Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> APRIL 16,2001 <br /> (#01-2672 Jim and Sharon Walker, Continued) <br /> Hawn inquired whether the walkway is completely enclosed. <br /> Erotas stated it is. <br /> Kluth commented in his view there may be a problem with semantics here. Kluth inquired why the <br /> guest house is not considered a part of the main residence. <br /> Weinberger stated the requirement for guest apartment is looked at as an individual unit within a <br /> primary structure, with the primary access to that guest apartment being located within the residence. <br /> Weinberger stated in this instance the guest apartment could be looked at as a separate dwelling unit, <br /> and in reality functions more as a guest house. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is still <br /> required in this case. <br /> Walker commented the reason they are requesting the tower to remain is that in his view it is appealing <br /> to the property and many neighbors have commented that they would like to see the tower remain. <br /> Walker stated they would like to maintain the history of the property by keeping the two accessory <br /> structures. <br /> Lindquist inquired how many square feet there are when the principal structure and the guest apartment <br /> are combined. <br /> Erotas stated there would be 7,400 square feet of living space. <br /> Hawn stated she has some concerns regarding the screen house,which is located in the 0-75' setback. <br /> Hawn inquired why the Applicant would like to keep the screen house. <br /> Walker stated due to the hardcover requirements,they were required to locate the house back further on <br /> the property,which reduced their view to the lake. Walker stated his family has used the screen house <br /> frequently and would like to see it remain. <br /> Mabusth requested Gaffron discuss the ordinance that regulates entrances to guest apartments and guest <br /> houses. <br /> Gaffron stated the City Ordinance was adopted in approximately 1989 or 1990. One of the applications <br /> that brought that ordinance forward was where an attached garage had an apartment located above it <br /> and the only access was via a stairway located in the garage to the apartment. Gaffron stated to his <br /> recollection that application was approved, and discussion followed whether the City wanted to create <br /> guest apartments that look like a secondary dwelling unit on the property or does the City want to <br /> maintain the integrity of the single family residential neighborhood and allow access to a guest <br /> apartment through the principal structure. <br /> Mabusth stated at the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was faced with a number of requests <br /> for mother-in-law apartments and the like. Mabusth stated one of the concerns of the City was that <br /> these apartments would be used for rental property and how the City could regulate that. <br /> Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with this application. <br /> PAGE 10 <br />