Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, February 17, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 8 of 11  <br />  <br />Lemke stated he likes the term perpendicular. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated under that scenario Sketches 2 and 3 could occur. Gaffron stated instead of saying <br />from the top of any part of the fence, it should perhaps read to a point perpendicular to the grade. Gaffron <br />indicated he will look at that again. <br /> <br />Lemke noted the last paragraph says height shall mean the measurement from the top of any part of the <br />fence, including the posts and the ornate top designs. Lemke noted the Planning Commission was talking <br />about the finials being above the height of the fence earlier. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that will also need to be tweaked so it fits with the optional language changes. Gaffron <br />stated as it relates to lattice, someone could argue that the top of the fence is below the lattice and is <br />merely decorative. Gaffron stated in his view it is part of the fence. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if that is addressed in the optional language by the 10-inch maximum width. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron asked if he should cross off from the top of any part of the fence, <br />including vertical structural supports, such as lattice or any top design elements, and just say measure <br />perpendicular to the grade. Gaffron stated below that it could talk about finials, with a limit being placed <br />on the type of stuff that can go on top of the fence. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what the top of the fence would be then. Thiesse stated it should be consistent and <br />horizontal. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it might not be horizontal. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated they would then need a definition for top of the fence. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he would concur. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated the top of the fence is six foot above the bottom of the fence and in between the posts it <br />may or may not be taller than the fence. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he would include the language regarding vertical structural supports and ornate design <br />elements, whatever that might be, and then including the language that allows the finials to extend another <br />ten percent of the height. Gaffron stated he is not totally comfortable about removing the language that <br />talks about the other items since they would still be considered part of the fence. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated they would make up the top part of the fence. <br /> <br />Thiesse indicated he is in agreement. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated in her view the language regarding fence materials is pretty straight forward. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated as it relates to Item 5, the permanent materials should be separated from the temporary <br />materials, which should start at Item 4. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated it is less confusing that way. <br />Item #01 - CC Agenda - 03/16/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2015 <br />[Page 8 of 11]