02-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 20, 2015 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 21 McGrann moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3706, Amend Section 78-1211 regarding clarification to the toe of bluff definition. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 6. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(A)(5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 8:07 P.M. – 8:22 P.M. Curtis stated this change clarifies language pertaining to permit restrictions for retaining walls of any height which cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor located within an easement. Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment. Schoenzeit asked what the City is attempting to prevent with this change. Curtis indicated it would prevent structures from being constructed right up to the lot line. Schoenzeit asked if it is the use of the easement for utilities. Curtis stated it is primarily for drainage and the ability to create a swale or maintain drainage and the structure without trespassing on to the neighbor’s property. Schoenzeit asked what happens if the wall is correcting the situation. Curtis stated typically in drainage situations, if a property owner needs to correct the drainage near the property line, the City does have cooperative drainage plans between neighbors. Curtis stated typically a permit or a temporary easement is put into place to allow that to happen, but from the standpoint of changing the grade or changing the direction of the runoff, it would need to stay on the person’s property and not go onto the neighbor’s property. Curtis stated as was discussed at the work session, this change is not to regulate garden border type situations but retaining walls. Schoenzeit stated it seems kind of arbitrary in that the City would allow a fence or a row of 50-foot oak trees on the property line, but if someone is trying to landscape their yard, the change seems to negate property owner rights. Schoenzeit noted it does mention the ability to get an encroachment agreement, but given the fact that it is somebody’s property and also given all the things that the City allows along the property line, it seems arbitrary to not allow it on the line. Curtis stated it is a non-encroachment to a setback requirement. Curtis stated if either property owner needs to encroach further into the setback or closer to the lot line, the City does have a variance process for that. Schoenzeit noted the applicant would need to pay a $700 application fee for a variance but someone can build a fence or plant trees along the property line. Schoenzeit stated if someone puts up a fence and it encroaches, that situation would pit two neighbors against each other to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated in this situation, someone cannot construct a retaining wall on their own property. Schoenzeit stated it seems like the City is picking and choosing what can be put on the property line. Gaffron stated with every zoning ordinance, the City regulates what someone can do on their property to limit the impacts to the neighbors. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 16 of 21]