Laserfiche WebLink
To:Planning Coimnission Chairman Kellay Orono Planning Conanission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn <br />From:Michael ?. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date January 11^ 1990 <br />Subject: Code/Comcrehensive Plan Conflicts Meeding Future <br />Resolution <br />A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code S Contprahensive Plan <br />The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable <br />f/te of access to serve a maximum of three residentSr not subject <br />to'anv cublic 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 t.he Zoning code) provides private <br />road design standards that state for 3 to_6 residential units, a <br />richt-of-way width of 50 ’ is required, with a minimt^ paved wid^h <br />of"24'. The Subdivision Code requires an putlog -or a private <br />road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision ^1 (C)J. <br />Clearlv, there is a conflict between these two doouments. <br />3. Conflict Between Zoning Code S Citv'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 P-an <br />Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the <br />City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, y <br />extranolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front <br />on a ‘public street, therefore new lots ?”P°sed to front on <br />orivate roads require a variance (see MPG memo or j/6/8oj. -*.ne <br />definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of -evasion. u <br />is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is <br />aopropriate^Tb do so should not require variances.