10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMTESOFTIir ORONO pij^nmm; c mf.ftim; Moaday. September 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MI4*J04t Sle^ea fer^a, t'oacteacd) PcTMan staled they would like to store personal items in there, muing at the present time he has two trailers sitting ouLside, personal ATV's in the garage, and other items sitting in the yard. Persian indicated he would like to have all those items stored inside. Kahn commented a number of residents w ithin the City base the same type oi items, and noted that the proposed structure is the si/e of four, four-car garages. Rahn inquired what the sidewall height is tW this building Persian stated the sidewalls are 12 feet. Rahn inquired whether the slope of the roof would he 4-12. whteh would make the peak of the nwif IS feet and the median height IS feet. Persian indieatcd that is eorrect. Gundlaeh stated the height ol the structure is restneted by the height of the principisl structure and cannol c.\eccd the pnneipal structure. Jurgens inquired w heiher .Xeel's easement .states that no buildings can he constructed within the eascHKmt or whether there is a height rcsiriciion. Per lan indicated he was informed that he could not construct any budding within 75 feel of the center Imc. Persian noted ihcir mound system is constructed within a portion of the co-sement. Fnt/lcr stated he is not in favor of that si/c building un a l<M that is 2.9 acres in site. PerMan inquired what the thought priKcss is behind allowing three or four smaller huiIJings raiha than one brger building Persian slated he is aware i l a property on Ochord Park Road that exceeds the schedule for building si/c that is visible from County Rood 6. CiafTron stated to his rtcollection that building was based on housing a vehicle and the minimum si/e and length fur that vehicle was pan of w hat drove the approval for that spccilic vehicle. Persian stated to his know ledge the vehicle docs not fit within the building Gafl'ron indicated that is alssi his understanding at the present time, but that the st/c of the building was approved S4i that the vehicle could fit within the structure. Kempf commented one of the reasons for limiting the si/e of the structure is the visual impact. Kempf stated m his view the visual impact docs not apply here given the amount of trees on the property . Kempf stated it is difficult to functionally find at ylhing wrong w ith the applicant ’s proposal and that it comes down to the issue of protecting the code Persian stated he understands this type of structure would not be appropriate ifhc was living in a neighborhood where there were neighbors in close proximity , but that he believes it is more aesthcbcally pleasing to have one building rather than three. Persian stated in his opinion only the roof PAGE It