Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Double frontage lots

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Budgie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Sans Souci
    Posts
    5,265

    Double frontage lots

    OH, "Throbbing Brian". What say you on the pitfalls and issues relating to double frontage lots. I've got a few in my mind, but I'm just looking for validate and expand the list.
    "And all this terrible change had come about because he had ceased to believe himself and had taken to believing others. " - Leo Tolstoy

  2. #2
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally posted by Budgie
    OH, "Throbbing Brian". What say you on the pitfalls and issues relating to double frontage lots. I've got a few in my mind, but I'm just looking for validate and expand the list.
    I assume you mean, "non corner" lots. We call them "through lots"

    The pitfalls all depend on your ordinance. It's quite possible that in some odd situation (which I can find a couple instances), the double frontage lot can have two fronts.. one in the front and one in the rear...
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Budgie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Sans Souci
    Posts
    5,265
    OK, here are my two issues.

    Secondary access to lots, where the secondary access is not on an alley, but a collector street. Without requiring restricted access on the plat, there is the potential for people to back boats off of their lot into a collector street. I kinda see this as a traffic hazard.

    Secondary access to lots also creates more "conflict points" on a collector street (in this case), which creates more opportunity for accidents.

    With a lack of aesthetic regulations, the backyard fences located adjacent to the collector street will likely be visually offensive due to a lack of fence controls and maintenance.

    Other concerns anyone?
    "And all this terrible change had come about because he had ceased to believe himself and had taken to believing others. " - Leo Tolstoy

  4. #4
    Unfrozen Caveman Planner mendelman's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    Staff meeting
    Posts
    8,188
    Our code allows for double frontage lots (through lots) but only when the 'rear' is adjacent to a major or secondary arterial road. And we don't allow access from such frontages onto the arterial.

    Both frontages may be considered a 'front' and subject to 'front' setback requirements, therefore, depending on your setback standards, a smaller setback could be allowed as a 'front' rather than a 'rear'. We have minimum 30 foot rear setbacks but only 25 foot front setbacks.
    Last edited by mendelman; 05 Jul 2006 at 1:09 PM.
    I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?

    Let's not be didactic in this profession, because that is a path to disillusion and irrelevancy.

    Six seasons and a movie!

  5. #5
    Cyburbian boiker's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2001
    Location
    West Valley, AZ
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally posted by Budgie
    OK, here are my two issues.

    Secondary access to lots, where the secondary access is not on an alley, but a collector street. Without requiring restricted access on the plat, there is the potential for people to back boats off of their lot into a collector street. I kinda see this as a traffic hazard.

    Secondary access to lots also creates more "conflict points" on a collector street (in this case), which creates more opportunity for accidents.

    With a lack of aesthetic regulations, the backyard fences located adjacent to the collector street will likely be visually offensive due to a lack of fence controls and maintenance.

    Other concerns anyone?
    Sounds like a standard that should be addressed in the sub ordinance or comp plan or both.

    I think they are legitamite concerns. Through lots also may not offer guidance for which way the house faces (collector or other street).
    Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    1,184
    Double frontage lots do create maintenance problems along the rear fence line, create very unappealing places to be, are targets for vandalism, graffiti, etc. and often are run down, not taken care of etc. Our city discourages them, but the City Council overturns every subdivision review where we deny the subdivision on them, so our regulations are meaningless.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,015
    Blog entries
    2
    We have no regulations with regard to fence style, except in PUD zones.

    We just landscape the hell out of the rear yards, usually with an outlot betwixt the fence and the ROW.

    In the older parts of town, we have boats, RVs, junk trailers, etc. stored in the rear yard with a large gate access to an arterial or collector roadway. But we have a saying 'round here, "Let public works handle that..." (Actually, that is who would handle those sorts of access issues.)
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  8. #8
    I live on a historic through lot, but have a residential classification street behind me. (It's a 60' row, but pavement width is about 14'). As most of us so situated use it as an alleyway for the most part, it's not an issue.

    Now we are beginning to see through lots backing up to arterials and they are rather unattractive. I would limit curb cuts to one per lot and decide which is the lesser of two evils. Attractive, permanent walls or fences along the rear lot line as well as ladnscaping requirements. Be careful of outside storage issue and trash pick-up locations too.

    Good luck.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,295

    Setbacks and Sidewalks

    Any yard with a property line is a front yard in our community, and all structures in that front yard must meet the front setback distance for primary buildings. They will also have one side yard and one rear yard, or two side yards and no rear yard if the property is between two parallel streets.

    Here is were it gets interesting, the streets that have no back yards because the road runs parallel to another with single properties in between have caused a bit of a headache. In one case, all access and buildings front on an slower residential street, while a collector runs along the “back side” of the property. The property owners are still responsible for snow and ice removal on both sidewalks.
    Not my monkey, not my circus. - Old Polish Proverb

  10. #10
    Cyburbian JNL's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wellington, NZ
    Posts
    2,447
    We have a project at the moment where a council wants to develop a prominent site into a "recreation club zone", with 7 lots for recreation clubs (e.g. bridge, darts, guides, scouts etc) that will be placed on the outside edge of the curved part of a half-circle shaped park (with a creek providing the straight edge). They want the clubs to face inwards with their backs to the busy road that curves around the site. I would prefer that the lots engage with the road on both sides to provide more activity and natural surveillance, but parking lot configuration and access need careful consideration. Surely since these are community facilities they need to draw the community in not shut them out?

  11. #11
    Cyburbian Plus Zoning Goddess's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 1999
    Location
    400 miles from Orlando
    Posts
    13,747
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis
    The property owners are still responsible for snow and ice removal on both sidewalks.
    I hope you're not saying this is a problem! Unless the developer/HOA maintained a commonly-owned strip between the lot and the street, the residents would of course have this responsibility. And should have known about it at the time of purchase.

    Our jurisdiction has for many years prohibited creation of new lots with access to collector or arterial roads. The developer is required to dedicate an access reservation strip along the major roadway.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian fareastsider's avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    33
    How have others approached a property that backs up to an interstate. We had a difference of opinion in the office recently considering the setback of the rear property line which was an interstate Right of Way. The traveled roadway was at least 100' from the ROW line. We default to road-front setbacks on double frontage lots. We used the rear yard setback instead of the road front setback in this instance. Has anyone else faced this dilemma?

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 0
    Last post: 17 Feb 2010, 3:33 PM
  2. Triple frontage residential lot
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 14
    Last post: 16 Jan 2007, 11:39 AM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last post: 02 Jun 2005, 5:04 PM
  4. Double Frontage Flag Lot???
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 2
    Last post: 24 Feb 2004, 7:22 AM
  5. Subdivision Double Fronting Lots
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 7
    Last post: 06 Sep 2002, 5:26 PM