09-19-1988 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m > in lyIS! {Eg r,i-;i m y-mm '•’'ii>l 'T A ‘ '■i ■Is V I xm'f- m: 't m- :W\ |v; H i ^v>-v/- /:!mm 1 m' ■ ^..f/. Mm mr mm r:XV- ii.v''’■ 4 U XI ■*e-- i- , ■?.; .,*^1 \y Pxfr‘ ■ m jX ,4 >. X.‘ ; .<■ . -f */■ ••• >* • . :•‘ ■ '. v.v. ■' ■■ \.-■ *<'-t 'I .v^:?xf' AutEU«t3l. 1981 QtyorOr Description of Request: I am requesting an after-the-fact variance for the height rf the brick entry pillars at 980 Femdale head West. ! • InititUy t concept plan was reviewed with the Qiy of Orono (January 1988) showing eiahorate 6' tall brkk entry "gates'* located within the street right-of-way. After discussing this concept with Qty officials (see attached letter January 6.1988 from John (lerhardson). I choose not to apply for a variance for these structures but rather simplify the design and slide the brkk pillars back, thereby removing them from within the street right-of-way. They are now on private property. 1 felt this redesign and relocaUon of the brkk entry pillars negated the issue and thus the need for the variance procedure. In John Gerhardson's letter to me dated 1/6/88 he states (Paragraph 2) "according to Orono ordinances, we would not allow the brick surface drive approach or the 6' high monuments in the street right-of-way. If the monuments are adjacent to the right-of- w^ they cannot exceed 3 5'. It also appears that there is a sanitary sewer line in the driveway." I interpreted that as saying if I obtain approval via a variance, the monument could in fact be in the right-of-way. but not taller than 3 5\ in other words they are standing firm on the fact anything within the right-of-way could only be 3.5’ tall. In closer analysis of that statement there is still much ambiguity. Adjacent to the right-of- way means what? Is 1' adjacent or is 10' adjacent? Again. 1 interpreted it as stating if the monuments were on private property, out of the way of snow plows, utilities, etc... then it is OJC. to proceed with my plan. In the early design scheme the monuments were closer to the street for structural reasons. 1 presumed the soil conditions closer to the road bed would be more secure than 20 back on the private property. By placing them back on private property it also puts you closer to the two existing ponds that flank the driveway. By following the Qty's initial requests 1 moved the two pillars back onto private property, consequently closer to the ponds and 1 chose to set these brick pillars on pilings that were dri'Ten down approximately 25‘. Michael Gafron’s letter dated 1/25/88 also mentions the height of the orkinally designed monuments. (Note the second sentence). 'The proposed m<muments 6' in height in a front yard area (or within street right-of-way) certainly requires a variance from the municipal zoning code". 1 interpreted that sentence and the phrase in parentheses as clarifying the previous statement. In other words, 1 read it to mean; in a front yard area or in other words within the street right-of-way. Both of the letters 1 received from the Qty weighed heavily in my understanding of the regulations and my decision to simplify the design and move the brick piilars onto private property. The tone ctf both letters seems to highlight the right-of-way and location of these pillars more so than the height of these pillars. I discussed the simplified brick pillar scheme with John Gerhardson prior to proceeding with it and the issue of height was never mentioned. 1 never asked, he never offered. The Qty in fact came out to locate the underground sewer line so that I would not puncture or destroy it when we drove the piling for these new brick columns.h Ithou comm that ai privat these • * Now(j mentk also St thefm or dins or dins Hardsh • • • * The pr; several be und By plac needed to adetj decide!