Laserfiche WebLink
h11190.2HDTo: Planning Conunission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorJanuary 11, 1990Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing FutureResolutionA. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive PlanThe Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway 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 § 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.