pm_990811 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Klausing: Now would only be able to grant because of physical hardship; if you think flag lots should be permitted, we should look at drafting such an ordinance. Member Olson: I think at this time persons should have to show hardship; if we move this ordinance forward we need to clean up. The pole part being included within the 11,000 sq. ft. is questionable (pole to become a road when appropriate). This would create a substandard lot. Chair Klausing: members may not be enthusiastic, but language needs to be drafted properly if we do. Member Rhody: People have made decisions and purchased homes with the idea that we would not permit flag lots; I think I would listen to these residents... can see some embittered people if this goes through. Planner Paschke: as we got involved with Seth Eggessa case, the whole flag lot situation came up. As of about three years ago, the Council denied; prior to that there were numerous approvals of "flag lots". Chair Klausing: does commission want to proceed, or are we opposed to notion of flag lots? Member Egli: I would be willing to work on language as no matter what we do tonight it will go to Council Member Olson: could we present that way to the Council; right now I could not support flag lot ordinance. I would like to let Council know this. Would like to say I am not in support of flag lots, but if Council wants it, want to prepare language. Chair Klausing: could we table action on this? (Yes) Chair Klausing: Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a definition for a flag lot and to establish the conditions under which flag lots maybe be created. Flag lots will provide the city of Roseville the means to permit where appropriate flag lots on large under-developed lots. Section 2. Definition. First sentence okay. The flag lot is too narrow to allow for construction of the principle structure at the front of the lot; has an extended driveway reaching an area large enough for a principle structure; a flag lot must meet all the minimum standards of an R-1 single family residential district other than lot frontage on a public right-of-way requirement. Member Egli: I really want to address flagpole area, but not sure how to address. Member Olson: Maybe we want requirement higher than minimum R1 lot. Olson: flag lots generally do have more area; maybe we want to have higher Klausing: A flag lot is a parcel or lot which has less than the minimum frontage or lot width on a public right of way specified n the city code. The flag lot is too narrow to allow for construction of the principal structure at the front of the lot. It has an extended driveway reaching an area large enough for the principal structure. The flag lot has more than the required lot depth and area in which it is located. Klausing: Intro language: 1) when you divide into two buildable lots - you have a flag lot 2) can only be created with certain conditions being met 1. Flag lot shall have frontage on and physical access to a public right of way 2. Flag lot frontage is minimum of 40% of required lot frontage in the R1 single family residential district" Rhody: "Frontage should be a minimum of 34 feet" Paschke: shoreland different require 100 ft of frontage. Discussion: percentage or feet? Olson: percentage better 3. emergency vehicle verbage... Egli: need for turn around for emergency vehicles - Paschke: not broght up by fire marshal. (R1 otherwise not required to build a turn around).