Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Camas planners reopen proposal to allow panhandle (flag) lots; public hearing set and staff asked to map eligible parcels
Summary
After a lengthy policy discussion, the planning commission agreed to bring proposed rules for panhandle (flag) lots back for public hearing and asked staff for a refined map showing how many existing parcels would qualify under a 100-foot-plus-frontage and 20–25-foot-handle scenario.
The Camas Planning Commission continued a policy discussion about whether to permit new panhandle (flag) lots in the city and identified draft standards to guide a code amendment. Planning staff summarized research from other Utah municipalities and recommended potential requirements such as a minimum handle (driveway) width, hard surfacing for emergency access, minimum lot body area equal to the city’s lot-size minimum, and limitations on structures in the flag/handle portion.
Staff said other cities limit handle widths commonly to 20–24 feet and require the main lot body to meet the city’s minimum lot area. Examples cited included Ivins, Clearfield and Millard counties, which use differing combinations of frontage, handle width and limits on successive flag lots on the same right-of-way.
Commissioners favored several guardrails to reduce neighborhood impacts: requiring paved handles to permit emergency access and snow removal, capping above-ground height (single story above grade suggested), restricting building on the handle, and requiring utilities either within the handle or within recorded easements. Members expressed an interest in limiting the number of flag lots served by a single driveway and in clarifying snow storage and garbage amenity placement.
The commission asked staff to produce a redrawn map that applies a test case (100 feet of frontage for the front lot + 20–25 foot handle, with the lot body still meeting the quarter-acre/10,000-square-foot requirement) to estimate how many current parcels would qualify under the draft rule set. Commissioners also recommended notifying property owners who might be affected and to place the item on the next planning commission agenda for a public hearing; staff agreed to schedule the hearing for the next meeting and to prepare mailed or posted notice to property owners who currently have panhandle lots.
Commissioners emphasized the need for precise language on setbacks, paving, utility easements, and limits on vertical height; staff said the existing code contains language that previously prohibited creation of new panhandle lots and that the new draft would adapt those protections with clarified standards.
No final code change was adopted; the commission moved to hold a public hearing at the next meeting and directed staff to return with the map, proposed handle widths, suggested restrictions (one-story above-ground building limit, paving requirements, utilities placement), and proposed notification materials.
