Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Janice Berg, Loren Schoenzeit, Jon Schwingler, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Denny Walsh was present. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16,2015 Schoenzeit moved,Berg seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of March 16,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #15-3726 GREGORY WffiTE ON BEHALF OF GREGORY AND LYNN WHITE, STEVEN AND PATRICIA WHITE AND TODD AND LISA SYLVESTER,4245,4355,AND 4375 BAYSIDE ROAD,SUBDIVISION FOR A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT,6:35 P.M.—6:40 P.M. Gregory White, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated this application contemplates a lot line rearrangement between each of the three properties located at 4245 Bayside Road, 4355 Bayside Road, and 4375 Bayside Road. The applicant is requesting approval to transfer the eastern 4.61 acres south of Bayside Road of the 4355 Bayside property to be combined with the Sylvester property at 4245 Bayside. In addition,the applicant is requesting to transfer the 7.06 acre portion of the 4355 Bayside property on the north side of Bayside Road to be combined with the Steven White property at 4375 Bayside property. The lot line rearrangement will not result in the creation of a new buildable lot or any new nonconformity. Staff's report reflects the acreages were reported as gross acreages and does not subtract wetlands, rights-of-way, or easements. Curtis indicated the eastern property is located entirely within LR-lA lakeshore residential district and the western two properties are located within three separate zoning districts: LR-lA, RR-lA, and RR-1B. Currently each property conforms to/exceeds minimum lot area and width requirements for all of the applicable zoning districts. Following the lot line rearrangement, the properties will continue to be conforming with regard to width and area. The applicant has provided new proposed legal descriptions for each property. Staff does recommend the approval of lot line rearrangements as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. The east 4.61 acre portion of the 4355 Bayside property to be transferred to the Sylvesters shall be combined with the Sylvester property at 4245 Bayside Road and not remain as a stand-alone Page 1 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 20,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. lot as a result of this approval. Likewise,the northern 7.06 acre portion of the 4355 Bayside property to be transferred to the 4375 Bayside property shall be combined with the 4375 Bayside property at the time of recording; and 2. The applicant will be required to record the new deeds based on the new legal descriptions. Curtis stated the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and discuss the application. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. White stated he had nothing to add to Staffls report but would be available for questions. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Shirley Rezabek, 4185 Bayside Road, pointed out her property and driveay on the overhead. Rezabek noted the driveway already has four houses located on it. Rezabek asked if the combined property would now be a buildable lot and whether they would exit onto the road or the driveway. Curtis stated the property that is being transferred to the Sylvester property will be combined with the house lot and would have to be subdivided in order to create the second lot. Rezabek asked if it will be a buildable lot. Curtis indicated it will not be a new buildable lot and will be combined with the existing lot. Rezabek asked how many acres the new lot will be. Curtis indicated the new combined property will consist of 11.75 acres. Curtis stated at some point in the future they could subdivide it. Rezabek asked if they would have any assurance of people not entering on the driveway if it is ever subdivided. Curtis stated she would be notified of a public hearing if it were ever to be subdivided. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Leskinen stated the application seems pretty straight forward. Leskinen stated she understands the conditions that Staff is recommending, which will help ensure that only three lots will be created and not five. Schwingler stated he has no concerns based on what is in front of the Planning Commission. Schwingler moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3726 Gregory White on behalf of Gregory and Lynn White, Steven and Patricia White and Todd and Lisa Sylvester,4245,4355,and 4375 Bayside Road,granting of a lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. #15-3727 JOHN BROOKS,905 AND 960 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, SUBDIVISION FOR A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT,6:40 P.M.—6:45 P.M. John Adams was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is represented tonight by John Adams. The applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement. In this case a portion of the property at 960, located on the north side of Ferndale, is a triangular piece of property that is virtually all wetland with a portion of shoreland. The triangle is proposed to be transferred to the property to the south and combined with the property to the south at 905 West Ferndale. Gaffron stated the portion that is being transferred, because it is either a very thin strip of shoreland or is wetland, really has no impact on the build-ability of the lot. The applicant also owns the parcel to the east. The applicant has not indicated that he plans to combine the triangle with the property to the east, but that piece by itself is almost entirely wetland. Gaffron pointed out the channel on the overhead. The 929.4 elevation actually follows the shoreline. Gaffron stated Ferndale Marsh is really contiguous with the lake because of that channel. Staff recommends approval of the application. No new lots are being created as a result of the lot line rearrangement. The applicant will be required to provide new legal descriptions and complete the appropriate paperwork. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. John Adams stated he would be able to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Leskinen stated this application is also pretty straight forward. Berg moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3727,John Brooks, 905 and 960 Ferndale Road West,granting of a lot line rearrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #15-3728 W LANDSCAPES,INC., ON BEHALF OF KEVIN AND TERESA TORGERSON, 1410 CHERRY PLACE,VARIANCE,6:45 P.M.—6:50 P.M. Mark Hauri, W Landscapes, Inc., was present. Curtis stated in November of 2014, a permit was issued for construction of a new residence on this property. As part of the redevelopment of the property,the owners wish to improve the lakeshore area by constructing new or replacement retaining walls; rebuilding and reorienting the lake access stair system; replacing in kind the existing deck over the boathouse; and install a permeable patio or a permeable landscape rock area to replace in kind an existing wooden deck on the lakeside of the boathouse. Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. The retaining walls within the 75-foot setback are the subject to tonight's hardcover variance, which is required due to the reconfiguration. An in-kind replacement of the retaining walls would be permitted without a hardcover variance. As stated within Staffls report,the hardcover calculations and the survey showing the existing conditions near the lake provided with the application were inadequate. The applicant worked with Staff and has provided a revised survey calculations and landscape plan resulting in 24.9 percent hardcover, which would be permitted. The revised plan reflects a reduction in hardcover of 201 square feet within the 75- foot setback area to offset the decking that was shown in the Staff report. The applicant's plan involves rebuilding and rearranging this lake access stair new the existing boathouse, installing new retaining walls, replacing an existing deck, and replacing the decking on the lakeside of the boathouse with a landscaped rock area. Curtis noted the retaining wall is the only new hardcover. The stairway and landing is permitted since it is an allowed hardcover structure within the 0-75 and not subject to the variance. The retaining walls will not result in an increase of hardcover over 25 percent and appear to be necessary to ensure the stability of the slope without significant grading to stabilize the lake yard without walls. Staff finds that the variance to allow the construction of the reconfigured retaining wall within the 0-75 foot zone appears to be reasonable and consistent with similar properties in the neighborhood and the retaining wall plan will offer an improvement from the existing wooden tiered walls when viewed from the lake. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and no significant concerns were noted. Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance for the retaining wall to be located within the 0-75 foot setback according to revised submitted plans and consistent with compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the 0-75 foot zone which offers screening of the improvements from the lake; 2. Applicant shall provide a revised hardcover calculation and survey showing total site hardcover conforming at or below 25 percent for final inspections and for issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the new home; 3. An administrative zoning permit will be required prior to commencement of the proposed work within the 75-foot setback; 4. The applicant shall comply with permitting requirements of the MCWD. Curtis stated the Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and discuss the application. Leskinen asked how much hardcover will now be in the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis indicated the applicants have reduced it by 201 square feet. Mark Hauri, W Landscapes, stated he is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Page 4 of 13 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Leskinen noted most of the hardcover is allowed and that the reconfiguring of the stairs and retaining walls is what triggered this review. Schoenzeit stated in his view Staff's recommendation covered it well. Thiesse stated he has no concerns. Thiesse asked if the tallest wall is two feet tall consisting of boulders. Hauri indicated it is. Thiesse questioned the need for a landscape plan to reduce the view of the wall from the lake. Leskinen stated she has no particular concerns that have not already been addressed in Staffls report. Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3728,W Landscapes,Inc.,on behalf of Kevin and Teresa Torgerson, 1410 Cherry Place,granting of a variance,subject to Staff s recommendations with the elimination of the requirement for a landscape plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5 #15-3729 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB,725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:51 P.M.—7:02 P.M. Tim Johnson, Spring Hill Golf Club, was present. Curtis stated Spring Hill Golf Club has requested approval of a conditional use permit to construct a winter accessory practice and training building approximately 55 feet from Sixth Avenue North accessed off of the golf club entry road. Spring Hill Golf Club exists within the RR-1B district and operates under a conditional use permit. All accessory buildings are subject to the conditional use permit and must be located at least 50 feet from adjacent properties zoned for residential use. The Code provides guidance for reviewing conditional use permits. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant conditional use permits based upon an application and evidence submitted. Further,the City must find the proposed use on the proposed site to be in conformance with the standards outlined in City Code Section 78-916 and are subject to additional conditions the Council feels are necessary. With regard to this application, a majority of the conditions listed in Staff's report are generally applicable. Staff notes the proposed location and elevations of the holding tanks for the septic appear to conflict with the proposed grading plan to create a stormwater pond adjacent to County Road 6. Before this application moves forward to the City Council,the applicants must coordinate the two plans and make whatever revisions necessary to eliminate the conflict. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. In addition,the proposed site plan would appear to remove nearly all of the existing vegetation that might screen the building from public view. Staff would recommend a vegetation plan be submitted and implemented as soon as possible following building construction to regain a level of screening that would hide the building. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit allowing the construction and use of the winter practice and training facility as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. The location for the stormwater ponding area and the proposed septic tank locations shall be coordinated prior to placement on the City Council agenda for approval; 2. A re-vegetation plan screening the new building from Sixth Avenue shall be submitted prior to placement on the City Council agenda for approval; 3. Applicants shall maintain the septic system under a contract with a licensed pumper and annual pumping reports shall be submitted to the City; 4. All necessary permits by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District shall be obtained; 5. All exterior lighting shall be held to Dark Sky lighting standards to minimize glare; 6. All necessary City construction permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. Leskinen asked if this section of County Road 6 is part of the City's scenic byway. Gaffron stated the Comprehensive Plan under the classification functional roadways identifies various types of arterial streets, collector streets that are local,and then something called a scenic parkway designation. Most of those areas are located around Lake Minnetonka. Gaffron indicated County Road 6 is not designated as a scenic parkway. Tim Johnson, Spring Hill Golf Club, stated the septic tanks are in the process of being moved to the other side of the road and the landscape plan will be completed within the week. Leskinen asked what building materials they anticipate using. Johnson indicated the materials will consist of cedar shake siding with cedar shakes on the roof,which is similar to the clubhouse. Leskinen asked what the reasoning is for putting it so close to County Road 6 as opposed to closer to the clubhouse. Johnson indicated it is in close proximity to the practice facility and that there really is no room to locate it close to the clubhouse. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Leskinen stated she does have concerns with cutting all the vegetation and getting it rescreened given the close proximity to the road. Thiesse stated that unfortunately is part of construction. Leskinen stated if it was on one of the City's scenic byways, she would have a harder time approving it. Berg stated in her view they will try and screen it. Leskinen noted the Minnehaha Creek application is incomplete. Leskinen asked if the applicant is working on getting the rest of the paperwork completed. Johnson stated the last thing they have to complete is to create a stormwater retention pond based on the hard surface and that they are waiting for some soil borings to be completed where the retention pond will be located. Johnson stated to his knowledge all of their engineering questions have been answered. Johnson stated the trees that will be removed are on top of the bank and there will still be a lot of trees remaining along the bank that will not be cut. All trees will be individually tagged that will be removed. Johnson indicated the trees that will be removed are basically all Black Hill Spruce and those will be replaced with similar plant material. Leskinen stated her other concern is the fact that a conditional use permit runs with the property. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any concerns with that. The Planning Commission expressed no concerns. Schwingler moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3729,Spring Hill Golf Club,25 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a conditional use permit subject to the conditions outlined in Staff s report. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission needs to go through each of the items for the conditional use permit. Curtis stated Staffls report is part of the public record, and if there is something the Planning Commission would like to discuss specifically,they can do that. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. #14-3724 CITY OF ORONO,SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,PROVISION FOR SUBDIVISION OF TWO-FAMILY LOTS,7:02 P.M.—7:40 P.M. Gaffron stated the City received a request from a resident who is the owner of a duplex wanting to subdivide an existing duplex lot in order to be able to sell each half of the duplex building separately. Staff has concluded that the City's subdivision code does not contain the necessary provisions to allow that to happen. This item was brought before the City Council a couple of weeks ago and they agreed the City should go ahead with the code review process. Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff feels the provisions for splitting a duplex do not already exist because there are only a few duplex situations in Orono and there has never been a request for such a split previously. Gaffron indicated he was able to come up with two duplexes in the City. Berg indicated there is one on the end of Lydiard and one on Lydiard Circle. Gaffron stated the third one is located on North Shore Drive and was created within the past 20 years. Staff has concluded if the split were to happen,there should be a number of standards added to the code. Gaffron indicated he has provided a history of the code provisions for duplex use going back to 1968, when it was first addressed. The most recent action on this code provision occurred in 2010 as part of a reorganization of the Conditional Use section in each zoning district. At that time the term duplex was deleted and the term "two-family dwelling"was substituted. At one point there was a standard requirement that a duplex be allowed not only within 200 feet of any commercial district but within 250 feet of the B-3 district, which is the Lund's property. This was for a proposed duplex on the site of the fire station back in the 1940's to 1960's. That lot resulted in a specific code change that was never acted on in terms of developing a duplex. Eventually the B-3, 250-foot setback requirement or allowance was deleted. The text of the code originally included the phrase"one duplex may be located on a single lot,"which apparently carried through until at least 1997 when the provision for proximity to B-3 was added. It is unclear from discussions contained in Staff inemos and minutes whether the language was changed purposely, as dropping that phrase was apparently not discussed. Gaffron noted this duplex does meet the 250-foot setback. The intent remains clear, however, as the test still required for the two-family dwelling that the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial parceL In addition, it appears that the definition of duplex contained in the body of the text was also eliminated; although,the Shoreland Ordinance definition remains in effect. The original intent of the duplex ordinance apparently was to allow one building containing two independent dwelling units on a property,with the entire building and land owned by one person. The ability to own or sell just one of the dwelling units as a separate tax parcel requires approval of a subdivision. Orono's subdivision code does not contain provisions for a dedicated process to accomplish this type of split and allow ownership on each side of the duplex. Many other cities have added specific provisions to allow for individual ownership of units within a two-family dwelling. Gaffron indicated he has provided some sample ordinances within Staffls report. Common elements include: 1. The base lot must meet all requirements of the zoning district. 2. The unit lot created by splitting the base lot in two can have only one principal building, which would be the portion of the attached dwelling existing or constructed on the platted unit lot. 3. Permitted accessory uses in the underlying zoning district are acceptable if they meet all zoning requirements. 4. Property maintenance and party wall agreement will be required. One of the reasons that is critical relates to future maintenance of the duplex. Page 8 of 13 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 20,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. Must have separate sewer/water/utility services to each subdivided unit. 6. Unit separation must meet building code requirements. The most common duplex layout is two units side-by-side. A subdivision to separate the two units would have two potential options: 1. Split the building and the lot along the party wall line and its extension so that each unit has its ownership of the dwelling unit as well as their half of the lot. 2. Split the building along the party wall line but keep the entire lot outside of the building walls as a single commonly owned lot or outlot. Gaffron noted either option may be acceptable subject to the appropriate covenants, maintenance agreements, easements, etc. The Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. Orono has very few existing duplex situations. It is unlikely that all have an interest in splitting. Gaffron noted this proposed zoning amendment is a result of a request from just one property owner. Of the two identified duplex properties to date, one is less than 0.5 acre in a 1-acre zone, which would not qualify for a split if the conforming base lot requirement is established. The other duplex, which is the subject of this request, is apparently a few square feet short of the 0.5 acre requirement in the LR-1G1 half-acre zone, but it was allowed as a conforming duplex lot when the subdivision was approved. In addition, a portion of it is subject to an easement for access to a Metropolitan Council pumping station. 2. Will the future creation of conforming single-family lots in the limited areas where duplex use would be allowed be a stepping stone to avoiding a rezoning to RPUD or some other zone in order to establish twinhomes. In that respect, Gaffron stated the question becomes whether it would be appropriate to establish that a new ordinance to allow separation of ownership of two- family dwellings can only apply to those dwellings existing as of the date of adopting of the ordinance. Another question the Planning Commission should consider is whether the creation of new duplexes is likely or will most future two family dwellings be created so as to be individually owned. 3. Should the types of two-family dwellings be better defined? Maple Grove makes a distinction between side-by-side units, such as a double bungalow,and stacked units or duplexes. Gaffron noted Exhibit C contains a number of definitions of duplexes from Orono and other cities. Orono's definition of a dwelling means a building or one or more portions of a building designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residence purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses,trailers,tents, cabins, or trailer coaches. A dwelling shall not be interpreted to include lodging rooms. 4. One of the risks in separating ownership of a duplex building is the real possibility that two owners have extremely divergent ideas about the visual and maintenance aspects of individual Page 9 of 13 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. ownership. Examples can be readily found in other cities where two different fa�ade colors and styling emerge on one building. How to eliminate such possibilities through the approval process, such as establishing specific code provisions dictating uniformity via maintenance covenants is worthy of discussion. Cities do not as a rule dictate building colors or siding styles but this might be an example where some level of control is necessary. Berg asked how the City of Chanhassen handles their duplexes. Gaffron stated he is not aware of what Chanhassen does, but that Maple Grove has a number of four-unit buildings with common areas that are not individually owned. Gaffron stated in his view they are looking at very limited applicability of this ordinance since there are very few duplexes located in the city. Gaffron stated a draft ordinance has not yet been prepared but would be drafted based on Planning Commission discussion and recommendations. The Planning Commission is requested to review the attached materials and discuss the concepts and possible concerns noted. Schoenzeit asked if one of the units is destroyed by a fire whether it could be rebuilt as a single-family residence since they have a sewer connection. Gaffron stated one of the things that would need to be put into a covenant or maintenance agreement is that is it required to be rebuilt to what it originally was. Gaffron stated if the unit is not rebuilt, it would be considered a substandard vacant lot and it should not be allowed to be built on unless as originally approved. Gaffron stated it is also unlikely that only one side will burn down. Leskinen asked whether both sides would need to be conforming if it is required that the base lot needs to be conforming. Leskinen asked whether you would need a four acre parcel to put a twinhome on it if each unit is individually owned. Gaffron stated with a duplex situation,there is a conforming base lot and then they would be creating two unit lots. A unit lot would be half the size of the base lot. Gaffron stated once that is created, restrictions and covenants would need to be put in place so the property owner would know it has to be an attached dwelling. Gaffron stated the person could also combine the two unit lots and build something but that the City would not allow someone to build a single-family residence on half of the base lot. Leskinen asked if this would then be a separate zone, such as multi-family zoning. Gaffron stated the City does not have a definition for what that zone would be once it is split. Gaffron stated it could perhaps be called a duplex zone or considered a PUD situation. Leskinen asked if a duplex could be built on a lot in a single-family district. Gaffron indicated the City still has the requirement for the 250-foot setback from commercial. Gaffron stated the only way to be able to construct a duplex would be to go through a rezoning. Leskinen stated she recalls a rather lengthy presentation by a developer for a project on Highway 12 and asked whether those units were proposed to be detached. Page 10 of 13 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated those are being called detached townhomes and the units would have roughly 5-foot setbacks on either side. Gaffron indicated that would be an RPUD. Schoenzeit stated since this is not a symmetric lot, a base lot with commons would be the City sort of allowing the introduction of trouble. Gaffron commented the concept sounds simple but there are some complex issues that will need to be addressed. Thiesse asked what the benefits to the City are of doing this. Gaffron stated it may help make the property more marketable since the owner of the property would be able to sell the other half as opposed to being a landlord. Gaffron stated there could also be the situation where there is a duplex and the landlord lives off site. Gaffron stated that situation could potentially deteriorate because there are two separate tenants,with the owner being off site. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is being asked to create legislation based on one person's request for something that is very limited in the City. � Schoenzeit noted building code would also mandate separate sewer and meters. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated the City has not received a formal application yet and that the person has merely asked if she would be allowed to do this. Gaffron stated currently the person is living in one-half of the duplex but that she could sell the whole thing or continue to be a landlord. Gaffron stated if the City had a number of duplexes,there would likelybe more of a cry for change. Leskinen asked if there is any other avenue the City could take to address this situation without creating new code. Gaffron stated he doubts it. Gaffron indicated he did speak with the City Attorney about doing this under a PUD or RPUD but that the current code does not address it at all. Thiesse asked if she could sell half the building and some of the land. Gaffron stated he does not believe so. Schoenzeit stated they actually allow separate ownership of each unit in San Francisco. Gaffron stated that situation exists at Stone Bay. Thiesse stated this could not be ownership but rights to use. Gaffron stated in this situation he does not have a strong recommendation for how the Planning Commission should proceed. Gaffron indicated he has provided some sample ordinances from other cities and that he would suggest the Planning Commission think about this for a month. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commissioners could contact him if something comes to mind and it can be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Page 11 of 13 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if the City really cares if the line for the land meanders. Gaffron stated he does not know if the City Council would care. Gaffron noted Lakeview has established a standard unit lot and that the zoning district standards also have a separate lot requirement or lot size requirement for the unit lot. Gaffron stated that could be an option in this case. Leskinen asked what the worst case scenario if the City does nothing in terms of changing the code. Gaffron stated the one resident would likely not be very happy. Thiesse noted the person purchased the property as a duplex and that any change in the code would only improve a single person's situation or, at best, five people. Leskinen stated historically there has been code written for one or two people in Orono and that somehow or other it comes back to bite later on. Leskinen stated she is not aware of what the ramifications will be if this is allowed. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to consider what is likely to get built in the future. Gaffron stated people are not likely to construct duplexes but are more likely to build individual units so there can be separate ownership. Gaffron stated in his view it is not very likely there will be a bunch of duplexes around the perimeter of the City's commercial districts. Thiesse asked what the difference is between this building and a twinhome or townhome. Gaffron stated it would depend on what the definition is. Gaffron indicated Mound defines a twinhome where each unit is on a separate lot and that a two-family home or duplex is considered to be a two dwelling unit building on one single lot. Thiesse stated by creating two lots,that would make it a twinhome based on those definitions. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table this application tonight. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 14-3724, City of Orono,Subdivision Ordinance Amendment,Provision for Subdivision of Two-Family Lots. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON MARCH 23,2015 AND APRIL 13,2015 Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,Apri120,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated he attended the March 23 City Council meeting. The officers involved in the shooting of Dr. Larson were presented the medal of valor and the Fred Johnson application was denied. Gaffron reported the Council amended the Land Source development agreement to allow them to use the existing grade, denied the Orchard Beach Place application, and approved the small wind energy conversion system ordinance with the exclusion of the requirement for a shadow flicker report. Gaffron stated one of the key issues discussed was the required acreage for the rural residential properties. The ordinance at this time requires ten acres for residential and five acres for commercial. The review of the stormwater fees was tabled. Gaffron stated at the April 13 City Council meeting, the Council received an update from the police department and denied the request by Willi Abbott and the application by Bessesen and Wasmoen. In addition,the Chris Perry application was approved and the Newell application was put on the Consent Agenda. Curtis stated the Council also approved re-inspection fees for code violations. Curtis stated the initial investigation has no charge,the follow-up inspection has no charge, but if there is still no compliance after those two inspections,each subsequent inspection will result in a re-inspection fee. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: � ; ;,, /�-t� - Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 13 of 13