Staff debates formal definition for "irregularly shaped" and flagpole lots, seeks clearer setback measurement

Planning staff discussed whether to adopt a formal definition for “irregularly shaped” lots, including so-called flagpole or “flag” lots, and how the city should measure front-yard setbacks for those parcels.

The discussion matters because the lack of a written definition leaves determinations to staff interpretation and can affect where houses may be sited and how many lots a developer can create. Staff described options ranging from a fixed technical definition to a set of illustrative examples and asked for further direction and public input.

Staff said the municipality currently relies on staff interpretation to decide whether a lot is “irregularly shaped,” and that a strict definition may be difficult to craft. One staff member summarized the problem this way: “It’s kind of what’s in the eye of the beholder,” and suggested offering examples of situations that typically cause development challenges rather than a single formula. Examples discussed included lots whose buildable portion is narrower than required at the front or rear yard, and flag lots whose “pole” or access strip is narrower than the required lot width.

Staff outlined several possible approaches: (1) adopt a technical definition based on angles or percentage thresholds; (2) add a set of examples that trigger the designation (for instance, when the buildable area is narrower than required); or (3) define specific treatment for common types such as flagpole lots. The staff member said they had planned to add a definition for flagpole lots but had not settled on wording, noting uncertainty about whether to use an absolute width for the access strip or a percentage of the lot width.

Commission members and other participants asked practical questions. One participant asked whether the 66-foot right-of-way mark would be the point where an access strip ends and the buildable area begins; staff did not give a final rule and characterized that as something to clarify. Participants also asked whether cul-de-sac “pie-slice” lots could be affected; staff observed that cul-de-sacs often have separate rules but acknowledged developers might try to tighten lot widths at the street and expand lots farther back if the code allowed it.

Staff discussed how the placement or footprint of a house could change setback calculations: for example, an addition or enclosed entry could alter where a front yard is measured, which in turn affects whether other yard setbacks remain compliant. Staff said their past practice in some cases has been to measure setbacks from the point where a lot becomes buildable, but that the code does not currently state that explicitly in every case.

No zoning change, ordinance, or formal motion to adopt a definition was made during the discussion. Staff asked for additional input and invited comments by email to Patrick. The meeting then moved on to building-permit business and was adjourned later that evening at 8:14 p.m.