Laserfiche WebLink
• 1VIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,Jannary 26,2015 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> .�,� <br /> McMillan asked what would happen with existing situations if this City Code change is approved. � <br /> �� <br /> Gaffron stated e�cisting retaining walls aze not affected by this unless the wall is changed in some way. " <br /> Gaffron stated when it says that no retaining wall shall be located closer than five feet;the City would not <br /> go back and require the resident to remove it. Gaffron stated the one dissenting vote on the Planning <br /> Commission was questioni.ng the raised garden beds in a small azea within five feet of the properiy line. <br /> Gaffron stated every situation will be different,but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring <br /> properties if a wa11 is closer than five feet to the property line. Gaffron stated there is the possibility that <br /> utility companies could find that an obstruction. Gaffron stated the City Council could define what a <br /> retaining wall is or include some exemptions in the City Code but that Staff is not prepared at this time to <br /> define exactly what those things are. <br /> Levang noted the Council is not specifying what the retaining wall is constructed out of. <br /> Edwards stated the main issue that Staff reviews is the drainage and whether the proposed work is going <br /> to alter the drainage pattems to drain onto the neighboring property. Edwards stated when someone is <br /> placing a simple, small retaining wall next to the property line that does have the potential to alter the <br /> drainage and could cause runoff to the neighboring property. <br /> Gaffron stated another potential issue is the need to go on to the neighbor's property to maintain the wall <br /> if it is right against the lot line. <br /> McMillan asked if the edge of a traveled,established roadway needs to be ten feet from the property line. <br /> Gaffron stated in situations where there may not be an easement and there is a roadway,the City has the <br /> right to maintain and to claim for public use the first ten feet past the pavement or past the traveled <br /> roadway. Gaffron stated in many cases that ten feet leaves someone within the right-of-way but in some <br /> cases it puts them into the actual property itself. There could also be a visual aspect issue in certain <br /> situations. <br /> McMillan asked whether there would be an exemption if someone has a deteriorating timber wall within <br /> the right-of-way by the roadway and they need to replace it. McMillan noted in certain situations it may <br /> not be possible to re-grade the area. <br /> Gaf&on stated the City does have an encroachment agreement to handle these situations and that Staff <br /> would review it to ensure that replacement does not make the situation worse. <br /> McMillan asked if that would be an administrative appmval. <br /> Gaffron noted Staff has brought encroachment agreements to the Council in the past. <br /> Curtis indicated it would depend on the encroachment and what was being encroached upon. <br /> McMillan asked if there is a fee for the encroachment agreement. <br /> Curtis stated the fee is$150 because City Attomey and Staff time is involved in drafting the <br /> encroachment agreement. <br /> Page 4 of 13 <br />