Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />February 9, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 7 of 26 <br /> <br />(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- <br />ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW <br />continued) <br /> <br />Edwards stated currently the City considers multiple walls to be a single wall if the distance between the <br />two walls is not greater than twice the height of the upper wall. Edwards stated if the walls are really <br />close together and staggered, they would still be considered one wall as far as the engineer requirement is <br />concerned. Staff is primarily concerned about the wall failing and slumping and causing damage. <br /> <br />Walsh stated if someone has a 3-foot high deck, they are required to have railings, which relates to safety. <br />Walsh stated once you start getting to two to three feet in height, you could impact someone’s sightlines. <br />He does not want to prohibit someone from constructing a 1-foot high retaining wall or planter box. <br />Walsh stated his recommendations would be at least two feet from the property line and 12 inches high <br />without the need for a permit. In addition, the person could go up to 20 cubic yards of dirt as long as it is <br />not altering the slope and changing the runoff. <br /> <br />Printup stated he likes the idea of a starting point in order to keep the process moving forward. Printup <br />asked how long this process will take. Printup stated he has a concern for people who may want to have <br />some work done due to the high water issues experienced last year. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he anticipates that Staff will have a draft ready in a couple of weeks for the Council to <br />review. Gaffron stated unless the Council needs to see the draft three or four times, it should be done <br />before spring. <br /> <br />Levang asked if Staff would like some guidance on the retaining wall definitions and which ones the <br />Council would prefer. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the definitions are different but yet basically the same. Gaffron stated most of the <br />definitions talk about supporting earth and not supporting another material. <br /> <br />City Attorney Mattick stated the situation gets complicated in part if a retaining wall is there for simply <br />decorative purposes. Mattick stated from a definition standpoint, a planter box would seem to be the <br />same as a retaining wall or other landscape feature. Mattick stated regardless of what it is, if it is 12 <br />inches or higher from an existing grade, the City should set a threshold for regulating it. <br /> <br />Walsh stated in his view that approach makes sense if the City chooses to define it. <br /> <br />Mattick stated a planter box that is four feet tall might be just as offensive as a 4-foot tall retaining wall <br />and that he would approach it from a performance standard and not a definition standpoint. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she would be in favor of a 2-foot high retaining wall and 20 cubic yards of fill not <br />requiring a permit. McMillan stated anything within the right-of-way would need to be approved by Staff <br />regardless of height due to the fact that snow needs to be plowed and the impact it could have on <br />sightlines. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated from a side lot line or a rear lot line, the City Code has been at five feet. Gaffron stated it <br />should be set at the point where the person can still walk around and maintain it.