonka) and any <br /> expansion of existing structures requires a variance, which are scrutinized carefully. Other than <br /> removals, the code is silent on landscaping in these same areas, though they can have the same <br /> negative impact. <br /> Solution: The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance <br /> when placed within the required lake yard. A living wall must be ever�reen plants lap nted. <br /> Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae, and spruce. Other plants (lilac, dogwoods, etc.) may <br /> provide the same screening characteristics part of the year, are purposefully not included, as <br /> these varieties are not likely to be chosen for screening only part of the year. Trees placed by <br /> nature, regardless of type and location,are not a living wall, and non-evergreen trees planted are <br /> not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Living walls <br /> (or landscaping meeting that definition) are frequently used for screening throughout the city. <br /> Options considered: The regulation of landscaping in residential areas is a slippery slope. The cost <br /> of resources necessary to permit, review, and enforce landscaping requirements in residential <br /> areas are greater than the benefits offered. Most cities do not regulate landscaping in residential <br /> areas, so the education time and effort requirements would be extraordinary. Early drafts of the <br /> ordinance had living walls in the lake shore regulations, but were discarded for the same reasons <br /> lighting was, living walls already planted would be grandfathered and allowed to continue,to be <br /> maintained and replaced, in perpetuity. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the problems identified by the report require a <br /> regulatory solution? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission feel that the solution proposed solves the problem in <br /> an effective manner? <br /> 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed ordinance? <br />