• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Subdivision Double Fronting Lots

Glomer

Member
Messages
207
Points
9
What are your setbacks for accessory structures (sheds, kennels, etc...) on double fronting lots???
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
It is the same as the rear yard setback, unless covenants are more restrictive. Double frontage lots are one of the worst ideas ever (up there with frontage roads). There is never a reason for them.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
Ah, the debate begins...

We have cases where subdivisions are platted abutting restricted access county highways, so double frontage is a fact of life. We still consider it a street yard, so standard 'front yard' setbacks apply. We do try to require an additional 30 feet of lot depth, and a developer-installed landscape buffer.
 

Glomer

Member
Messages
207
Points
9
I agree that double frontage lots are terrible......however I disagree that they are always avoidable.

Double fronting lots are an unavoidable result of development of collector roads. I also don't think they shoud be considered the same as a rear yard setback, although our PC agrees with you. When we have double frontage lots, we make sure that they are longer than normal lots, to give them some buffer from the collector road. Thus, I think our city should make sure accessory structures are set back 20 to 30 feet.

What about having two accesses?? I have found that the closer we allow sheds to the collector road, the better chance people will drive over the curb and use it as an access.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
I agree with you on the approach you take - deeper lots and buffering - but I still think they can be avoided in most situations. Whether they will be avoided is another matter.

Restricted access county roads are a problem here, too. Come on, is it really that much of a problem to have driveways on a road with 3000 cars per day? If they can't live with that, how about at least having more frequent road intersections. For more busy streets where access would be problematic, other uses might be best on the collector road. I don't mean just commercial, industrial, or multi-family, but also parks, storm water facilities, etc.

Double frontage lots and frontage roads are just a couple pet peeves.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
Michael Stumpf said:
Restricted access county roads are a problem here, too. Come on, is it really that much of a problem to have driveways on a road with 3000 cars per day? If they can't live with that, how about at least having more frequent road intersections. For more busy streets where access would be problematic, other uses might be best on the collector road. I don't mean just commercial, industrial, or multi-family, but also parks, storm water facilities, etc.
3,000 cars per day, no problem. But in our case we are host to a regional landfill, and there is another regional landfill directly across the street in the neighboring municipality (I love the way the WDNR forces these puppies on you when your soil conditons are 'just right'). The result is one garbage truck every 30 seconds from 5:30am to 8:00pm. That's in addition to the 'normal' traffic. Not that we're locating new subdivisions near landfills, but they're near the route.

Buffer? I hardly know her!
 

mike gurnee

Cyburbian
Messages
3,066
Points
30
Yeah, but it happens. We added to the yard requirements:
"When a residential development is disigned so that no residence faces the rear frontage within a block face with no curb cut access to the rear street, such area may be considered a residential rear yard." That handled the accessory structures issue.
 
Top