01-20-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5) #2192 ROBERT AND WENDY BEUTLER, 1331 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3806 The applicant was present. Mabusth reported that the property is located on North Arm Drive. The applicant seeks approval of a lot width variance as it does not meet the 140’ width at the shoreline or at the 75' setback. All other setback requirements are met by the new residence. An issue for discussion is the applicant’s desire to maintain the current principal structure and to maintain heating and plumbing facilities. Mabusth informed the Council that the Planning Commission approved the application 3:1 with the condition that the plumbing in the kitchen be removed and only the sink and stool remain in the bathroom. The minority vote's opinion noted the difficulty in reaching a decision when there are no clear standards for such a use. Mabusth cited a previous application with expanded living area within an upper level of a newly constructed detached garage and restricting use as an independent dwelling unit with the use of a restricted covenant. The property in that application did not meet the area requirement for a guest house. This property is 1.13 acres in size and does not meet area standard for a guest house. A variance application on last month's agenda was approved for maintaining the principal structure as an accessory structure with additional living space via a restrictive covenant. The variance for that application was for the accessory structure being in front of the principal structure. Mabusth said the Planning Commission struggled with the issue of ease to convert aii accessory structure into a guest house or apartment with heating and plumbing. They felt it would be difficult to police even with the restrictive covenant. The minority vote asked the City to develop standards as similar cases have come before the Commission on a more frequent basis. Mabusth noted the application was only being reviewed due to the lot width variance required. She asked the Council if the application should be reviewed as a separate item or if the code should be revisited. C.^Uahan noted the applicant's plan to use the structure as a workshop and office wkh bathroom facilities. Hurr added that it could be slept in. Goetten said her concern was with the lack of any designation for such use. She questioned what might happen in the future with other applications. Jabbour noted it was not only a problem for the zoning district but also a problem for other applicants. He said he is sympathetic to the need to provide for relatives and w'ould like to revisit the housing code. He saw this application as set aside from other scenarios questioning why others would apply for a guest house Clip if this could be done. Jabbour cited an example where SAC charges were applied for a guest house use. M 8