Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 13, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Bieker noted Staff met with him on the site and they discussed the monuments. Bieker stated they are not <br />asking for something that is not reasonable and that the City Engineer commented that the City always <br />would like things further away from the road, but given the uniqueness of the area and the other <br />obstructions along the road, there is not really a safety concern. Bieker stated at one time the road was <br />probably a gravel road and was paved at some point. <br />Edwards stated normally on a residential road, the City would like a 10 -foot clear zone on either side of <br />the road. Edwards indicated the City rarely gets a 10 -foot clear zone on this type of road so the City <br />attempts to get five feet. In this particular case, the road is a low volume, low speed residential road with <br />all kinds of obstacles less than five feet from the pavement on either side of the road. Edwards stated <br />while the City would always like to error on having as much clear area as possible, he does recognize on <br />this particular road that there all kinds of things that are closer to the road than five feet. <br />Crosby asked if the City Council has a copy of the support letter from the neighbor who originally was <br />opposed to it. <br />Curtis indicated it would be Exhibit I. <br />Bicker stated the neighbor who had concerns about it is located directly adjacent to the Andersen <br />property. Bieker stated in his view there are other issues going on that started the day they began <br />construction and have nothing to do with the monuments. Bieker stated the only thing about that <br />particular letter is the neighbor said he spoke for all the neighbors and he did not. <br />Printup asked why this is considered a city road when it is a private driveway. <br />Edwards stated it is a private road and is a platted right-of-way. The road has a 25 -foot right-of-way in <br />sections but in some sections it has 0 feet right-of-way. <br />Walsh stated in order to receive a variance, the applicant needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty and <br />that the Council is not here to design the applicant's house or driveway. Walsh stated whenever someone <br />constructs a structure like this, they need to have a footing inspection and an electrical inspection. Walsh <br />stated a contractor who does construction like Denali should know those things and that he is struggling <br />with finding a practical difficulty. Walsh commented rules do not make everyone happy but that he <br />cannot find a practical difficulty. In addition, Staff and Planning Commission also could not find a <br />practical difficulty. <br />Bieker asked why the Council would not be able to grant a variance if something does not go against the <br />intent of the ordinance. <br />Walsh indicated he needs a practical difficulty according to the law. <br />Bicker stated if the intent is for specific reasons and those reasons are not being violated, he does not <br />understand why they would not be granted a variance. Bieker stated elected officials have the authority to <br />make decisions on what is right for one location and not right for another. Bieker stated the monuments <br />are not offending or going against the intent of the ordinance. <br />Walsh stated the City Council is looking at it from a different perspective. Walsh noted a footing <br />inspection would have been required as well as an electrical inspection and those would have alerted them <br />that the monuments are not in the right location. <br />Page 9 of 18 <br />