pm_950913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Minutes September 13. 1995 either side. With this design, any siting of the home on the lot would create a front door view facing either the side or rear of adjoining properties. To some neighbors, this presents a concern regarding backyard privacy. The Bowser application includes a request to reduce the 30 ft. frontage to 25 ft. with a driveway no wider than 15 ft. The staff noted that it may be possible for neighbors adjoining the property to agree on a development plan which would provide access to a number of the rear properties allowing more single-family lots to face directly onto a public street. However, siting one flagged lot with the front of the home facing away from a potential future street would limit this opportunity. The engineering department provided five recommendations. The recommendations are attached in the report by the city planning staff. The planning staff has heard from adjoining neighbors who are concerned about this issue of privacy and premature development. The planning staff recommends denial of the request for a division of a platted lot into a flagged lot and a second lot. Member Sandstrom asked if the city actually could propose a new lot through the official mapping process. The staff responded it is possible to do this; however, it is a complicated process. Chairman Wietecki noted that the city has no official policy on flagged lots. Mark Bowser, applicant, stated that the subdivision to the lot would raise the value of the land in the neighborhood. He provided a copy of the county valuation and tax records. Melanie Bowser stated that the concerns of the neighbors should be questioned, including: 1) Flag lot destroys large lot values. 2) There are other flag lots in the community. 3) No street is possible. 4) The lots on the north side of the open space on Parker include a wet land which would hinder further development. Justa Jackson, 1051 Shryer, stated her concerns were that the back yard is a thickly wooded area and that any development would destroy the wildlife areas. Pete Weber, 1026 Shryer, stated he supported the flagged lot. Bob Beshenski, 1040 Parker, stated that flagged lots with multiple driveways could surround individual homes and create islands of homes. He stated he preferred to wait to see whether 15