Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,August 27,2012 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6. #12-3569 MILLS CONSTRUCTION,LLC, ONBEHALF OF JASON WILSEY, 990 NORTH <br /> SHORE DRIVE WEST, Continued) <br /> Rahn stated he had a similar question. As it relates to the door, if there was a second front door that was <br /> visible on the outside,Rahn noted that would be an issue,but to apply for a CUP and then eliminate the <br /> door that is probably the most useful is something that he has been struggling with. The applicant did <br /> apply for a conditional use permit because he would like a door to the outside. The patio door and the <br /> rear door will probably seldom get utilized but that service door would get used regularly. <br /> Curtis stated the intent of the guest apartment provision in the code is to allow for nonpaying guests and <br /> domestic employees who do not need their own separate unit like a duplex. The intent is to allow that <br /> private living space but not make it easier for subsequent owners to turn it into a duplex. The floor plan <br /> and exterior of the house is such that it would make it harder to look like a duplex but that the service <br /> door would be a convenient access. <br /> Rahn stated he is in agreement with not allowing s�sparate utilities or a second full-blown kitchen. Rahn <br /> stated in his view dual family scenarios do occur on a fairly regular basis and that given the tough <br /> economic times,they will be more common. Rahn stated the applicant came before the City Council for <br /> the CUP because of the exterior door and that it is the more useful door but that it is the one that Staff is <br /> recommending be eliminated. Rahn indicated he would vote in favor of the door. <br /> McMillan asked if the great room is part of the guest suite. <br /> Curtis stated to her understanding the intent is to allow for the expansion of an extra bedroom should the <br /> need arise in the future for the principal residence. <br /> McMillan asked if some additional exits/entrances have been added from the original plan. McMillan <br /> noted the original plan looked more like a duplex. <br /> Curtis indicated the plan before the Council tonight is close to the original plan and that there is a window <br /> and patio off the great room as well as a door and patio off bedroom number one. Curtis stated in her <br /> view the changes that happened between the original plan and this plan is the reconfiguration of the office <br /> and the doorway access to the office to make it more open. <br /> Rahn asked if the applicant requested a building permit and then became aware of the regulations. Rahn <br /> commented that if the applicant had lrnown of the regulations prior to designing the house,they could <br /> have designed a different entrance. <br /> Curtis indicated they approached Staff shortly before they applied for the building pernut. The original <br /> plan also had a separation between the two garage sections. <br /> McMillan asked what is in the great room. <br /> Curtis stated the great room has a kitchen and that the guest suite is a bedroom. <br /> Chris Janssen,Mills Construction, stated they were brought in after the first builder was not complying <br /> with the requests of the property owner and that he was not involved with the original plan. <br /> --------- Page 6 of 11 -- — ------- <br />