HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Flag Lot Issues 08/18/93PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
• August 18, 1993
The Planning Commission of the City of Orono held a public hearing to discuss Flag Lot
Issues pursuant to notice at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 18, 1993 at the Orono Council
Chambers. Chairman Charles Schroeder and Planning Commission members Candy Rowlette,
Sandy Smith and Charles Nolan were present. Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant
Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Lin Vee were present
representing staff.
Chairman Schroeder called the meeting to order explaining that the meeting was to
discuss the issue of flag lots in general terms and asked Gaffron to provide some general
information and history about flag lots in Orono.
Gaffron defined flag lots from resource books, "Flag lots are permitted in rural and
developing municipalities to permit development of back land areas while still maintaining their
rural character. " A flag lot could be defined as typically separated from a public or private road
by another lot which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor that is
typically 10' -50' in width. "The usual requirements for a flag lot are as follows: minimum lot
area at least twice the area in the zone where located exclusive of the right -of -way connecting
the lot with the public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements to be met on the
portion excluding the right -of -way; minimum of 20' and maximum of 50' for right -of -way; not
more than 1 flag lot for each right -of -way; rights -of -way should be a minimum distance apart
• of at least the minimum lot width in the particular zone. "
This definition does not necessarily relate to anything the City has done or is presently
doing. Prior to our Shoreland Ordinance, there were a couple methods to look at subdivision
of a narrow, long piece of property that was either on or off the lake and someone wanted to
create a back and front lot.
In a lakeshore situation, one method is to create a flag lot that abuts the lake and a back
lot that abuts the street without lakeshore access. The opposite situation would never be allowed
because the lake lot would need to have a shoreline width equal to the requirement for the
district. The Code has said that lot width is measured at the front or street setback line from
the side lot line. Gaffron illustrated these situations. Prior to the recent Shoreland Ordinance,
the lot width for a lakeshore lot would be measured at the 75' setback and the street setback and
a flag lot would require a variance. With the Shoreland Ordinance, the width is measured at the
shoreline and at the 75' setback but at no other locations, making a flag lot a possibility.
To avoid variances in the past, a private easement was granted to access the street.
Another way was to create an outlot, typically a private driveway outlot, owned by the person
who uses it. This allows the back lot to meet the width standard without a variance. The outlot
area is not considered with the dedicated area for either the back or front lot.
40 1
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
• August 18, 1993
With the new Shoreland Ordinance, flag lots that were never allowed because of a width
variance issue would now be allowed. There is concern by the Council that they didn't fully
understand what was happening with this issue when the Shoreland Ordinance was adopted.
Before passing the Ordinance, Council looked at cul -de -sac lots on the lake and found them to
usually require variances. They questioned if it was fair to require lakeshore lots to meet the
setback width at the shoreline, 75' back, at the street setback and at the road. The Shoreland
Ordinance was adopted in February of 1992.
Gaffron stated that flag lots and cul -de -sacs could be defined differently. He provided
several examples of situations that currently exist in Orono (see Exhibits from memo of July 28,
1993). One diagram illustrated that a driveway next to the house could be a problem, i.e. dust,
children playing, etc. Another example illustrated that under old regulations, a variance would
be needed while under the new Shoreland Regulations, no variance would be required.
Gaffron discussed information from the handout "Performance Zoning ", i. e. permitted
design deviation, lot width and definition of flag lots /diagrams with examples of good and bad
lot development. Our code states that all lots created by a subdivision should be served by
interior roads for safety reasons. This handout also suggests that the flag pole portion of a lot
should not receive credit for determining the average lot area. Rowlette questioned how this
would make the lot different from an outlot. Schroeder noted the end result would be the same,
its just how it is defined. This leaves three different ways to describe the same situation. The
Planning Commission will have to decide which is the best definition to use. Nolan noted there
will be non - conformance situations no matter which definition is chosen.
Schroeder thought flag lots are not necessarily bad. Rowlette agreed referring to
examples presented earlier. Smith asked if Gaffron had talked with other cities to see how they,
address flag lots with shoreline. Schroeder noted some negatives of flag lots are the driveway
going past someone's house and a back lot next to someone's front yard. Rowlette felt there
could be opportunities in writing an ordinance that would address some of these issues such as
the kind and area of screening /buffering needed.
Nolan thinks there is a need to have flexibility in the Code, especially when topography
is considered. Gaffron responded that one way to add this flexibility is to make a flag lot a
variance every time. Rowlette noted that in a recent Watertown Road application there was a
lot of discussion about positioning the road. In that case, the driveway was an outlot.
Mabusth asked if the setback from a driveway easement is an issue that should be
addressed at this time and if the setback for an existing house and the closest part of an outlot
should be a front street setback rather than a side setback creating a larger buffer. Rowlette and
Nolan were concerned about how the setbacks would affect the property with the new house and
wanted to assure sufficient buffering.
