Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . <br /> Tuesday,January 16,2007 � � <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3260 Roger O'Shaughnessy, Continued) <br /> the concern that the property is an attraction and draws people to the site,but that there are trees in the <br /> area and a 42-inch fence would be a sufficient barrier. Kempf stated a wrought iron fence is probably less <br /> intrusive but unfortunately does not meet the City's ordinance. � <br /> O'Shaughnessy stated the landscape architect perhaps interpreted the code incorrectly but that there is <br /> some ambi�guity in the code regarding corner lots and that it should read that it is only along county roads <br /> . that a higher fence is allowed. O'Shaughnessy stated it was a legitimate mistake and that denial of his . <br /> variance would require a substantial amount of fence to be removed and replaced. <br /> Rahn stated the fence seems reasonable and is not out of character with the neighborhood. Rahn stated <br /> given the examples cited by the applicant for security,he would not be opposed to the fence. Rahn <br /> commented the City's fence ordinance in his opinion does need some tweaking but that now is not the <br /> time. Rahn suggested this item be placed on a future Planning Commission work session. <br /> Winer stated she agrees with the need for the fence from a security standpoint from the road as well as <br /> from the lake and that given the level of architectural detail of the house,it is easy to see how the property <br /> owner could overlook this detail regarding the fence. <br /> Kempf stated there are a number of incredible propertie,s that draw people and that perhaps the City <br /> should look at changing their ordinance to address security. Kempf stated the City has not chosen to <br /> write their ordinances to address a person's desire for security. <br /> Rahn stated the City should afford a person's right to privacy to every resident. <br /> Kempf stated in his opinion the City should look at changing the ordinance prior to approving this <br /> application. � <br /> Rahn stated the perception of one's security should not be a city issue and should be a personal issue and <br /> that the city's fence ordinance could be tweaked. <br /> Curtis stated the Planning Commission could recommend that the ordinance be changed in the future as <br /> part of this application. <br /> Winer inquired whether the fence height with corner lots has come up in the past. <br /> Gaffron stated the City's code reads as follows: "A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located ' <br /> along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare." Gaffron stated it is <br /> possible the language could be interpreted that since the lot abuts a major thoroughfare, any street lot line ' <br /> could have a six-feet fence. Gaffron stated this is a unique lot and unique layout where you not only abut <br /> a county road but also a minor neighborhood road. Gaffron stated this type of fence does fit the character <br /> of the neighborhood in his opinion and that this is a situation where the fence should remain. . <br /> PAGE 18 ' <br />