Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Michael Schutt stated he is here tonight to answer questions on behalf of his parents since they are out of <br /> the country at the present time. Schutt stated given the fact that there is no structural integrity to the <br /> feature,the question is whether it should be defined as a pergola, an arbor, or a fence. <br /> Curtis displayed a picture of the structure. <br /> Schutt noted the retaining wall was needed for the drainage from the neighboring property and that the <br /> structure is an enhancement. Schutt indicated the adjacent neighbor is very much in favor of it and <br /> believes it adds to the aesthetics of her property as well. Schutt stated they would like to get some clarity <br /> on it. <br /> Thiesse asked if any public comments were received. <br /> Curtis indicated Staff did not receive any comments but that this was not noticed for a public hearing <br /> since it is an appeal and the neighbors were not specifically notified. <br /> Lemke asked if the retaining wall was included in the original plan. <br /> Curtis stated there was a patio and the French drain included in the plan but to her recollection the <br /> retaining wall was not included. It is Staff's belief that it is not a retaining wall but rather a sitting wall. <br /> Thiesse noted there is also a boulder wall that is adjacent to it but that this is more of a sitting wall. <br /> Curtis stated they are different. <br /> Thiesse asked if this would have required a variance if the Planning Commission had seen this originally. <br /> Curtis stated the wall at its current would likely have been allowed but it is the height of the structure that <br /> is at issue. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in some ways this is semantics, and that if it were a trellis with some type of plant <br /> growing on it, it would not be an issue. Schoenzeit stated the City would also want to make sure it does <br /> not expand. Schoenzeit stated the fact that there is not a lean-to on the house currently helps the situation. <br /> Lemke asked if a trellis would be allowed in this location. <br /> Landgraver noted the issue is the height of the structure. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if it being classified as a fence because of its length. <br /> Curtis stated Staff is not necessarily calling it a fence but were merely attempting to find a regulation that <br /> would apply to it. <br /> Leskinen noted it would not be allowed as a fence given its height. <br /> Barnhart stated the Planning Commission should look at the code and determine whether Staff misapplied <br /> the code to this situation. Barnhart stated while it might be a nice addition to the area, Staff could not find <br /> any code to allow it. Barnhart noted a stone wall is permissible up to 42 inches high depending on its <br /> location,but once the wood structure is added,the height is restricted. <br /> Page 13 of 26 <br />