11-08-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 Schroeder asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shorcland Re^nilalions and questioned' if a recommendation should be made to return to previous reflations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be reviewed anvway because the developer would bring die subdivision application to the Planning Commission. Gaffron asked if flag lots should be an allowed use that does not require a variance or a use mat needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes. Schroeder would prefer the var’ince approach. Rowlene feels that if the rules were well written, there w'ould be less need to review every' detail and less bureaucracy. Mabusth asked about the problem of flag lots and the lot not meeting the width at the cul- de-sac There may need to be a mimmum width set for such lots. Gatfron noted that most cul- df sac’lots require a variance. He also pomted out that these are lakeshore lots and under the current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variate should be required. If it makes sense, the flag lot would be approved. Rowlette would still like to see an attempt made to write a strict ordinance regarding flag lots. For e.xample, ordy a certain percentage of flag lots would be allowed with a new subdivision of more than two lots. Nolan would still lean toward the variance procedure bec.ause of the umque topographies m Orono however, he would like to see a possible orainance. Gatfron asked members to attempt to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try- to draft an ordinance ScLeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lo at the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be P'^r^med, the length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (butfer), and does the butfer nee to be paved? gravel? or dust? Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron .sked for a list of conditions from members of the Planning Commission so tnat he can worK with them. s could then be discussed at a later meeting. Schroeder asked that the Planning Commission focus on the change in the way calculations are done for lot width and the need for variances relative to and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety Schroeder would recommend revertin. to the pre-existinf, condition of mcasurin. . and at the l..ke because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled tor September -0. 1993. asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was morning meetings do not provide enough time to .accomplish recommendations so meeting at 6:30 p.ra. would be more productive. Members thought clariftcaiion of what the Council really wanted Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots/ouUots was lakeshore (lag lots should also be considered. Tje same concerns are raised for both types ot