VN-182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4, y=~ VN-182 A third .alternative that we feel is most appropriate, would be . to eliminate Plot 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. Thus 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 linewould 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, fore. the lot(s) at the north end of the cul-de=sac. The effect of this alternative is thatthe 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 altimately 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 th'e'de"veloper/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- lminary plat PL-114. We feelthat whilea 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..