10-10-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

August 31, 1988 r 'p Ciii Orono 4?'w Description of Request: I am requesting an after -the -fact variance for the height of the brick entry pillars at 980 Ferndale Road West. Initially a concept plan was reviewed with the City of Orono (January 1988) showing elaborate 6' tall bric-k entry "gates" located within the street right-of-way. After discussing this concept with City officials (see attached letter January 6, 1988 from John Gerhardson), I choose not to apply for a variance for these structures but rather simplify the design and slide the brick pillars back, thereby removing them from within the street right-of-way. They are now on private property. I felt this redesign and relocation of the brick 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 (Paragrap;, 21 "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- way 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, I interpreted it as stating if the monuments were on private property, out of the way of snow plows, utilities, etc... then it is O.K. to proceed with my plan. In the early design scheme the monuments were closer to the street for structural reasons. I presumed the soil conditions closer to the road bed would be more secure than 20' back on the private property. By placing diem back on private property it also puts you closer to the two existing ponds that flank the driveway. By following the City's initial requests I moved the two pillars back onto private property, consequently closer to the ponds and I chose to set these brick pillars on pilings that were dri: en down approximately 25'. Michael Gafron's letter dated 1 /25/88 also mentions the height of the originally designed monuments. (Noie the second sentence). "The proposed monuments 6' in height in a front yard area (or within street right-of-way) certainly requires a variance from the municipal zoning code". I interpreted that sentence and the phrase in parentheses as clarifying the previous statement. In other words. I read it to mean: in a front yard area or in other words within the street right-of-way. Both of the letters I received from the City weighed heavily in my understanding of the regulations and my decision to simplify the design and move the brick pillars onto private property. The tone of 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. I never asked, he never offered. The City in fact came out 14) locate the underground sewer line so that I would not puncture or destroy it when we drove the piling for these new brick columns