Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />September 19, 1988 <br />Page 5 <br />We have discussed this matter with the City Attorney and he <br />acknowledges that the Code does distinguish between private and <br />public streets and that no length maximum is stated for private <br />cul-de-sacs. He also notes that a literal reading of the Code <br />would indicate that the City will allow private cul-de-sacs of <br />any length, with no consideration for public safety, or even <br />the Community's Transportation planning objectives. Clearly <br />that would be an unreasonable interpretation. <br />As you know, this is an application for approval of a PRD. <br />That section of the Ordinance does permit some flexibility in <br />lot size and contains some provisions related to private open <br />space. It does not authorize the departure from the strict <br />interpretation of the other performance standards (setbacks, <br />height limitations, etc.). The proposed PUD Chapter that the <br />Planning Commission recommended to the City Council at the last <br />workshop meeting would permit design flexibility of this <br />nature, if they presented certain desirable opportunities for <br />the community. <br />From the discussion presented above it is clear that the City <br />should act on this application with the understanding that the <br />proposed cul-de-sac length does not require the approval of a <br />variance. we recommend that the Planning Commission and City <br />Council not only consider this request on its merits, but also <br />in the context of the standard that you wish to set for <br />subsequent requests. Because you should always strive to act <br />consistently in similar factual situations. <br />What is very important to unde:ftand, however, is that since <br />this application does Ilot require a variance, you do not need <br />to find a hardship present in order to approve it. Rather, you <br />could cite other findings to justify the approval, and if these <br />findings are prepared carefully, the problem of creating a <br />precedent can be mitigated. <br />The applicants have analyzed the suggestion of looping the <br />proposed street. They plan to make a complete presentation to <br />the Planning Commission and City Council and fully explain why <br />they have chosen not to follow that suggestion. Basically, <br />they have found that because of the topography in this area, <br />the grading required to complete the loop would be extensive. <br />They find that approximately 3/4 of an acre of additional woods <br />would have to be cleared and that much of this street extension <br />would be constructed at approximately 8 percent gradient. <br />