Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1987 <br />41119 W. DUNCAN MACMILLAN <br />1700 FOX STREET <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT <br />Present for this matter were: James McNulty of McNulty <br />Construction; Consultant Planner Edward Hasek of <br />Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban; Attorney Todd D. Andrews; <br />Duncan MacMillan; and other members of the MacMillan <br />family. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for <br />a variance and conditional use permit to construct a <br />caretaker house and a 16,000 s.f. (in floor area) <br />recreational facility, most of which consists of and <br />indoor tennis court. He noted that the attorney for the <br />MacMillan's has submitted a list of their hardships. <br />One question is whether the construction of this <br />facility may or may not be out of line with this <br />particular sizeable property. Secondly, it may not <br />reach the level of hardships,' however unique, to justify <br />the variances. Because of these questions, staff <br />recommends possibly looking at an ordinance to regulate <br />accessory structures over 1000 s.f. by the use of a <br />conditional use permit. <br />Mr. McNulty explained the proposed landscaping in order <br />to minimize the effect that the difficulty in location <br />of the the recreational facility due to the soils and <br />slopes. <br />Mr. Hasek further explained the careful planning <br />involved in the final proposed location of the facility <br />and their plans for two levels of 12' -16' pine trees to <br />accomplish year around natural screening. <br />Mr. Duncan MacMillan explained that this property has <br />been in their family for over 60 years and has remained <br />basically the same during this period of time and do not <br />plan or desire to change the nature of the property. He <br />stated that the intent of the recreational, facility is <br />strictly for family use noting they have taken great <br />care, including filing a covenant pertaining to the use, <br />to avoid any concerns from the community. <br />There were no comments from the public regarding this <br />matter. <br />Councilmember Goetten questioned the location of the <br />caretaker residence as opposed to being more centrally <br />located. <br />Mr. McNulty stated that proposed location seemed the <br />most logical for maintenance functions and security. <br />7 <br />