Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 23, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 6 of 19  <br />  <br />3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND <br />LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) <br /> <br />Section 2 would add the following definition of a retaining wall: “Retaining wall means a wall or similar <br />structure designed and constructed to hold back and prevent lateral movement of earth or other <br />landscaping materials. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City Council should consider the draft ordinance and make whatever changes they feel <br />are appropriate. <br /> <br />Printup noted at the last meeting he asked about fences and that a fence is currently allowed right up to <br />the lot line. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated fences are allowed right up to the property line but not on it or over it. <br /> <br />Walsh stated that is the dichotomy of the whole thing and that people are allowed currently to put a fence <br />near the property line or a row of shrubs. Walsh noted at the last meeting the City Council had generally <br />agreed that two feet from the property line would be okay and up to 20 cubic yards. Walsh stated it was <br />his understanding the Council was going to discuss Item A (1) since it would technically prevent someone <br />from placing a railroad tie there but yet someone could put a 6-foot high row of hedges. Walsh stated in <br />his view there are some things that do not seem to make sense in terms of height. <br /> <br />Printup stated that is why he asked the question about fences being allowed right up to the property line. <br />Printup stated he would hope the Council would be okay with a 2-foot retaining wall. Printup stated in <br />looking at what the other cities allow, Orono is not even close. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Orono’s Code has been more restrictive than other cities and that it has been frustrating for <br />Staff at some level knowing that any grading on someone’s property technically requires a permit. <br /> <br />Walsh stated two feet would allow someone to maintain it without stepping on the neighbor’s yard, which <br />was the reason why two feet was felt to be okay. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she has gone back and forth on this issue but that in her view five feet is necessary to <br />protect that zone. <br /> <br />Walsh stated five feet on either side would really impact a 50-foot wide lot. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it is the smaller lots that tend to have more issues with drainage. <br /> <br />Levang stated the narrow lots are problematic since there needs to be room for drainage and that she is <br />very comfortable with what Staff is recommending. Levang noted there have been a number of problems <br />with drainage on Maple Place due to the narrow lots. Levang stated the ordinance is essentially saying <br />ten cubic yards or one truck load is reasonable as well as five feet from the lot line. Levang stated in her <br />view it will make Staff’s job easier as well as make it equitable for all citizens. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he is receiving complaints from people who own small yards about not being able to use all <br />of their yards. Walsh stated this ordinance would restrict those small lots even further.