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 /> Bieker 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 /> Bieker 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 off'icials 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 />