Laserfiche WebLink
update on Flag Lot Review <br />Aueust 26, 1993 <br />Page 2 <br />e. <br />d. <br />There is also greater potential impact on abutting property owners not <br />involved in the subdivision. Npecifically those adjacent to the Hag pole <br />access portion. Perhaps minimum standards could be set tor when a flag <br />lot might or might not be allowed, depending on pre-existing neighboring <br />development. <br />The issue of the number of curb cuts in a given distance on a busy road <br />is a valid health, safety and welfare concern. <br />The Planning Commission members felt generally that controls on the use of front/back <br />lots is needed, but had varying opinions on whether the control should be to make all flag lots <br />a variance : or make them a conditional use which requires Council appioval bui which would <br />normally be approved if strict specific conditions are met; or whether they should be an allowed <br />use under very strict administrative controls, which if not met would still require a variance. <br />Planning Commission indicated they would like to take a stab at compiling a strict set of <br />standards for use of flag lots or front/back lot situations, and give that further consideration as <br />to whether the variance method is the most appropriate control. Their intent would be to <br />schedule a work session in approximately three weeks, by which time members would have <br />forwarded their suggested standards to staff for compilation. <br />Planning Commission questioned whether their proposed process and expansion of the <br />issue to consider general front/back lot issues rather than strictly fcKusing on lakeshore flag lots, <br />was beyond the scope of Council’s intended direction. It may be necessary to address all the <br />issues to reach a suitable conclusion on flag lots. If Council has concerns regarding the scope <br />of Planning Commission’s review, please advise. <br />Isv