Laserfiche WebLink
� NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri120,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 5. Must have sepazate sewer/watedutility services to each subdivided unit. <br /> 6. Unit separation must meet building code requirements. <br /> The most common duplex layout is two units side-by-side. A subdivision to separate the two units would <br /> have two potential options: <br /> 1. Split the building and the lot along the party wall linc and its extension so that each wnit has its <br /> owners6ip of the dwelling unit as well as their half of the lat. <br /> 2. Split the building along the party wall line but keep the entire lot outside of the building walls as <br /> a single commonly owned lot or outlot. <br /> Gaffron noted either option may be acceptable subject to the appropriate covenants,maintenance <br /> agreements,easements,etc. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> 1. Orono has very few euisting duplex situations. It is unlikely that a11 have an interest in splitting. <br /> Gaffron noted this proposed zoning amendment is a result of a request from just one property owner. Of <br /> the two identified duplex properties to date, one is less than 0.5 acre in a 1-acre zone,which would not <br /> qualify for a split if the conforming base lot requirement is esta.blished. The other duplelc,which is the <br /> subject of this request,is apparentIy a few square feet short of the 0.5 acre requirement in the LR 1C-1 <br /> half-acre zone,but it was allowod as a conforming duplex lot when the subdivision was approved. In <br /> addition, a portion of it is subject to an easement for access to a Metropolitan Council pumping station. <br /> 2. Will the future creation of conforming singte-farnily lots in the limited areas where duplex use <br /> would be alIowed be a steppung stone to avoiding a rezoning to RPUD or some other zone in <br /> order to establish twinhomes. In that respect,Gaffron stated the question becomes whether it <br /> would be appropriate to establish that a new ordinance to allow separation of ownership af two- <br /> family dwellings can only apply to those dwelliuigs existing as of the date of adopting of the <br /> ordinance. Another question the Planning Commission should consider is whether the creation of <br /> new duplexes is likely or will most future two family dwellings be created so as to be individually <br /> owned. <br /> 3. Should the types of two-fannily dwellings be better defined? Maple Grove makes a distinotion <br /> between side-by-side units,such as a dauble bungatow,and stacked units or duplexes. <br /> Gaffron noted Exhibit C contains a number of definitions of duplexes&om Orono and other cities. <br /> Orono's definition of a dwelling means a building or one or more portions of a building designed or <br /> intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including rooms in motels,hotels, <br /> nursing homes,boarding houses,trailers,tents, eabins, or trailer coaches. A dwelling shall not be <br /> interpreted to include Iodging rooms. <br /> 4. One of the risks in separaring ownership of a duplex building is the real possibility that two <br /> owners have extremely divergent ideas about the visual and maintenance aspects of individual <br /> Page 9 of 13 <br />