Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 26, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 4 of 14  <br />  <br />(5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a) (5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND <br />LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. (Tabled) continued) <br /> <br />Edwards stated when retaining walls start to become a structure at four feet or above, the City requires a <br />building permit and also an engineered design signed by a licensed engineer. Edwards stated there is <br />some leeway between four and six feet, but generally the City uses four feet as their threshold for <br />requiring an engineered design. Edwards stated that requirement typically kicks in when there is grading <br />being done. <br /> <br /> <br />McMillan asked what would happen with existing situations if this City Code change is approved. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated existing retaining walls are not affected by this unless the wall is changed in some way. <br />Gaffron stated when it says that no retaining wall shall be located closer than five feet; the City would not <br />go back and require the resident to remove it. Gaffron stated the one dissenting vote on the Planning <br />Commission was questioning the raised garden beds in a small area within five feet of the property line. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated every situation will be different, but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring <br />properties if a wall is closer than five feet to the property line. Gaffron stated there is the possibility that <br />utility companies could find that an obstruction. Gaffron stated the City Council could define what a <br />retaining wall is or include some exemptions in the City Code but that Staff is not prepared at this time to <br />define exactly what those things are. <br /> <br />Levang noted the Council is not specifying what the retaining wall is constructed out of. <br /> <br />Edwards stated the main issue that Staff reviews is the drainage and whether the proposed work is going <br />to alter the drainage patterns to drain onto the neighboring property. Edwards stated when someone is <br />placing a simple, small retaining wall next to the property line that does have the potential to alter the <br />drainage and could cause runoff to the neighboring property. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated another potential issue is the need to go on to the neighbor’s property to maintain the wall <br />if it is right against the lot line. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the edge of a traveled, established roadway needs to be ten feet from the property line. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated in situations where there may not be an easement and there is a roadway, the City has the <br />right to maintain and to claim for public use the first ten feet past the pavement or past the traveled <br />roadway. Gaffron stated in many cases that ten feet leaves someone within the right-of-way but in some <br />cases it puts them into the actual property itself. There could also be a visual aspect issue in certain <br />situations. <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether there would be an exemption if someone has a deteriorating timber wall within <br />the right-of-way by the roadway and they need to replace it. McMillan noted in certain situations it may <br />not be possible to re-grade the area. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City does have an encroachment agreement to handle these situations and that Staff <br />would review it to ensure that replacement does not make the situation worse.