Laserfiche WebLink
, MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> February 9,2015 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <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 /> 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 concemed about the wall failing and slumping and causing damage. <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 constxucting a 1-foot high retaining wall or planter box. <br /> Walsh stated his recommendations would be at least two feet from the properiy 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 /> 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 concem for people who may want to have <br /> some work done due to the high water issues experienced last yeaz. <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 /> Levang asked if Staff would like some guidance on the retaining wall definitions and which ones the <br /> Council would prefer. <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 /> 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 /> Walsh stated in his view that approach makes sense if the City chooses to define it. <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 /> 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 /> 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. <br /> Page 7 of 26 <br />