VN-182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3. ~=~ VN-182 In regard to the applicants referral to the proposed Comprehensive Plan we would-note that affordable housing is strongly encouraged in the. draft plan being prepared by the Board of Planning. The draft comprehensive plan also'suggests that a separate .zoning classification be established for smaller lot sizes thane now required. While the.. draft plan suggests a general location for such a zoning. district: (i.e., the downtown area), no;specif is boundaries have been set. While the Comprehensive Plan has not been finalized, it could possibly be argued that an increase in density or number of units. is justified. First,.given the property location (i.e., adjacent to a large apartment complex,`across the street from 'a cemetery and adjacentsomewhatolder developed area of the City),it is unlikely that large, expensive homes would be built on this site. Second, smaller,' less expensive homes would be compatible with the adjacent'single family homes. Thirdly, the proposedcomprehensive` plan :suggests in other areas of the city that there be a graduation from higher density developments-ta single family areas. ;While the proposal in, this case is for single family homes, the somewhat higher density 'proposed may serve the function of the graduation .from a high density area to a single family area. While it may be argued that a higher density is justified, the number of lots proposed may be excessively high. Attaining the desired 8 lots has meant a sacrifice of Iot area. and in particular rear`yard'area, The proposed lots not only have lesswidthand area than required, but in addition the depth of the lots is less than what is typically found. Even with the 25 foot requested front yard setback the future .homes would. have a limited area in the rear yards for more private usage. This problem is-most ; apparent for proposed lots 4 and 5 where the proposed homes would` extend to within 10-15 feet of the rear property lines:. 'One"solution may be to shorten the proposed cul-de-sac by 10-20 feet.. While this would create more rear yard space for :lots 4 and 5 it would also mean less actual frontage on the cul-de-sac, which is already less than required. A second alternative may be to decrease the road and cul-de-sac right-of-way. The standard 60 foot street and 60 foot radius cul-de-sac are shown on the plat.. A reduction of thisright- `of-way to 55 or 50 feet would "free" more of the parcel for lot area .and rear yard area. Right-of-way width variations have been used 'in other developments vaithin the City and as ,this-is a short cul- de-sac, serving a small number of lots, it may be appropriate in this case. We would note, however, that the City policy has been for 60 feet of right-of-way, and the City Engeiner has indicated he would prefer to maintain this policy.