VN-182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4. VN-182 A third alternative that we feel is most appropriate, would be to eliminate 1 lot from the plat and to shorten the cul-de-sac .somewhat. The advantages we see to this alternative are: 1. Average lot size could be increased from approximately 8,100 sq. ft. to approximately 9,250 sq. ft. This would both decrease the degree of variance requested and would create more open space for each lot. 2. It would appear that .the variance for lot width at the building setback line would be unnecessary. 3. The need for the variance at the front lot line may not be necessary. 4. Shortening the cul-de-sac would create more rear yard space for the lot(s) at the north end of the cul-de-sac. The effect of this alternative is that the number and degree of variances would be reduced, and the development would be more similar to the typical single family development in the City. In addition, the slightly higher density and smaller lots would be consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan in encouraging the most efficient use of land and in providing "affordable" housing. An obvious disadvantage of this alternative to the applicant, and ultimately to future home buyers, is that the street and utility costs would be distributed over 7 lots versus the 8 lots proposed. Given the shallow depth of lots, the variance request for 25 foot front yard setbacks for future homes may be appropriate. The 5 foot variance :request would provide more separation from the future homes to the apartments on the west and existing homes to the north and east. We also feel that the 5 feet would be more functional as rear yard rather than as part of the front yard. The reduced front yard setback may also create a somewhat more intimate development within a small neighborhood. It could also be argued that the setback variance would be unnoticable as it would be constant throughout the development. In addition to creating more usable rear yard space, the setback variance would also benefit the developer/applicant by reducing the length of driveways and utilities, and their costs. Hopefully, this cost savings would be passed on to future home buyers. ALTERNATIVES The basic alternatives available and staff comments are as follows: 1. Approval of all variances requested and approval of the pre- liminary plat PL-114. We feel that while a higher density and less front yard setback is justified, the proposed plat sacrifices too much in the way of open space, usable rear yards and ultimate livability.