06-13-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1269 Page 3 s.f. or 79% variance. It should be noted that the apartment use existed under the _urrent L R - 1 A zoning district prior to 1982. Staff Aeco■�ndation To recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit (an accompaning area variance) for Richard and Jane Noland for the property located at 1395 Orono Lane based on the following findings: 1. Based on the covenants approved by the City of Orono in 1982, the existing apartment was allowed to remain with plumbing and heating with no other attempt to alter the structure as to prevent future habitation, but allarently designed with the intent to approve a future request for a guest apartment. 2. There will be no increase in ha_-dcover proposed with the reinstallation of the guest apartment. 3. The guest apartment use had existed on t:e property prior 1982. 4. The property is now served with sewer. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the occupancy of the residential apartment, the unit must be connected to sewer via the line that is underneath the garage and the primary residence shall be connected to municipal sewer via an independent new line. 2. Prior to occupancy of the guest apartment unit., the Building Inspector must inspect the structure to see that minimal standards are complied with for residential habitation. 3. Current owner must make a sewer connection payment of $14,503.18 and S.A.C. payment of $450*15:. 8 with sewer connection permit for the principal residence. Jr _sso -" Additional Cos ents and Planning Cosmmission Recommendation The Planning Commission advised the applicant. that the request would clearly have been denied based on the extent of the area variances that must be granted in approving the Conditional Use Permit (136,990 s.f. or 79% area variance). The uniqu- background surrounding the residential apartment above the detached ;arage and the covenants executed by the previous owner in 1982 and approved by the City based on the correspondence recorded in the City files, all make this a difficult application to deny. The Planning Commission did state that if the city attorney found any loop holes within the covenants that they would prefer to deny the request based on the negative precedent being established in future reviews. The Planning Commission felt that the previous City Council had already made a committment to approve a future Conditional Use Permit for the reinstallation of the guest apartment. In a final analysis, the Planning Commission moved to approve the staff recommendation noted above and added the following conditions of approval: