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 /> of the proposed structure may be visible from his driveway,noting that the grade of the lot does slope <br /> down somewhat. Persian indicated the surrounding vegetation would remain. Persian stated their goal <br /> would be to construct one building for storage. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the applicant was willing to pursue whether the alternate septic site could be <br /> swapped with the building location. <br /> Persian stated he has submitted one perk test already and that another perk test may be necessary if the <br /> sites are swapped. Persian indicated the concern he has with swapping the sites is the location of a <br /> pressure line that he would prefer not to drive any motorized vehicles over. <br /> Rahn stated in his view the structure could be located in a conforming location without the need for a <br /> setback variance. <br /> Fritzler commented no hardship has been demonstrated for the variance. <br /> Persian stated he interprets the ordinance as trying to protect the integrity of the neighbors and that, <br /> despite the size,is not a nuisance to the neighbors. <br /> Fritzler stated the hardship has to validate the variance,and that he is not in favor of a variance for the <br /> setbacks or for the size. <br /> Jurgens noted the north line is the property line that abuts the railroad right-of-way. Jurgens inquired <br /> whether the setback is necessary due to the size of the building as well as the need to access the building <br /> and avoid the mound. <br /> Persian stated that is correct, and that the building was also pushed back because of the Xcel easement <br /> on the property. <br /> Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the setback variance since there are other locations where the <br /> structure could be constructed on this lot,noting the building could possibly fit north of the driveway <br /> turnaround,which would eliminate the need for one of the setback variances. Jurgens stated simply <br /> because one location is not as desirable as another does not constitute a hardship. Jurgens indicated he <br /> also has a concern with the size. Jurgens inquired whether the setback requirements change with the <br /> size of a structure. <br /> Gundlach indicated if the building is 750 square feet,the setback is 10 feet from the side or rear; if it is <br /> between 750 and 1000, it has to be 15 feet; and if it is in excess of 1000 square feet, it has to meet <br /> principal structure setbacks. <br /> Jurgens stated two structures could be constructed rather than one large one,which would meet the <br /> setbacks and would not encroach upon the mound system. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the <br /> north side yard setback and the oversized accessory structure area variance. <br /> Gaffron noted there is a 50-foot separation between the lot line and the railroad easement. <br /> PAGE 11 <br />