Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />August 18, 1993 <br />asked Schneider » respond ,o f/e^prcTed <br />^tefdriv"buyerf of Che shared driveway would he aware of <br />this when purchasing the property. <br />Gaffron lisced three different ways of administering flag lots: <br />1 Variance procedure. Every stoation will require a variance with proof of <br />hardships and a list of conditions. <br />^ rrinml Ike Permit Write all s'tandards in the code that a Hag lot should oe. <br />"smlrdardf are not met. an applrcatron could be made for a vanance to the <br />conditional use. <br />3. Write strict enough standards into the ordinance where flag lots could only he <br />created unde; very strict conditions. <br />f « f tr Ornno has been the variance procedure, reviewing each Nolan felt the preference lor Or^no ha.s b.ea <br />application. Rowlette recommended that ^ CUT. Rowlette does not want <br />applications that want to go throug e ^ot many of n .,e situations <br />to see every application for a Hag lot. S .. to review if each one were brought <br />so there would not be an e.xcessive PP situations in the <br />before the Planning Commission. Rowlette feels me <br />future. <br />„„.»d:5S' <br />use permit sets up sianuards so that if they • expe-^ution that the conditional we <br />the Flarming Commissinn, the ’ see strict standards written into <br />Nolan asked if and hi could try by addressing some <br />Smith stated she liked the idea ^ Noll^ feU ^«e may <br />Rowlene felt cul-de-sacs take away trom the ‘ otijcrs where it would not be <br />be some situations where a cul-dc-ssc ^ PP Pj^ ^ cul-de-sac would avoid several <br />appropriate. Smith was thinking of P^^^" a shared driveway may be a goal <br />driveways feeding onto a busy . -onccDt NoLm pointed out that there may <br />and Rowlene agreed. Smith was agreeable to^s Jj^riom <br />be topographic situations where a shared driveway is