Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />2 Thomas Paschke noted that many lots could meet the size and frontage but there <br />3 are far less than 250 lots that could actually be developed. <br />4 <br />5 Chair Klausing asked Thomas Paschke to describe the past history of this request. <br />6 The City Council tabled a flag lot request and requested the staff to prepare <br />7 options. The City Council asked for a draft ordinance and sought input. <br />8 <br />9 Member Cunningham noted that there is one flag lot on County Road B for which <br />10 more detail would be helpful. He suggested more information from neighbors <br />11 adjoining existing flag lots. <br />12 <br />13 Member Cunningham suggested the flag lot minimum frontage should be 85 feet. <br />14 <br />15 Member Egli suggested that the subdivision with a standard 85-foot frontage <br />16 might be appropriate; something less may not be possible to deny; it may be a <br />17 "switch behind people's backs". <br />18 <br />19 Member Wilke noted that there might be some instances where flag lots are a <br />20 reasonable solution. <br />21 <br />22 Member Mulder noted that a 180-foot lot could be subdivided and meet the Code. <br />23 The "flag" should be 85 feet and meet setbacks and size for a regular lot. <br />24 <br />25 Chair Klausing clarified the direction to the Planning Commission from the City <br />26 Council; the Planning Commission should report something. The City Council <br />27 must make the decision. <br />28 <br />29 Member Cunningham suggested a frontage of 85% frontage rather than 40%. <br />30 <br />31 Member Egli explained that shape is different than size; a flag (or "1" shaped lot) <br />32 that meets all requirements could be approved. There should be no prohibition. <br />33 <br />34 Member Olson explained that the description of a flag lot in the proposed <br />35 ordinance includes substandard size. <br />36 <br />37 Motion. Member Klausing moved, seconded by Member Wilke, to recommend <br />38 approval of the proposed ordinance on flag lots. (See below) <br />39 <br />40 Member Cunningham asked that the frontage of a flag lot be 60% of the required <br />41 lot (Section 3, #2). <br />42 <br />43 Member Cunningham suggested the Planning Commission table and notify <br />44 property owners who could comment on the request. <br />45 <br />