My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
11-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2016 10:05:02 AM
Creation date
1/13/2016 10:04:27 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
268
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 19, 2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated simply because the material changes and is not a fence,the abuse can go wild. In <br /> addition, a fence would stay in the same position but a living wall would grow and expand. Schoenzeit <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 /> ar reasons ar 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 enfarceable but that there likely will be <br /> some negative feedback from the residents. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there is value and concerns with the ardinance 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 enfarce. <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 ardinance. <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 /> Page 40 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.