pm_990714 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

During this discussion the power and the lights went off at 8:12 p.m. A general discussion of flag lots was presented by staff. Member Mulder noted there are two different issues: 1. Eggessa - there is no provision for two dwellings on a lot. (An interim use would help this.) 2. Flag lots may be acceptable but could also be problems for future Planning Commission members. The opportunity for flexibility to address each case on its merits such as Eggessa would be better than a flag lot provision. Member Olson objected to the purpose section of the code. There is no problem with large lots. Member Mulder said adjoining neighbors would be opposed to flag lots because it reduced open space and odd building placement. Member Egli noted a flag lot changes the setback and uses on the site including car storage with flag lot front yard adjacent to back yards - incompatible. It could change water drainage. The "flags" are not restricted to R-1 zones. The thirty-foot setback could interfere with sunlight in winter. Member Cunningham noted that an existing house setback currently setback far on a lot, could, in the future, create a new lot in front - in effect creating flag lots. Member Wilke explained that each flag lot should stand on its own merits. Chair Klausing noted there may not be a direct cause and effect when creating a flag lot. There are situations where this occurs today. Flag lots may allow the city to reduce the development of existing open space - would it make sense to develop the lot? Member Cunningham explained that the flag lot ordinance would allow Eggessa's old house to remain. Member Mulder explained that the flag lot ordinance should not be adopted simply to solve Mr. Eggessa's problem. Thomas Paschke explained the history of flag lots and how "flags" help increase density to the permitted levels. Member Mulder explained that flag lots in new developments work better than trying to introduce such developments within existing residential lots. Chair Klausing liked the concept of flag lots as a more efficient use of land. This ordinance may not be the tool- other options could be looked at. Member Olson explained the areas currently lived in should be retained as large lot livable areas. (Retain the lot size diversity) Member Egli explained concerns with large lot land use conflicts. Are there house identification numbers visible from the street? (Fire issue) Member Cunningham noted the Commission's legacy for future planners should not tie their hands. "Flags" should be looked at individually on their merits. Member Mulder suggested flags as a CUP with conditions. This would allow each lot to stand on its merits with conditions. (General consensus) Member Olson explained that interim uses may be a better approach. 7b. Withdrawal of City Center Task Force comprehensive Plan District Boundary and District Definitions. Chair Klausing explained the reasons for withdrawal by the Task Force. He explained that the misconception was that there was no plan for immediate action, but rather a planning process. The Task Force was describing two different items; relocation of Public Works to an industrial area, and long range planning that included a study of the integration and complementary design at City Center. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Wilke to accept the withdrawal. Ayes: Mulder, Olson, Wilke, Klausing, Rhody, Cunningham Nays: None Motion Carried 6-0