08-18-1993 Public Hearing-Flag Lot Issue Minutes

Home Browse Search

Thomas L. McCarthy, Background .. June 16, 1993 Page 2 The easement option t>'pically resulted in lots that didn’t abut either a public or private road, hence a variance for lack of frontage was automatically required. The way to avoid this variance was to create a flag lot extending to the street. However, this resulted in the need to grant a lot width variance since the lot width at the front setback line from the street was merely the width of the flagpole and not even close to meeting the width requirement. The solution to both the easement and flag lot options was the outlet option. By creating an outlet driveway that in a 3»-.ise functioned as a private road, it could be argued that the back lot now abuts a road, and the entire length of the lot line that abuts the outlet would become the front lot line for defining a front setback line and therefore the lot width. Over the last five years or so, the City has normally required the outlet option, and tlie area of the outlet is excluded from lot area. An inadvertent effect of the new shoreland lot width definition was to revive the possibility for flag lots on the lakeshore. This would normally not be an issue e.xcept in a case such as McCarthy ’s where total area of the property does not allow for the outlet option. TTii.'^ leads to issue tfl., i.e. hardcover in the flagpole. 2. Hardcover Zone Balancing. Th^estion here is whether it is legitimate to allow a highprfercentage and square footage^^hardcover in a zone further from the lake, asjprig as the zone closer to the lake is reined by an equivalent square footage^,vro avoid the need for a variance. While i believe this isVlqgical policy rnttfrocedure to have in place, and while I would argue rather vehemently tS'persuad^^ifiyone that this is a reasonable, beneficial, and fair policy, I will concede that th^sj^ot^eeping and future review procedures must be in place so that future problems For instance, if a lot is allowed an extra 1,000 s.f. of hardcover in its 2^00’ zoribsm e.xchange for reducing its allowance in the 75-250’ zone bv that sam<fT,000 s.f., thi^1qust be adequately documented in City files and procedures puyin place so that at sombs^ture date a new owner can ’t be allowed to go up to ^^'25%'' limit since his actualliqut is really 1.000 s.f. less than the 25% figure. Loqjeing at Exhibit B, assume that the entire flagpole pohiQn of the lot is 30’ wide, andm iV wide driveway runs its entire length. This constituteS>5^% hardcover in th^^-500’, where 30% would be allowed, and in the example, results iJK,600 s.f. [cover where only 1,350 s.f. would be allowed at a 30% level.