Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 20,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> McGrann moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3706, <br /> Amend Section 78-1211 regarding clarification to the toe of bluff definition. VOTE: Ayes 6, <br /> Nays 0. <br /> 6. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(A)(5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND <br /> LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS,8:07 P.M.—8:22 P.M. <br /> Curtis stated this change clarifies language pertaining to permit restrictions for retaining walls of any <br /> height which cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor located within an easement. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what the City is attempting to prevent with this change. <br /> Curtis indicated it would prevent structures from being constructed right up to the lot line. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if it is the use of the easement for utilities. <br /> Curtis stated it is primarily for drainage and the ability to create a swale or maintain drainage and the <br /> structure without trespassing on to the neighbor's property. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what happens if the wall is correcting the situation. <br /> Curtis stated typically in drainage situations, if a property owner needs to correct the drainage near the <br /> property line,the City does have cooperative drainage plans between neighbors. Curtis stated typically a <br /> permit or a temporary easement is put into place to allow that to happen, but from the standpoint of <br /> changing the grade or changing the direction of the runoff, it would need to stay on the person's property <br /> and not go onto the neighbor's property. Curtis stated as was discussed at the work session,this change is <br /> not to regulate garden border type situations but retaining walls. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it seems kind of arbitrary in that the City would allow a fence or a row of 50-foot oak <br /> trees on the property line, but if someone is trying to landscape their yard,the change seems to negate <br /> property owner rights. Schoenzeit noted it does mention the ability to get an encroachment agreement, <br /> but given the fact that it is somebody's property and also given all the things that the City allows along <br /> the property line, it seems arbitrary to not allow it on the line. <br /> Curtis stated it is a non-encroachment to a setback requirement. Curtis stated if either property owner <br /> needs to encroach further into the setback or closer to the lot line,the City does have a variance process <br /> for that. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the applicant would need to pay a$700 application fee for a variance but someone can <br /> build a fence or plant trees along the property line. Schoenzeit stated if someone puts up a fence and it <br /> encroaches,that situation would pit two neighbors against each other to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated in <br /> this situation, someone cannot construct a retaining wall on their own property. Schoenzeit stated it <br /> seems like the City is picking and choosing what can be put on the property line. <br /> Gaffron stated with every zoning ordinance,the City regulates what someone can do on their property to <br /> limit the impacts to the neighbors. <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />