Laserfiche WebLink
To; <br />From: <br />Date: <br />11190.2HD <br />Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />January Ilf 1990 <br />Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future <br />Resolution <br />A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan <br />The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable <br />type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject <br />to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway <br />width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases <br />of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway <br />length. <br />The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private <br />road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a <br />right“Of—way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width <br />of 24'. The Subdivision Code requires an outlet for a private <br />road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)]. <br />Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. <br />B. Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intent <br />Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for <br />and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area <br />[Subdivision Code S 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan <br />Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the <br />City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by <br />extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front <br />on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on <br />private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The <br />definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It <br />is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is <br />appropriate.To do so should not require variances.