Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 20,2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3048 Steven Persian,Continued) <br /> 2. Ability of the proposed structure to meet 20' septic setbacks from existing septic site; <br /> 3. Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75' setback requirements from wetlands; <br /> 4. Ability to meet 35' wetland setback on the south side of the property; <br /> 5. Access to building, which could potentially be over existing and alternate mound locations. <br /> Gundlach indicated one of the major issues influencing the location of the structure and whether or not a <br /> hardship exists is the alternate septic site. The applicant has had a septic inspector locate an alternate <br /> septic site. Staff believes there is a good potential that the alternate septic site location could instead be <br /> the location of the proposed building,with all the setbacks for the septic being met in that location. <br /> Gundlach requested that the City's septic inspector confirm that. <br /> Gundlach stated the Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> 1. If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so <br /> that the required setbacks could be met, should the location variances be granted. <br /> 2. Does the power line easement, wetlands and septic locations on the property provide a <br /> hardship in order to approve the location or area variances and to what extent. <br /> 3. Does the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense; i.e., <br /> should the City be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 square foot building <br /> on a lot which is somewhat secluded. <br /> 4. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess of <br /> 1,200 square feet. <br /> Gundlach stated it should be ruled out whether the alternate septic site location and proposed <br /> building location can be swapped. If they can be swapped,the setback variances should be denied. If <br /> the two cannot be swapped,a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the house <br /> should be granted based on the power easement, wetland, and septic constraints. <br /> Gundlach stated if a setback variance is granted, Staff would recommend denial of the building area <br /> variance and recommend that the applicant be held to the 1,200 square foot limitation. If the Planning <br /> Commission wishes to grant a building area variance based on the remote nature of the lot, Staff <br /> recommends that the building meet all setback requirements. <br /> Persian indicated one of the reasons for the proposed size of the structure is to limit having multiple <br /> buildings on the property. Persian stated they would prefer to have just one single structure on the <br /> property to serve their needs rather than multiple buildings and would be more aesthetically pleasing to <br /> the neighborhood. In addition, the lot is so secluded that the structure would not be seen but also the <br /> home cannot be seen for about a third of a mile. <br /> Persian stated as far as the structure being proposed in front of the house,technically that is true but <br /> what is in between his residence and the house that is to the southeast of them is about a 75' swath of <br /> trees,which makes it impossible to see their house or the neighbor's house. <br /> Rahn inquired what the primary use would be for a building that size. <br /> PAGE 9 <br />