My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
01-14-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2025 10:37:02 AM
Creation date
11/13/2025 10:24:50 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
399
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
.lunne 1, 1981 <br />totally residential considering; t1le Stillwater Residence across the street - she felt that <br />is a consideration - on the other hand they have preservation of the environment physically <br />as to the home itself - personally after seeiiu, the lxrx- it would be extremely difficut <br />to divide the home into any kind of multi -family dwelling because of the way Cie house is <br />structured physically. Taking a look at any health, safety, welfare kinds of issues she <br />did not feel that safety is a question based on discussions that she had with Mr. Zepper- <br />the fact that the home has met health -safety code for the last four or five years with <br />the Anderson facilities. She would have a hard time seeing how the welfare of the <br />neighborhood would be hurt - she felt that it would be anything, but hurt - couldn't see <br />how it wouldn't help other than the fact that there would be a stable environment in that <br />that location. The only question that she had c,aS the traffic - you are bound to have <br />traffic if you have eight roans occupied by transient people m any basis beyond the <br />weekend only or during the week or whatever - it would be (Wious that most of the traffic <br />would occur on weekends because that is when pCOIAC travel the most. Considering the <br />volume of traffic now with the Anderson Home she was not convinced that it would increase <br />traffic - if the home were divided into a nUlti-fancily dwelling you would have to divide <br />it into at least three possibly four units and the traffic from a four unit multi -family <br />dwelling would change that much. As it stands right now based or, the ordinance and based <br />on the issues that the Council is looking at, she did not see how the Council has any <br />choice, but to grant the permit. <br />COUNCIU4MIN BODLOVICK stated that the people claimed that the Anderson Home is a commercial <br />piece of property and it is not - it is a hone that the Council issued a Conditional Use <br />Permit for the Shelter Home and added conditions ro it. He does Mve a camcercial kitchen <br />that the state said that he had to do and he had to conform to their laws and restrictions <br />that they imposed upon him - he agreed to do this willic>€jy. She still does not believe <br />013t we have to continue past practices - he had a Conditional Use Permit and if he ceases <br />to operate that residence as a Shelter Hone, it reverts back to a private residence as <br />far as she is concerned - this Special Use Permit is for the individual to utilize it - <br />once he leaves or thathasiness ceases from operating, that is null and void - she felt <br />thr they were losing site of the whole neighborhood - the Stillwater Residence was there <br />before some of these families moved into the area - the younger people bought these big <br />beautiful hones because they thought that they were scxnething; that they wanted to have <br />and she did not disagree with them - she could not see how anybody feels that this is a <br />Commercial piece of property - it is not. <br />JOIN OERTELL stated that if people are not living; in that motel and the husband and wife <br />are running it and their daughter - if they do not live there, then they will have to hire <br />outside help - the argument:; presented ab(xat specifics under which the Council could not <br />deny the pennit could said .about all of their huivs - why couldnt his be a law office, <br />or George Sclmi.tt's four-plex be another hotel - everybody could do it up and down Fifth <br />Street. <br />MAYOR JUNIOR stated that for the last two years they have been on the Board of Revio. for <br />taxes and from his understanding, of the reports the house would sell for around $240,000 <br />and if the Vegsuxls so not occupy the house as a landlord and have homestead rights and <br />you have to have taxes paid on the market value of $240,000, he did not feel that they would <br />have enough rooms to rent to pay for it. He personally feels that if they will move into <br />that house and the Council would grant them a permit for one year and sell the home on <br />North Fourth Street. then he would look at it a little differently. He felt that if the <br />Council granted him a Special Use Permit to run this facility, he would look at it in a <br />little different manner - the City is not granting then a subsidy, but they personally <br />helping him run a house to rent out - he knows of three more that are approaching the <br />City of Stillwater for the same request as this one - he asked Mr. Magnuson if it was <br />for then to made to live in the hc)use at all times. Anything; would be better for the <br />neighbors than what we have h:ac1 there - he felt that if they lived and there and did a <br />good job so that in a year franc rxvw when the Council reviews their permit, if it is <br />granted by the Gxncil. <br />MR. MAG1MN star d that it would he rice if they would agree to it if thaat is what the <br />C4nencil wants- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.