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 8 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 />Gaffron stated the intent is to not have obstructions, such as a retaining wall, within ten feet of the <br />traveled roadway. Gaffron stated if the ten feet ends within the right-of-way or eight feet into someone’s <br />property, the intent would be the same, which is to prevent obstructions in that area. <br /> <br />Printup stated that has nothing to do with drainage but deals with the right-of-way. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it relates to snow plowing and storage. <br /> <br />Printup stated that raises the issue again of allowing a fence in that area. <br /> <br />Levang noted fences are not allowed in a front yard. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the Code says that ten feet past the pavement is considered the right-of-way and is an area <br />where there should not be obstructions. Gaffron stated the Code does not deal with vegetative materials. <br /> <br />McMillan asked how this would impact the application on Crystal Bay Road and whether an <br />encroachment agreement would be required. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is an unusual situation since it is not a platted road but is a 20-foot wide traveled <br />road. The applicants in that situation are going off a parking area that is eight to ten feet wide and 30 to <br />50 feet long and replacing an existing retaining wall system that has to be somewhere on the property to <br />hold up the grade. Gaffron stated if there had not been a wall there previously, the City likely would be <br />looking at it differently. <br /> <br />McMillan asked what would happen under this ordinance if someone wants to replace an existing <br />retaining wall. <br />Gaffron stated it will likely trigger at least an administrative permit. <br /> <br />Walsh asked if Public Works is comfortable with requiring the 10 feet. <br /> <br />Edwards stated the ten feet is standard. Edwards stated sometimes items are within that right-of-way, but <br />that the ordinance would provide the process of reviewing for obstructions and for the safety of people <br />using that right-of-way or roadway. The Public Works Department does periodically have issues with <br />nonstandard, unauthorized mail box structures that pose a hazard to people right next to the road and that <br />sometimes the geography of the City says it has to be here. Edwards stated the ordinance would just <br />require someone to go through the process so Staff can review it and that the Public Works Department <br />has had to ask people to move landscape rocks and other structures that were placed next to the roadways. <br /> <br />Walsh asked why ten feet is felt to be necessary. <br /> <br />Edwards stated ten feet is a nice median but that there are places where the road does not sit in the middle <br />of the right-of-way. Edwards indicated he does not have any hard and fast data that says 10 feet should <br />be the number but that it is a nice median and easy to visualize.