Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Should refer to R1 only? Discussion. <br /> <br />Rhody/Klausing limit to R1 districts? Olson: R1 only. <br /> <br />Paschke: R1, R2, R3, R3A only districts with width & depth, etc requirements. Recommend leave at R1 and R2.or <br />single family only. Prefer to leave as is. <br /> <br />4. Flag lot assessed... . <br /> <br />Klausing: is this an appropriate criteria? Pull out for now. Olson: where ever it gets placed, clarify. ... "assessed <br />appropriately, etc" frontage vs. area. <br /> <br />5. Minimum structure setback... <br /> <br />Rhody: should read: "structure must meet all minimum property line setbacks and must be at least 30' away from <br />any structure on an adjoining lot" <br /> <br />Egli: like Rhody's version "30 feet from principal structure" <br /> <br />Rhody: "the principal structure must meet the standard setbacks for R1 district and in addition, must be 30' or more <br />from the adjoining principal structure". <br /> <br />Egli: I was talking about principal structure not sheds. Paschke: we were talking about all structures. <br /> <br />Egli: should say all structures also address solar access- 30' enough? <br /> <br />Paschke: could stipulate setbacks from property lines; DRC could review; <br /> <br />Solar - I agree that in some instances you may have such cases - problem not a unilateral ordinance... flag lots <br />should not have to meet stricter requirements than other lots <br /> <br />Klausing: would like more time to digest - look at sites - measure off- <br /> <br />Rhody - tour - typical lots? Pictorial tour appropriate - staff to follow through. Helpful to see other flag lots. Other <br />cities where done? Paschke will follow through - addresses of their flag lots - and flag lots in Roseville. <br /> <br />6. building design site layout... <br /> <br />Egli: I do still have concern about solar - but should be citywide; also we should take into account drainage pattern <br />Paschke: can be inserted in second sentence... (site drainage) - ok <br /> <br />7. service connections... <br /> <br />Paschke: if you create a flag lot you don't need to construct additions to main line services in order to have <br />lateral/stubs onto lot... . property own or developer responsible for hook up costs. Would eliminate extensions of <br />existing systems or services... <br /> <br />Klausing: unless city pays for, why would we care? Paschke discussed rationale. Olson: okay the way it is. <br /> <br />Klausing: language needs to be stated bit differently... more clearly we should say cannot do this... "proposed flag <br />lot may not be constructed if it requires installation of additional public utilities" <br /> <br />8. principal structure... .if adjoining property becomes available..... <br /> <br />Paschke: instances where you have large lots that property owner is interested in subdividing a portion - but any <br />future split would dedicate right of way... . <br /> <br />Will draw up diagrams when we come back. <br /> <br />Rhody: work up diagrams of flag lots. <br />