10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L MIMTES OF 1 HF. ORO.NO planmm ; commission meetim; MoMlay. Scpiembtr 20.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. <004-30411 Sleveo Pcniu. Continued) of the proposed structure may be visible Ihim his dnveway. miting that the grade ui the lot dues slope down somewhat. Persian indicated the surrounding vx'gclation would remain. Pasian staled their grul would be to construct one building for storage. Rahn inquired whetha the applicant was w illing to pursue whether the alterrule septic site could be sw'appcd with the building locaiion Persian stated he has submitted one perk lest already and that another perk lest may be necessary if the sites arc swapped. Persian indicated the ctmeem he ha% with swapping the sites is the location of a pressure line that be would prefer not to dnvr any motonzed vehicles o\rr. Rahn stated in his view the structure could he located in a conforming locution w ithout the need for a setback variance. Fnt/lcr commented no hardship has been dunon.«tTaied fur the vanoiKC. Persian staled he interprets the ordinance as trying to protect the integnty of the neighbors and that, despite the size, is not a nuisance to the neighbors. Fntzlcr stated the hardship has to validate the variance, and that he is mil in favor of a variance ftir the setbacks or for the size. Jurgens noted the iiorth line is the property line that abuts the railroad right-of-way. Jurgens inquired whether the setback is necessary due to the size of the building as w ell as the need to access the building and avoid the mound. 'ersian stated mat is correct, and that the builduig was also pushed back because of the .Xcel easement on the property. furgens indicated he is not in favor of the setback vananee since there are other locations whae the structure could be constructed on this lot. noting the budding could possibly fit north of the dnveway turnaround, w hieh would eliminate the need fur one of the setback variances. Jurgens stated simply because one location is not as desirable as another docs not eonsiiluic a hardship. Jurgens indicated he also has a concern w ith the size. Jurgm.s inquired whether the setback requirements change w iih the size of a structure. Gundlach indicated if the building is 750 square feet, the setback is 10 Icci from the side or rear, if it is between 750 and 1000. it has to be 15 feet: and if it is in c.xccss of I0(M) square feet, it has to meet pnncipal structure scibacks. Jurgens stated two structures could be cunstruclcd rather than one large one. which would meet the setbacks and w ould not encroach upon the mound system. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the mirth side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. Gaffrun noted there is a 50-faot separation between the lot ime and the railroad easement. PAGE II j