Laserfiche WebLink
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />August 18, 1993 <br />G ilTron discussed the potential issue of access points and public safety. If a Hag lot is <br />created, doc.s each lot require a driveway? Would a shared driveway be a solution? Smith <br />suggested a cul-de-sac for three homes to share. Nolan questioned who would be responsible <br />for the cost of a newl> created cul-de-sac. 'fhe property adjacent to the subdivided property has <br />no interest in sharing the cost of a cul-de-sac and it doesn't seem fair to make him participate. <br />Nolan felt that one of the negative effects of flag lots is the look of crowding since there could <br />be two or three driveways with little space between them. Topography can play an important <br />role in determining the safest location for driveway access. Rowlette pointed out that on a <br />County road, the County may not grant another access. At this time, a cul-de-sac would need <br />to serve three or more units on a private road to meet the standards. Gaffron thought there <br />could be t.he possibility of creating standards for a cul-de-sac serving two units. It may be <br />possible to create circumstances when flag lots will be allowed with a vaj ’^mce and another set <br />of circumstances where flag lots will not be allowed. Gaffron cautioned members on writing <br />into fhe code reasons to grant a variance. Nolan would consider establishing minimum <br />requirements. <br />Schroeder asked if there were any comments from the public. Tom McCarthy stated he <br />previously lived on Baldur Park Road w here lot widths were 50’ and agreed with the concerns <br />Planning Commission members have about intrusion of headlights and setbacks. Knowing <br />limitations are helpful. McCarthy wondered if the City was expecting many similar requests. <br />Rowlette thought this could be an issue since Tonkawa Road is a good example of lots which <br />could become flag lots. People on Baldur Park Road knew what to expect when they moved <br />there because of the high density. <br />The neighbor across from McCarthy, David Schneider, stated he was opposed to the <br />subdivision of McCarthy’s lot because of aesthetics. Although discussion was not about this <br />particular application, .he felt that neighboring properties were affected and had little opportunity <br />for input. He was worried there may be an excessive number of lots requesting subdivision. <br />Schroeder pointed out the Planning Commission was trying to determine if there was an <br />ordinance that g,ves the City the control it wants in light of the new Shoreland Regulations and <br />an inconsistency that has developed inadvertently. <br />Smith asked the public what they thought seemed to be reasonable regarding flag lots. <br />Schneider referred to the negative impact aesthetically of having another house constructed when <br />they moved to this area for p.'-ivacy. Schroeder pointed out that prior to purchasing, it would <br />be the responsibility of the buyer to ascenain what properties may be subdividable. <br />McCarthy thought each .situation has its ow n specific needs and should be considered as <br />a variance. Schneider reiterated :hat how- a subdivisi»>n affects adjacent properties should be the <br />major concern rather than standa-ds for the newly created lot. McCarthy referred to the Troy <br />Anderson application where screening was required because of neighbor opposition. <br />3