Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Goodrum stated they are entertaining that but that it comes down to pricing. Goodrum stated the flat roof <br /> adds a nice feature to the penthouses and for water treatment. <br /> Thiesse stated he likes the sketch plan a lot but that he would caution the applicant that the next time they <br /> meet there will likely be a full house. Thiesse suggested the applicant also meet with the Navarre <br /> business owners in the area as well. <br /> The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br /> 9. #17-3894 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: RETAINING WALLS AND <br /> GRADING,8:40-9:07 P.M. <br /> Barnhart stated at the direction of the City Council, Staff has drafted an ordinance to address land <br /> alterations and retaining walls within the side yard setback. In 2015, the City Council and Planning <br /> Commission reviewed an ordinance amendment that regulated retaining walls as well as other things such <br /> as grading in residential districts. The type of permit required was dependent on the height, amount of <br /> soils being retained, and the location. <br /> As a result,the City Council felt that unnecessarily encumbered small residential lots and have directed <br /> Staff to alter that regulation. <br /> Barnhart stated the City has two options. Exhibit A basically regulates retaining walls and planters, and <br /> as long as they are less than two feet in height,those would be allowed to be located in the front yard or <br /> side yard area. The draft ordinance contained in Exhibit A removes a portion of the language which talks <br /> about the distance from the side lot setback line. The primary purpose with this option is to make it easy <br /> for people to have retaining walls, planters, or other low features in the side yard. In application, a planter <br /> bed with stones around it would technically be considered a structure and would be required to be set <br /> back. <br /> Barnhart stated Staff does not drive around looking for those type of landscaping features and it is likely <br /> those are occurring, but the current regulations actually prohibits them. Exhibit A would remove them to <br /> be within the required yard setbacks. <br /> The second option looks at this item more comprehensively and fixes the issue raised by the City Council <br /> in terms of the small retaining walls but also pulls out the grading requirements contained in the original <br /> ordinance. In addition, grading requirements were contained in the non-encroachment section of the <br /> code. Barnhart stated non-encroachments are those improvements listed that are allowed to extend into a <br /> setback without the need for a variance and are usually building related. Barnhart stated from a <br /> comprehensive standpoint, it does not make sense to have grading regulations in the non-encroachment <br /> section. <br /> Staff recommends Exhibit B. Barnhart stated one of his goals is to make it easier for the residents to <br /> understand the regulations. <br /> Barnhart noted the back page of Exhibit B talks about unusual land alterations, which are defined as <br /> excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet, if excess material is stored on site, if there is more than <br /> 500 cubic yards of fill imported, or if you grade within five feet of adjacent residential lots. Barnhart <br /> Page 21 of 32 <br />