Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ' <br /> ORONO PLANNING COIVJNIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri120,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> ownership. Examples can be readily found in other cities where two different fagade colors and <br /> styling emerge on one building. How to eliminate such possibilities through the approval <br /> process,such as establishing specific code provisions dictating uniformity via maintenance <br /> covenants is worthy of discussion. Cities do not as a rule dictate building colors or siding styles <br /> but this might be an e�cnple where some level of control is necessary. <br /> Berg asked how the City of Chanhassen handles their duplexes. <br /> Gaffron stated he is not aware of what Chanhassen does,but that Maple Grove has a number of four-unit <br /> buildings with common areas that are not individually owned. <br /> Gaffcon stated in his view they are Iooking at very limited applicability of this ordinance since there are <br /> very few duplexes located in the city. <br /> Gaffron stated a draft ordinance has not yet been prepared but would be drafted based on Planning <br /> Cammission discussion and recommendations. The Planning Commission is requested to review the <br /> attached materials and discuss the concepts and possible concerns noted. <br /> Schcenzeit asked if one of the units is destroyed by a fire whether it could be rebuilt as a single-family <br /> residence since they have a sewer connection. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the things that would need to be put into a covenant or maintenance agreement is <br /> that is it required to be rebuilt to what it originally was. Gaffron stated if the unit is not rebuilt, it would <br /> be considered a substandard vacant lot and it should not be alIowed to be built on unless as originally <br /> approved. Ga�'xon stated it is also unlikely that only one side will burn down. <br /> L,eskinen asked whether both sides would need to be conforming if it is requiz�ed that the base lat needs to <br /> be conforming. Leskinen asked whether you would need a four acre parcel to put a twinhome on it if <br /> each unit is individually owned. <br /> Ga�ron stated witfi a duplex situation,there is a conforming base lot and then they would be creating two <br /> unit lots. A unit lot would be half the size of ths base lot. Ga£fron stated once that is created,restrictions <br /> and covenants would need to be put in place so the property owner would know it has to be an attached <br /> dwelling. Gaffron stated the person could also combin,e the two unit lots and build something but that the <br /> City would not a11ow someone to build a single-family residence on ha.lf of the base lot. <br /> Leskinen asked if this would then be a separate zone, such as multi-family zoning. <br /> Gaffron stated the City does not have a definition for what that zone would be once it is spli� Gaf�'ron <br /> stated it could perhaps be called a duplex zone or considered a PUD situation. <br /> Leskinen asked if a duplex could be huilt on a lot in a single-family district. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City still has the requirement for the 254-foot setback from connmercial. Gaffron <br /> stated the only way to be able to construct a duplex would be to go through a rezoning. <br /> Leskinen stated she recalls a rather lengthy presentation by a developer for a project on Highway 12 and <br /> asked whether those units were proposed to be detached. <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br />