10-11-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: FROM: DATE: OUNCILMSnif) Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembtrs Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1993 OCT i 1 1993 CITY OF ORONO I SUBJECT: ii!^1860 Zelma McKimiey. 3599 Livingston Avenue - Conditional Use Permit I ■<Additional Exhibit N - Site Plan Submitted by Applicant Locating Parking Stalls on Site Brief Review of Application Per Section 10.03. Subdivision 5, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the continuation of a nonconforming use that has existed on the property prior to 1962. The applicant has owned the property since May of 1962. At that time, the residence structure contained rental units. Per Exhibit E. a building permit issued in 1957 by the City also conHimed that rental units existed within the structure. In August of 1962 the City passed an ordi.- mce allowing only single family use of the area but the amendment did not require that a conditional use permit be filed for the continuation of a nonconforming use. In 1968 and 1975 the code was again amended and now required the filing of the conditional use permit to allow continuation of nonconfonning uses. The applicant was never aware of the requirements of the code amendments. Mrs. McKinney now wishes to sell the property as a legal duplex. Mrs. McKinney has provided an income tax record and original handwritten rent receipts to the City to corfirm that property has been rental property through her owneiship. As already noted in 1957, the City officially recorded that there were rental units within the residence structure. Staff asked the Planning Commission to review the peninent sections of the code to determine if there was i deadline for the filing of conditional use permits for nonconforming uses which existed prior to the 1975 or 1968 ctxle. There was nothing in the code that would prohibii applicant from filing the current conditional use permit for the continuation of the nonconforming use. As of this writing, the City is in receipt of one letter from an adjacent neighbor who was opposed to the City gra.nting approval of a duplex use of the properly, review Exhibit M. Staff received phone calls from neighb<irs who were pleased to sec that the residence was not going to be used as triplex but rather a duplex and that it would be sold as an owner-occupied residence At the public hearing, there was no one in the audience who voiced concern with the proposal A member of the Planning Commission noted that this would be the time to require that the property revert hack to the single family use with the sale of the property by Mrs. McKinney Die majority ot the members found the propeny would be suitable for a duplex use and c(»uld support the four otf street parking stalls (two within double car garage). The