Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, September 10,2012 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> McMillan commented that would then become a design issue. <br /> Bremer stated that is how the question came about on whether a retaining wall should be considered <br /> necessary or aesthetic. Bremer stated the City Council has the discretion to determine whether a retaining <br /> wall is truly a retaining wall and that Staff will need to enforce that. The Council has seen situations <br /> where people are constructing a number of retaining walls and that one factor that has to be considered is <br /> the visual impact of those walls from the lake. <br /> Rahn noted retaining walls could also change how people descend down the lake. Allowing retaining <br /> walls might make people construct them so they can traverse down the slope rather than having a straight <br /> stairway down to the lake. <br /> Curtis noted the City does permit walls differently depending on whether they meet the need for <br /> engineering,which would require a building permit, and that some walls require a zoning permit. <br /> Gozola stated if they are removing Item No. 4 with the motion,he would recommend putting the <br /> definition of retaining wall back into the definitions so it is clear that they are to be considered hardcover. <br /> Rahn stated his motion is to approve the draft ordinance as written with the removal of Item No. 4, <br /> retaining walls. <br /> Bremer stated retaining walls would be included as hardcover under that motion. <br /> Gaffron stated the Council appears to be comfortable with the 25 percent for the entire Tier 1, including <br /> the area past the 250 foot line. A few months ago in the process the area behind the 250 foot line was not <br /> being regulated and then the Council elected to regulate it at 30 percent. Gaffron noted the latest draft <br /> puts it at 25 percent but does not include any requirement that would disallow use of the 250-1000 <br /> hardcover within the 0-250 foot zone. <br /> Gaffron stated far the last 40 years the City has had a system of zones that was intended to make sure that <br /> properties that are very deep do not push all of their hardcover up to the 75-foot line. Without language <br /> in the ardinance that would require hardcover in the 250-1000 foot zone to be used in that zone rather <br /> than allowing it up at the 75-foot line,the City is not meeting their goal of having equal or better <br /> protection than what we started with originally. Gaffron stated that has been his position from day one <br /> and that he wants to make sure the Council is okay with allowing people to take their hardcover from the <br /> 250-1000 foot zone up to the 75-foot line. <br /> McMillan stated on narrow lots, the side setbacks might come into play if someone would like to <br /> construct a big house at the 75-foot line. On a wide, deep lot,they will have more room to put hardcover <br /> at the 75-foot line and still meet setbacks. McMillan noted on the long, deep lots, a lot of the hardcover <br /> tends to consist of driveway. <br /> Gaffron stated that is the reason why he provided some examples to the Council last week. A 500-foot <br /> deep lot will have twice as much hardcover as a 250-foot deep lot. Gaffron noted under the new <br /> ordinance they can take all of that hardcover and put it within the 75-250 foot zone. The Council has not <br /> asked for any mitigating measures or performance measures in that scenario. Gaffron noted the City has <br /> followed that practice for 40 years so they do not end up with a lot of hardcover fairly close to the lake. <br /> Page 5 of 26 <br />