Laserfiche WebLink
1-O` YO <br /> CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> tiltOk. <br /> e NO. 6669 <br /> . <br /> IkESHOR� <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br /> August 15, 2016 and recommended approval of the CUP based on the following <br /> findings: <br /> a. The Property has 1.43 acres in area and approximately 250 feet in defined <br /> width. <br /> b. The wall is approximately 80 feet in length and located within a dedicated <br /> drainage and utility easement. The wall was constructed by the Applicants' <br /> landscapers but was not installed according to the approved site plan, which <br /> instead had a proposed a two-tier wall system located more than 5 feet from <br /> the lot line. <br /> c. The relationship of the wall location to the driveway and neighboring property <br /> is such that the approved plan had the wall directly abutting the edge of the <br /> driveway, which is allowable by code but creates a less-than-perfect safety <br /> condition by creating an immediate drop-off that leaves no room for driver <br /> error. This is exacerbated by the minimal size of the driveway due to the site's <br /> hardcover limitations. While the wall was not constructed according to the <br /> approved plan, it serves the function of retaining earth to allow for a <br /> functional driveway while not being located at the very edge of the driveway, <br /> which appears to be a safer situation than the approved plan. <br /> d. While the wall is very close to the west lot line, the adjacent affected neighbor <br /> to the immediate west has stated to the applicant that the retaining wall as <br /> constructed does not affect him and that it may serve to reduce drainage onto <br /> his property, which he views as positive. <br /> e. The wall is of placed boulder construction and needs minimal or no <br /> maintenance, so its location so close to the property boundary should not be a <br /> factor in future maintenance. If the wall does need reconstruction in the <br /> future, it is anticipated that work can be accomplished without access onto the <br /> neighboring property. <br /> f. The wall location is within the typical 5' dedicated drainage and utility <br /> easement along the property boundary. While the City does not generally look <br /> favorably on construction of improvements within such easements, the <br /> likelihood of the City or a utility company needing to use this easement is <br /> minimal at best. In the event that a utility company or the City needs to use <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />