pm_990811 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

frontage and/or area? Paschke door left open in order to assess property by area or frontage for public improvements. Item 5: structure setback "whichever greater"? Paschke: what we are looking at is to get proposed structure further away from existing structures or property lines; setbacks? Paschke we refer to all setbacks/all sides - all 30' from existing structure. Chair Klausing: "which ever is greater" - going 30' from property line you will always be 30' away from structure; Paschke: we tried to keep uniform with existing development. Member Rhody: what they are trying to say" minimum structure setback must meet all property line requirements and in addition must be minimum of 30' from any adjoining structure". Member Rhody: for R-1 lots only? Paschke - this was direction from Planning Commission. If I were owner, I would be tempted to put in higher density for flag lots. Not sure if this is good or bad. Paschke - up to Planning Commission. Rhody: Variance process with this? Paschke: No - specific conditions must be met. Public hearing required by City Council who may approve or deny a request. Rhody: Is there a right of appeal? Paschke: they can appeal at the Council level. Explain Minor Subdivision process. Paschke - could be zero lot line; up to 3-lot subdivision; recombination of lots; each require different process. Member Olson: would this subdivision need a Council hearing? (Yes) Member Egli: Item 8 - idea of right-of-way development? Paschke: Yes - referring to large lot development. Egli: are these typical subdivision requirements (like item 10)? Paschke: City Attorney has reviewed and found proposed ordinance acceptable. Lot dimension questions: minimum 11,000' and does pole enter into this? (Yes). Member Egli if this were shoreland would this be impermeable area (Yes). Egli: seems substantial amount of the area; also, are there limits to number of driveway cuts within given area? Paschke: Not sure - would work with applicant on this. Klausing: seems to me there is a setback from driveway cut to property line Paschke: driveways minimum 5' from property line and corner lot 30' - so would be contributing factors. There be no public questions, Chair Klausing closed the public hearing. Chair Kalusing comments: I have language questions - is this what we want? Need to discuss what we want to accomplish with this ordinance. Are we trying to get too dense development? I think we should start out with purpose of ordinance (definition of flag lots) and establish conditions under which flag lots are created, and why we are doing this (additional development on large underdeveloped lots). Other point: what are we getting at with this ordinance? I thought if person had a parcel of land & lot extremely wide - but not quite wide enough so in some situations we would permit flag lots (ordinance states large, undeveloped low-density parcels). Is the flag lot ordinance a way to get around subdivision? Member Olson agreed. Chair Klausing: what do members think we were trying to do with this ordinance? Member Egli: I am not very much in favor of this ordinance. I reviewed "infill construction" in the Comprehensive Plan (1994). I like the idea that there is a need to provide methods to subdivide where appropriate; would like to see section 1 rewritten. Member Rhody: this is quite a change from past policies of the city; there would have to be very compelling reasons; none approved during my tenure on Planning Commission. Believe we would have several initial applications with this. Believe we need fuller discussion to include those who may be eligible and those affected by this. Chair Klausing: Are there any circumstances where you feel flag lots appropriate? My personal thought: I do think there can be situations where appropriate - but want to move with extreme caution. Member Olson: I believe persons can apply now by coming before Planning Commission and look for variances to subdivide; don't know there should be specific ordinance.