Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 9, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />Page 20 of 28 <br /> <br />12. #16-3825 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS <br />IN 0-75’ ZONE (continued) <br /> <br />Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. <br /> <br />Walsh indicated he is not in agreement with this ordinance and that back in 2012 it was clear that people <br />did not want retaining walls to be counted as hardcover. Retaining walls are typically used to shore up <br />land and help hold the water back. Orono does not allow people to have hardcover within the 0-75 <br />setback for decorative purposes, which is different from a retaining wall that is required to help stabilize <br />the slope. <br /> <br />Walsh stated this ordinance would put people who have hills going down to the lake and people who <br />don’t have hills at odds with one another. Walsh stated if the retaining wall is helping to stabilize <br />something, the person should not be penalized. In addition, people with small lots will be penalized even <br />more, which should not occur if they are stabilizing the slope. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated that is why Staff wanted to bring it up and that they wanted to make sure they are doing <br />what the Council wants. Barnhart stated there was some discussion about boathouses in the 0-75 foot <br />zone and that Staff wanted to make sure those were counted as well as other improvements in the <br />shoreland area. <br /> <br />Walsh stated he is not talking about the boathouses but that he has a concern about retaining walls and <br />why it counts one way and not another way. Walsh stated the ordinance needs to be consistent as well. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she remembers wanting it excluded from 75 feet going back towards the street. <br /> <br />Printup noted in reviewing the minutes he stated very clearly that he wanted it left as an exclusion. <br />Printup stated he attempted to review the video online but that the video recordings are not kept back that <br />far. Printup indicated he continues to be okay with having retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone as long as <br />they are there for stability more so than decorative. <br /> <br />Barnhart noted the ordinance does not change whether or not they are allowed within the 0-75 foot zone <br />but that the ordinance changes whether they are counted as hardcover. If the Council does not adopt the <br />ordinance, retaining walls would not be counted as hardcover. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the City has not reviewed much of the new hardcover ordinance, which she takes that the <br />ordinance is working well. McMillan asked what Staff’s thoughts are about including retaining walls in <br />the hardcover calculations. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated he reads the ordinance in very black and white terms and that retaining walls do not count. <br />Other members of Staff do not necessarily agree with that interpretation, which is why he wanted to make <br />sure that Staff is going in the right direction. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated it is hard for him to say whether it is necessary. From a hardcover perspective and the <br />goal of the shoreland district, retaining walls are to help stabilize the slope, and that the hardcover impact <br />is relatively minor. Barnhart stated while a vertical retaining wall is relatively minor as it relates to <br />hardcover, it is still visible. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there is a specific reason why Staff brought this forward.