Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE � <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 20,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff fcels�e provisions for splitting a duplex do not already exist because there are only a few duplex <br /> situations in Orono and there has never been a request for such a split previously. Gaffron ind'rcated he <br /> was able to come up with two duplexes in the City. <br /> Berg indicated there is one on the end of Lydiard and one on Lydiard Circle. <br /> Gaf�'ron stated the third one is located on North Shore Drive and was created within the past 20 years. <br /> Staff has concluded if the split were to happen,there should be a number of standards added to the code. <br /> Gaffron indicated he has provided a history of the code provisions for duplex use going back to 1968, <br /> when it was fust addressed. <br /> The most recent action on this code provision occurred in 20I0 as part of a rearganization of the <br /> Conditional Use section in each zoning district. At that time tiie term duplex was deleted and the term <br /> "two-family dwelling"was substituted. At one paint there was a standard requirement that a duplex be <br /> allowed not only within 204 feet of any commercial district but within 250 feet of the B-3 district,which <br /> is the Lund's property. This was for a proposed duplex on the site of the fire station back in the 1940's to <br /> 1960's. That lot resulted in a sgecific cade change that was never acted on in terms of developing a <br /> duplex. Eventually the B-3,250-foot setback requirement or allowance was deleted. <br /> The text of the code originally included the phrase"one duplex may be located on a single lot,"which <br /> apparantly carried through until at least 199'1 when the provision for proximity to B-3 was added. It is <br /> unclear from discussions contained in Staff memos and minutes whether�e language was changed <br /> purposely, as droppiag that phrase was apparently not discussed. Gaffron noted this duplex does meet the <br /> 250-foot setback. The intent remains clear,however, as the test still required for the two-family dweliing <br /> that the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial parcel. In addition,it appears that the definition of <br /> duplex contained in the body of the text was also elim�inated; although,the Shoreland Ordinance <br /> def nition remains in effect. <br /> The original intent of the duplex ordinance apparently was to allow one building containing two <br /> independent dwelling units on a property,with the entire building and land owned by one person. The <br /> ability to own or sell just one of the dwelling nnits as a separate ta�c parcel requires approval of a <br /> subdivision. Orono's subdivision code does not contain provisions for a dedicated process to accomplish <br /> this type of split and allow ownership on each side of the duplex. Many other cities have added spe�ific <br /> provisions to allow for individual ownership of units within a two-family dwelling. <br /> Gai�'ron indicated he has provided some sample ordinances within Staff's report. Common elements <br /> include: <br /> 1. T'he base lot must meet all requirements of the zoning district. <br /> 2. The unit lot created by splitting the bas� lot in two can have only one principal building,which <br /> would be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lot. <br /> 3. Permitted accessory uses in the underlying zoning district are acceptable if they meet all zoning <br /> requirements. <br /> 4. Property maintenance and party wall agreement will be required. One of the reasans that is <br /> critical relates to fut�re maintenance of the duplex. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />