My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2024 10:57:17 AM
Creation date
1/9/2024 10:56:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing <br />July 28. 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />a flag lot is the result of subdividing a deep lot in half to create a "front lot" and "back lot , <br />with a connecting corridor along side the front lot for access to the rear lot. <br />The City has generally moved away from allowing creation of flag lots becau.se tliey by <br />definition require a variance. One option the City allowed in the distant past was an easement <br />through the front lot to access the back lot. In contemporary times, however, the City has <br />required that the corridor be platted separately as an outlot when back lots are allowed. No <br />lot area credit is granted for the outlot. <br />From a planning standpoint, not all cities allow the creation of flag lots, and in the <br />definition of flag lot appearing in "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" (1981, <br />Rutgers University Press), it is noted that "Flag lots are permitted in rural and developing <br />municipalities to permit development of back land areas while still maintaining their rural <br />character. The usual requirenfents a flag lot are as follows: minimum lot area at least twice <br />the area in the zone where !c«.ated exclusive of the right-of-way connecting the lot with die <br />public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements m be met on the portion excluding <br />the right-of-way; minimum of 20’ and maximum of 50 ’ for right-of-way; not more thrm 1 tiag <br />lot for each right-of-way; rights-of-way should be a minimum distance apart of at least the <br />minimum lot width in the particular zone." <br />One negative aspect of a flag lot is that its driveway corridor is adjacent to the side and <br />rear yard of the front lot. SecondFy, the back yard of the front lot abuts the functional front <br />yard of the flag lot and without proper screening and buffering, the flag lot resident may find <br />having rear yard uses abutting his front yard to be visually and otherwise incompatible. <br />Adequate buffering might mitigate this, hence the typical requirement of "twice the required lot <br />area" noted above. <br />Issues related to the number of curb cuts within a given length of busy roadway may be <br />a valid concern in some situations. Fire safety and emergency vehicle access would be a further <br />concern as the narrow corridor extends a greater distance from the road. <br />It should also be pointed out that whether the City allows the creation of flag lots, back <br />lots with cutlot driveways, or front and back lots witli an easement access, the functional result <br />is the same. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />This is a public hearing, and Planning Commission is requested to consider whether flag <br />lot are appropriate on lakeshore or generally in the City. Identification of issues and concerns <br />about the use of flag lots will help in determining whether a code amendment is appropriate and <br />how it might be structured. Staff would, if appropriate, bring options back to Planning <br />Commission for further consideration.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.