Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.J <br /> <br />EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14,1999 <br />RE: PROPOSED FLAG LOT ORDINANCE <br /> <br />A general discussion was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues <br />1) Eggessa - with no provision for two dwellings on a lot (an interim use would help this); 2) flag <br />lots may be acceptable but could also be visible problems for future Planning Commission <br />members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa) would be better than a flag lot provision. <br /> <br />Member Olson object to the purpose section ofthe Code. There is no problem with large lots. <br />Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because of reduced open <br />space and odd building placement. <br /> <br />Member Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and uses on the stie including car storage with <br />flag lot font yard adjacent to back yards - incompatible. Could change water drainage. The flags <br />are not restricted to R-l zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with sunlight in winter. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted that an existing house setback for at present could create a new lot in <br />front - in effect creating flag lots. <br /> <br />Member Wilke explained that each flag lot should stand on its own merits. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing noted there may not be a direct cause and effect when creating a flag lot. There are <br />situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development of <br />existing open space - would it make sense to develop the lot. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham explained that the flag lot ordinance would allow Eggessa's old house to <br />remain. <br /> <br />Member Mulder explained that the flag lot ordinance should not be adopted simply to solve Mr. <br />Eggessa's problem. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how to increase density. <br /> <br />Member Mulder explained that flag lots in new developments works better than trying to <br />introduce such developments among existing residential lots. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing likes the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use of land. This ordinance may <br />not be the tool - other options could be looked at. <br /> <br />Member Olson explained the areas currently lived in should be retained as large lot livable areas. <br /> <br />Member Egli explained concerns with large lot land use conflicts. Are there house identification <br />numbers from the street (fire issue). <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners - should not tie the hands of future <br />generations - should be looked at individually on their merits. Member Mulder like to see them as <br />a CUP with conditions. This would allow each <br /> <br />Member Olson explained that interim uses may be a better approach. <br /> <br />Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc <br />