Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES <br />• August 18, 1993 <br />Smith asked Schneider to respond to the comment he had 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 />Gaffron listed three different ways of administering flag 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 for 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 then see only those <br />applications that want to go through the variance procedure, i.e. CUP. Rowlette does not want <br />to see every application for a flag lot. Schroeder felt there were not many of these 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 />of the issues discussed such as buffering and 50' setbacks. <br />Smith stated she liked the idea of a mini- cul -de -sac to serve two lots in a subdivision. <br />Rowlette felt cul -de -sacs 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 />driveways feeding onto a busy roadway. Gaffron suggested a shared driveway may be a goal <br />and Rowlette agreed. Smith was agreeable to this concept. Nolan pointed out that there may <br />be topographic situations where a shared driveway is not the best solution. <br />4 <br />