• 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
• August 18, 1993
Gaffron discussed the potential issue of access points and public safety. If a flag lot is
created, does each lot require a driveway? Would a shared driveway be a solution? Smith
suggested a cul -de -sac for three homes to share. Nolan questioned who would be responsible
for the cost of a newly created cul -de -sac. The property adjacent to the subdivided property has
no interest in sharing the cost of a cul -de -sac and it doesn't seem fair to make him participate.
Nolan felt that one of the negative effects of flag lots is the look of crowding since there could
be two or three driveways with little space between them. Topography can play an important
role in determining the safest location for driveway access. Rowlette pointed out that on a
County road, the County may not grant another access. At this time, a cul -de -sac would need
to serve three or more units on a private road to meet the standards. Gaffron thought there
could be the possibility of creating standards for a cul -de -sac serving two units. It may be
possible to create circumstances when flag lots will be allowed with a variance and another set
of circumstances where flag lots will not be allowed. Gaffron cautioned members on writing
into the code reasons to grant a variance. Nolan would consider establishing minimum
requirements.
Schroeder asked if there were any comments from the public. Tom McCarthy stated he
previously lived on Baldur Park Road where lot widths were 50' and agreed with the concerns
Planning Commission members have about intrusion of headlights and setbacks. Knowing
limitations are helpful. McCarthy wondered if the City was expecting many similar requests.
Rowlette thought this could be an issue since Tonkawa Road is a good example of lots which
could become flag lots. People on Baldur Park Road knew what to expect when they moved
there because of the high density.
The neighbor across from McCarthy, David Schneider, stated he was opposed to the
subdivision of McCarthy's lot because of aesthetics. Although discussion was not about this
particular application, he felt that neighboring properties were affected and had little opportunity
for input. He was worried there may be an excessive number of lots requesting subdivision.
Schroeder pointed out the Planning Commission was trying to determine if there was an
ordinance that gives the City the control it wants in light of the new Shoreland Regulations and
an inconsistency that has developed inadvertently.
Smith asked the public what they thought seemed to be reasonable regarding flag lots.
Schneider referred to the negative impact aesthetically of having another house constructed when
they moved to this area for privacy. Schroeder pointed out that prior to purchasing, it would
be the responsibility of the buyer to ascertain what properties may be subdividable.
McCarthy thought each situation has its own specific needs and should be considered as
a variance. Schneider reiterated that how a subdivision affects adjacent properties should be the
major concern rather than standards for the newly created lot. McCarthy referred to the Troy
Anderson application where screening was required because of neighbor opposition.
•
3
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
• August 18, 1993
Smith asked Schneider to respond to the comment he had made about preferring
individual driveways to shared driveways. He thought more problems are to be expected with
shared driveways. Rowlette noted that future buyers of the shared driveway would be aware of
this when purchasing the property.
Gaffron listed three different ways of administering flag lots:
1. Variance procedure. Every situation will require a variance with proof of
hardships and a list of conditions.
2. Conditional Use Permit. Write all standards in the code that a flag lot should be.
If these standards are not met, an application could be made for a variance to the
conditional use.
3. Write strict enough standards into the ordinance where flag lots could only be
created under very strict conditions.
Nolan felt the preference for Orono has been the variance procedure, reviewing each
application. Rowlette recommended that Orono have strict standards and then see only those
applications that want to go through the variance procedure, i.e. CUP. Rowlette does not want
to see every application for a flag lot. Schroeder felt there were not many of these situations
so there would not be an excessive number of applications to review if each one were brought
before the Planning Commission. Rowlette feels there will be more flag lot situations in the
future.
Gaffron explained how a conditional use permit differs from a variance. A conditional
use permit sets up standards so that if they are met, even though the applicant appears before
the Planning Commission, the applicant has a reasonable expectation that the conditional use
permit will be granted. Rowlette then thought she may prefer to see strict standards written into
the code so that each flag lot does not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Nolan asked if something could be drafted in a way that would not require every
application to be reviewed. Gaffron felt it may be possible and he could try by addressing some
of the issues discussed such as buffering and 50' setbacks.
Smith stated she liked the idea of a mini- cul -de -sac to serve two lots in a subdivision.
Rowlette felt cul -de -sacs take away from the rural character of the City. Nolan felt there may
be some situations where a cul -de -sac may be appropriate and others where it would not be
appropriate. Smith was thinking of public safety where a cul -de -sac would avoid several
driveways feeding onto a busy roadway. Gaffron suggested a shared driveway may be a goal
and Rowlette agreed. Smith was agreeable to this concept. Nolan pointed out that there may
be topographic situations where a shared driveway is not the best solution.
4
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
• August 18, 1993
Schroeder asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shoreland
Regulations and questioned if a recommendation should be made to return to previous
regulations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be
reviewed anyway because the developer would bring the 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 that needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes.
Schroeder would prefer the variance approach. Rowlette feels that if the rules were well
written, there would 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 minimum width set for such lots. Gaffron noted that most cul-
de -sac lots require a variance. He also pointed out that these are lakeshore lots and under the
current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variance
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 example, only 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 because of the unique topographies in
Orono, however, he would like to see a possible ordinance. Gaffron asked members to attempt
to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try to draft an ordinance.
Schroeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lot at
• the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be permitted, the
length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (buffer), and does the buffer need
to be paved? gravel? or dust?
Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron asked for a list of
conditions from members of the Planning Commission so that he can work with them. This
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 what was done before
and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety day moratorium,
Schroeder would recommend reverting to the pre- existing condition of measuring at the street
and at the lake because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed.
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 20, 1993. Mabusth
asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was determined that
morning meetings do not provide enough time to accomplish recommendations so an evening
meeting at 6:30 p.m. would be more productive.
Members thought clarification of what the Council really wanted the Planning
Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots /outlots was necessary and if non-
lakeshore flag lots should also be considered. The same concerns are raised for both types of
5
PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES
0 August 18, 1993
lots. Schroeder thought one of the major issues was the change in measurement of lakeshore
lots and the ramifications of measuring from the front and back lot line.
Rowlette asked what the ramifications are of not changing the current measurements in
the Shoreland Regulations. Gaffron explained that anyone who wants to do a flag lot on the
lakeshore and meets the area requirements, doesn't have to meet the width at the street setback
and does not need a variance. Rowlette stated that if an ordinance were written with strict
enough standards, there would be no need to return to standards prior to the Shoreland
Regulations. Gaffron agreed. Rowlette stated an ordinance would need to be written that is
strict enough to meet all concerns or return to previous standards and she thinks the Planning
Commission should try to do this.
Schroeder would prefer recommending to the Council that they go back to the previous
way of calculating lot width and then work over the next 90 days to draft a new ordinance.
Rowlette felt the moratorium was already doing that. Nolan stated that if at the end of 90 days
the Planning Commission has not resolved the issue, then the recommendation could be given
to Council to return to previous calculations. Rowlette thought it wouldn't make any difference
which way the Planning Commission acted. Gaffron felt the Council should be informed of the
progress of the Planning Commission and will write a memo to Council.
isThe meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
is
G'!
To: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers
• Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 26, 1993
Subject: Update on Flag Lot Review
List of Exhibit
A - Diagram - Front /Back Lot Situations
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider flag lot issues at 7:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, August 18. While no specific recommendation to Council was concluded, the
general direction of the discussion was as follows:
1. There was general discussion on the background of the changes to lot width
measurement under the new Shoreland Regulations. Chairman Schroeder, who
was on the Lake Use Committee that reviewed the Shoreland Regulations, agreed
that there was never a specific intent to make flag lots on the lakeshore an
allowed use.
2. Much of the discussion centered around the fact that whether the City allows flag
lots, front and back lots with an outlot access, or front and back lots with merely
an access easement over the front lot, the impact on the neighboring properties
is the same. The rationale behind use of an access outlot versus use of a flag lot
was discussed, in terms of our past code definitions and requirements. It was
noted that under the current code, the "flag pole" portion of a flag lot is
creditable lot area, where an outlot or an access easement are not creditable. It
was also noted that typical model ordinance definitions of flag lot specifically
disallow crediting the flag pole portion towards required lot area.
3. Planning Commission discussed at some length the specific impacts of front /back
lot development in general. These include:
a. Back lot's driveway abuts front lot's side and back yards. This leads to
concerns about noise, headlights, dust, child safety, and other potential
negative impacts.
b. Some of these negative impacts might be minimized by requiring greater
lot area for the rear lot, requiring greater setbacks for the rear lot, and
requiring greater than normal screening and buffering.
Update on Flag Lot Review
August 26, 1993
Page 2
C. There is also greater potential impact on abutting property owners not
involved in the subdivision, specifically those adjacent to the flag pole
access portion. Perhaps minimum standards could be set for when a flag
lot might or might not be allowed, depending on pre- existing neighboring
development.
d. The issue of the number of curb cuts in a given distance on a busy road
is a valid health, safety and welfare concern.
The Planning Commission members felt generally that controls on the use of front /back
lots is needed, but had varying opinions on whether the control should be to make all flag lots
a variance; or make them a conditional use which requires Council approval but which would
normally be approved if strict specific conditions are met; or whether they should be an allowed
use under very strict administrative controls, which if not met would still require a variance.
Planning Commission indicated they would like to take a stab at compiling a strict set of
standards for use of flag lots or front /back lot situations, and give that further consideration as
to whether the variance method is the most appropriate control. Their intent would be to
schedule a work session in approximately three weeks, by which time members would have
• forwarded their suggested standards to staff for compilation.
Planning Commission questioned whether their proposed process and expansion of the
issue to consider general front /back lot issues rather than strictly focusing on lakeshore flag lots,
was beyond the scope of Council's intended direction. It may be necessary to address all the
issues to reach a suitable conclusion on flag lots. If Council has concerns regarding the scope
of Planning Commission's review, please advise.
lsv
•