Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 13, 1986 <br />#1059 WORK CONTINUED <br />appropriate conditional use permit at the time building <br />permits in 1976 and 1980 were issued to construct a <br />mother -in -law apartment. The property was assessed for <br />two residential sewer and water units. Applicant <br />requests, in advance of sale of the property, a <br />- conditional use permit for duplex use. <br />Ruthanne Lang stated that the structure is ideally set- <br />upfor a duplex use because of the area and floor plan. <br />She noted that the property has been on the market as a <br />single family home with mother -in -law apartment, but <br />that it would be more marketable in that price range as <br />a duplex. She noted that the neighbors have not <br />objected to the duplex use. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed the existing <br />upper and lower floor plans noted that there are <br />separate access entries. She noted that a curb cut <br />should be defined and approved by the County for this <br />property. She also noted that in order to create a legal <br />duplex certain requirements may be required by code such <br />as relocation of fire detectors and installation of a <br />second water meter, etc. <br />Mayor Butler asked City Attorney Barrett's opinion <br />regarding granting a variance to the performance <br />standard requirement of a duplex being located within <br />200' of a commercial zone, whereas this property is <br />approximately 1000' from a commercial zone. <br />City Attorney Barrett stated that the key issue is <br />determining whether a duplex is a permitted use, and if <br />so, the City does have the power to grant a variance. <br />Planning Commission member Goetten stated that when this <br />application was reviewed by the Planning Commission, she <br />was in the minority opinion that this was a reasonable <br />option for this property. <br />Mayor Butler stated that she did not feel it would be <br />unrealistic to permit the duplex use because of the <br />history of use of the building, the fact that the <br />structure will not change in appearance, and a two <br />residential use would be no more intense than the <br />combined commercial and residential use as it has been <br />in the past. <br />Councilmember Frahm stated that he was concerned with <br />the size of lot and intense use and the fact the the <br />future owner would inevitably want to construct a new <br />garage which would create too much hardcover. However, <br />he felt that it was not a bad location for a duplex. <br />4 <br />