1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ee ee . . challenges unnecessarily? If developers think people will want more space between homes, there is nothing to prevent them from providing more than the minimum separation. Those decisions are best made by the marketplace, not government. Front Yard Setback. In my opinion, the front yard setback is similarly too large. Again, what is the reason for a front yard setback? Presumably it is to provide for visitor parking in front of the garage, or between the facade line and the front lot line. At most only 16 feet is needed to provide such parking for most cars today. In most modern home designs, garages that face the street are held back at least five feet from the front facade line for marketability reasons. In some cases, garages are turned to keep the doors from facing the street. To make this ordinance in step with modern design techniques, it should recognize the variable nature of garage positioning. The language I suggested as a general provision focuses on providing the off-street parking, not a principal structure specific setback. This language allows all manner of garage orientations to the street. It even allows, and possibly encourages, turning the garage to face the back of the lot, where the pavement in front of the garage could be designed to double as a patio. Consider, too, that any extra required front yard setback beyond the minimum needed for parking carries economic and environmental costs. Larger front yard setbacks mean more pavement needed to make longer walks and driveways to traverse the distance from the house to the street. The extra pavement adds significant quantities of impervious surfaces to the landscape. This extra imperviousness contributes to the production of excessive runoff that, in turn, is directly correlated to more water quality degradation and increased risk for downstream flooding. These issues are fully explained in the chapter on site planning I wrote for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas: Best Management Practices Manual. In addition to the water quality and quantity problems produced by large front yard setback requirements, there are also housing affordability considerations. To mitigate the higher runoff discharges due to added imperviousness and the additional water quality degradation they cause, homebuyers must also pay for the cost of additional mitigation to correct these problems required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and by watershed management regulatory entities. Such accommodations include larger culverts and larger NURP ponds. Large front setbacks require extra costs for longer utility runs to the house from the road right-of-way. They also require extra costs for the extra walk and driveway pavement area. These are hidden costs that work to make low income housing less feasible. Taken together with large minimum lot sizes, the cost of excessive minimum front yard setback standards can make low income housing next to impossible. This opens the door to possible attack under the 14th Amendment for unlawful discrimination against minorities - who still have a disproportionately large representation in low income groups, and low representation in exurban areas of the Metropolitan Twin Cities. Large front yard setbacks clearly mean adverse impacts on water quality, flooding, housing cost and housing affordability. The downsides to unjustifiably large minimum front yard set backs are many. With a small minimum front yard setback (the minimum 5 foot setback from all lot lines suggested as a general provision) developers will no doubt provide a greater range of actual front setback alternatives, contributing to the creation of more varied and unique streetscapes in new developments. It would even allow developers to replicate some of the features of the pre-zoning communities in the St. Croix Valley that are highly regarded for their charm and appeal. Rationale for OSD changes 4 Sykes