Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE . <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> February 9,2015 '�� <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. 1 <br /> : ^ <br /> Gaffron noted other cities' codes regarding construction of retaining walls are widely varied and that a �� <br /> number of them do not require any permit for those less than four feet in height. Others, similar to Orono, '�'� <br /> require a land alteration permit for walls under four feet high. For retaining walls at or above four feet in � <br /> height, Orono requires engineering and a building permit,which appeazs to be common among cities. In <br /> addition, some cities require a permit for those under four feet in height if they support fill above the wall. <br /> The sections of the code that establish a 5-foot setback evolved over time and have to do with land <br /> alteration. Gaffron indicated those sections can be confusing and difficult to interpret. Gaffron stated <br /> items or activities that are typical of any retaining wall installation are typically prohibited,but there are <br /> some exceptions that are allowed for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or newly <br /> constructed building or any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the <br /> existing drainage. <br /> The Code also talks about those exceptions having the characteristic of an unusual land alteration and <br /> requiring a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated there were a number of things that were defined over <br /> the years as being unusual land alterations. One of them was grading or alteration that would propose any <br /> changes in elevation within five feet of an adjacent residential lot line except for drainage swales and <br /> ditches. The result of that is the City Code contains language stating that someone is not allowed to <br /> conduct grading within five feet of the lot line. <br /> Gaffron indicated Staff also looked at the definition of a retaining wall since one of the questions asked <br /> by the Council was whether a retaining wall should be defined. Staffls report contains a number of <br /> different dictionary definitions and they basically talk about a wall that is built to resist lateral pressure <br /> other than wind pressure or to prevent earth or water from moving forward. <br /> In addition,the Council questioned whether a raised planter bed would be considered a retaining wall. <br /> GafFron indicated Sketch A shows a retaining wall that is on the upside of the lot line with a 5-foot <br /> setback. Gaffron stated when the retaining wall is above the property next door, it needs to be maintained <br /> at some point in the future and the ability to maintain it without going on the adjoining property may not <br /> be possible without a 5-foot setback. Retaining walls also need to be designed and located so as to not <br /> impede the drainage along the property lines and across adjoining properties,which is another reason for <br /> a 5-foot setback. From a safety perspective,retaining walls need to be located so as to not create unsafe <br /> conditions for neighboring properties. <br /> Sketch B depicts a retaining wall located below the property boundary and is probably not as critical as <br /> the situation depicted in Sketch A in terms of the safety aspect. Gaffron stated with a 5-foot setback, it is <br /> unlikely that someone will be walking in that area. Gaffron stated visually retaining walls can have the <br /> same impact as an accessory structure by limiting sightlines. Gaffron noted the City currently allows a <br /> 4-foot retaining wall without engineer review,but a retaining wall that is higher than that needs to be <br /> reviewed by an engineer. <br /> Gaffron stated the Council should also discuss the 10-foot retaining wall setback from a traveled <br /> right-of-way. The existing Code talks about a 10-foot setback from the traveled roadway and states as <br /> follows: "Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map,the right-of- <br /> way shall not be less than ten feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. The <br /> intent of that language in the proposed ordinance is to clarify that it is not acceptable to have retaining <br /> walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval. <br /> Page 4 of 25 <br />