Laserfiche WebLink
PUBUC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />August 18, 1993 <br />Smith asked Schneider to respond to the comment he Itad made about preferring <br />individual driveways to shared driveways. He thought more problems are to be expected with <br />shared driveways. Rowlette noted that future buyers of the shared driveway would be aware of <br />this when purchasing the property. <br />Gaf-fion listed three different ways of administering lots: <br />1.Variance procedure. Every situation will require a variance with proof of <br />hardships and a list of conditions. <br />2.Conditional Use Permit. Write all standards in the code that a flag lot should be. <br />If these standards are not met, an application could be made tor a variance to the <br />conditional use. <br />3.Write strict enough standards into the ordinance where flag lots could only be <br />created under very strict conditions. <br />Nolan felt the preference for Orono has been the variance procedure, reviewing each <br />application. Rowlette recommended that Orono have strict standards and -m see only those <br />applicati.)ns that want to go through the variance procedure, i.e. CUP. Row'e.tc does not want <br />to see every application for a flag lot. Schroedcr felt there were not many c the.se situations <br />so there would not be an excessive number of applications to review if each one were brought <br />before the Planning Commission. Rowlette feels there will be more flag lot situations in the <br />future. <br />Gaffron explained how a conditional use permit differs from a variance. A conditional <br />use permit sets up standards so that if they are met, even though the applicant appears before <br />the Planning Commission, the applicant has a reasonable expectation that the conditional use <br />permit will be granted. Rowlette then thought she may prefer to see strict standards written into <br />the code so that each flag lot does not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br />Nolan asked if something could be drafted in a way that would not require every <br />application to be reviewed. Gaffron felt it may be possible and he could try by addressing some <br />v.f the issues discussed such as buffering and 50’ setbacks. <br />Smith stated she liked the idea of a mini-cul-de-sac to ser\'e two lots in a subdivision. <br />Roulette felt cul-de-s:tcs take away from the rural character of the City. Nolan felt there may <br />be some situations where a cul-de-sac may be appropriate and others where it would not be <br />appropriate. Smith was thinking of public safety where a cul-de-sac would avoid several <br />driveway.s feeding onto a busy roadway. Gaffron suggested a shared driveway may be a goal <br />anu Rowlette agreed. Smith was agreeable to this concept. Nolan pointed out that there may <br />be topograpl'.ic"situations where a shared driveway is net vhe best solution.