Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14,1999 ~.\\ /....' ~ <br />,RE: PROPOSED FLAG LOT ORDINANCE .~.l'lr. <br /> <br />A general discussion was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues .' (1 I <br />1) Eggessa - with no provision for two dwellings on a lot (an interim use would help this); 2) flag i'" q< .... '. <br />lots may be acceptable but could also present compatibility problems for future Planning ~ I W .. <br />Commission members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa variance) would be better than a ~ [Z" <br />new flag lot code provision. " <br /><> <br /> <br />~ Member Olson objected to the purpose of the proposed ordinance. There is no problem with lar~ <br />~. Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because ofreduced ~ ~ <br />~ I I . n space and odd building placement. ~ ~ ~~ <br /> <br />ember Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and land uses on the site including car storage ?, <br />withflaglotfrontyardadjacenttobackyards-incompatibleandcouldchange water drainage. .,'''" _(o:~' ,,1' <br />I~ flag lots are not restricted to R-I zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with su" ~ "'~ <br /> <br />~ .1 wi r. ~~~~ <br />T ~ ~reate ::, Co~~~~~; ;:.~t:::::.,.;,~~::~h~~:~ ~ei~ ~~:~~::::~~:~:~~t pre,.ntco~'{ ~ ' <br /> <br /> <br />)~,. ,,'I',~,: \~' Member Wilke explamed that each nag lot ,hould ,tand on it, own me.;iS and be reviewe"f".;>>~.~ .' '@/' <br />,~ individually. · ~~ ~ d <br /> <br />Chair Kla..ing noted there may not be a direct can,. and effect when creating a nag loe · Tbere;\I1 ~~, <br />situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development df ~ ::.p ~ <br />~ ~ ~::,.ting open 'pace el.ewhere in the city or metro area - it wonld then make ..n.. to develop the ~ ~ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~ j.:!Iii j:,:~:,Mulder .tated the nag lot ordinance .honld not be adopted .imply to .olve Mr, Egge..a'. ~~. <br /> <br /> <br />~ - . ~homas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how they are used to fill in voids in low- ~ 0 rf;; I' .. <br />density areas where up to four units per acre are allowed. cJ:... .,, ~ <br /> <br />Member Mulder said flag lots in new developments work better than trying to introduce such new'\\~<&-~~~~'0 <br />flag lots among existing residential lots. ~"<W ,~Q ~, <br /> <br />Chair Klausing liked the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use ofland. This ordinance may ~ <br />not be the tool - other options could be looked at. '. I ~, 0 <br /> <br />ember Olson explained the areas currently lived in should be retained as large lot liva. ble are#.' " " <br />9these large lots add to the quality of life in the first ring suburbs. ~~... .' .1' ~~ <br /> <br />Member Egli expressed concerns with large lot, land use and setback conflicts. Are there h. 0 ~ ~~.. ". ..' I.~ '." ,- <br />identification numbers from the street (fire issue)? " I . ~~' )~~ <br /> <br />Mwber Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners. The ordinance should not tie the :~~". ~ ~ <br />nds of future generations. Each situation should be looked at individually on merits. M. .em. b...e r t.,. (~ <br />. der would like to see flag lots as a CUP with conditions. This would allow each lot to stand 0 .'.' . <br />'s merits with conditions. (general consensus) <br /> <br />Member Olson explained that interim uses may also be a better approach, especially fo~\~'!a. <br />Q:\Planning Files\3133]lag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc 'ee~ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />