Laserfiche WebLink
<br />VP3133 <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 present compatibility problems for future Planning <br />Commission members. The opportunity for flexibility (Eggessa variance) would be better than a <br />new flag lot code provision. <br /> <br />Member Olson objected to the purpose of the proposed ordinance. There is no problem with large <br />lots. Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because of reduced <br />open space and odd building placement. <br /> <br />Member Egli noted a flag lot changes the setbacks and land uses on the site including car storage <br />with flag lot front yard adjacent to back yards - incompatible and.could change water drainage. <br />The flag lots are not restricted to R-1 zones. The 30-foot setback could interfere with sunlight in <br />winter. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted that an existing house set far back from the street at present could <br />create an opportunity for a new regular lot in front - in effect, creating flag lots. <br /> <br />Member Wilke explained that each flag lot should stand on its own merits and be reviewed <br />individually. <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 elsewhere in the city or metro area - it would then make sense to develop the <br />lot. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham explained that the flag lot ordinance would allow Eggessa's old house to <br />remain. <br /> <br />Member Mulder stated the flag lot ordinance should not be adopted simply to solve Mr. Eggessa's <br />problem. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how they are used to fill in voids in low- <br />density areas where up to four units per acre are allowed. <br /> <br />Member Mulder said flag lots in ~ developments work better than trying to introduce such new <br />flag lots among existing residential lots. <br /> <br />Chair Klausing liked 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 he retained as large lot livable areas _ <br />these large lots add to the quality oflife in the first ring suburbs. <br /> <br />Member Egli expressed concerns with large lot, land use and setback conflicts. Are there house <br />identification numbers from the street (fire issue)? <br /> <br />Member Cunningham noted the legacy for future planners. The ordinance should not tie the <br />hands of future generations. Each situation should be looked at individually on merits. Member <br />Mulder would like to see flag lots as a CUP with conditions. This would allow each lot to stand on <br />its merits with conditions. (general consensus) <br /> <br />Member Olson explained that interim uses may also be a better approach, especially for Eggessa. <br />Q:\Planning Files\3133_Flag Lots Ordinance\EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 14.doc <br />