Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff to research flag-lot rules after reviewing city-owned parcel constraints
Summary
The commission discussed whether to allow flag-lot subdivisions on arterial streets after staff noted the city owns a deep narrow parcel that could be more usable if flag lots or modified standards were permitted. Commissioners expressed concern about fire access, stem widths, setbacks, trash pickup and long-term maintenance and directed staff to
The Nibley Planning Commission on Feb. 6 held a workshop on flag-lot subdivisions after staff raised a practical problem with a city-owned parcel adjacent to a public facility. Current code prohibits flag lots on arterial streets, which prevents subdividing a long, narrow lot where the city might otherwise create buildable flag lots.
Levi Roberts, city planner, explained the code’s existing requirements for flag-lot stems and setbacks, noting that stems often require pavement plus space for stormwater swales and an additional 10-foot setback from the stem to the house. Commissioners noted those combined requirements can total about 40 feet and make flag-lot subdivisions infeasible on many deep but narrow parcels.
Commissioners discussed fire-access standards (12-foot drive minimum; 20-foot drive and hammerhead turnaround for longer or deeper drives under fire code), trash collection and daily circulation concerns, and the possibility of private lanes as an alternative. Commissioners said the city’s flag-lot ordinance was intentionally restrictive when adopted but that loosening standards in targeted cases might be appropriate; several commissioners said they had received inquiries from residents who bought deep lots and sought subdivision options.
The commission did not adopt new standards. Instead, commissioners asked staff to research flag-lot provisions used by other valley communities, reconcile fire-access requirements and setbacks, and return with recommended code amendments or a research memo. Staff also noted that allowing flag lots should not create or expand nonconforming lots or reduce minimum-lot-size requirements without a clear plan for consistency with zoning.
