12/14/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SECTION 6: CLARIFICATION OF LOT WIDTHS AND SETBACKS ON FLAG LOTS AND LOTS ON CURVILINEAR STREETS AND CUL-DE-SACS Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation: 6. Section 6: CLARIFICATION OF LOT WIDTHS a SETBACKS ON FLAG LOTS i LOTS ON CURVILINEAR STREETS AND CVL -DE -SACS Current county LDRs do not specifically define "flag lots", although "flag lots" are specifically referenced in the subdivision chapter [913.09(6)(B)] and are allowed to be created (although creation of such lots is discouraged). County policy has been to deem lots fronting on curves or cul-de-sacs to be flag lots if a side lot line is not straight or if a side lot line is not radial to a street curve. As a result, some lots on curves and cul-de- sacs have been treated as flag lots, for which minimum lot widths have been calculated on an average lot width basis. Currently, county MRS do not specifically address lot width and front yard setback treatment for flag lots. Staff's LDR amendments proposed in Section 6A, 6B, and 6C differentiate between flag lots and cul- de-sac lots, and specify a more flexible approach to measuring lot widths for lots on curves and cul-de-sacs. --__ The proposed amendments would do the following: A. Define "flag lot". B. Define "lot width" for three different types of lots, as follows: 1. Conventional lots (general case): lot width is measured at the front setback line. 2. Cul-de-sac/curve lots: lot width is the greatest horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured along a straight line running parallel to. -the chord of the cul-de-sac or curve. 3. Flag lots: lot width is measured at the front yard setback line (defined in C., below). C. Define the front yard setback line for lots on curves and cul- de-sacs as a line running parallel to the front property line, measured from the front property line the distance of the applicable front yard setback. Also, the proposed amendment would define the front yard setback for flag lots as being measured from the line where the flag lot "stem" meets the major area of the flag lot (see attachment #12). In staf f I i 'opinion,, these amendments are needed to specifically address and clarify the treatment of flag lots, and lots on curves and cul-de-sacs in regards to lot widths and front yard setbacks. Planning staff and the PSAC both recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment, as presented. On a 4-0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed amendment. The Vice Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard on this section. There being none, he closed the public hearing. 31 DEC 14 1993 BOOK 91 i�,�u 393 Ii