Question for realtors - 78756 and 78757

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Muzzle of Bees

There are very few McMansions, if any in Crestview.

Crestview is in the area covered by the McMansion ordinance. All the new construction you're complaining about must adhere to its strictures, which is why they all look the way they do.

So maybe you should know what you're talking about before spouting off.

So where are these examples of setbacks being ignored?

Originally Posted by Muzzle of Bees

It is the lots that have a duplex or fourplex where one 900 sq ft home existed. And they were double lots.

Fourplexes aren't legal in the SF-3 lots of crestview. So where is one?

Now two duplexes, each on it's own lot, that would be allowed. Though again, you're talking about 12-16 off-street parking spaces.

Originally Posted by Muzzle of Bees

What most people don't realize is that nobody wants to get up and move their car. People will park on the street to avoid parking behind someone. The rules can easily be slighted and often are.

Which applies just as much and more so to the existing stock. So which is going to cause more problems? The DINK couple in a new duplex that has two garage spaces (and two driveway spaces in front of them). Or the 3 roommates in existing construction that has 1 carport, and the others park in the street so they avoid parking behind them.

[TexasHorseLady]

Just for the record, having had friends (multiple houses) living in Crestview for the past, oh, must be 30-40 years now, and having sold property there, so far I have yet to see a house, even with a one car garage, that won't allow three cars to be parked off the street.

But I haven't looked at all the houses in Crestview with an eye to now much off street parking they have, it's true. So I decided on a compromise - I looked at all the houses for sale, pending, or having sold within the last 90 days that are in Crestview that are NOT the ones that were built on the graves of older houses in the past few years.

Of those (there were 23), I looked carefully at the photos. Not all had garages - some had carports (there were a mix of one and two car garages and carports). I saw 3 that didn't clearly have, from the photos, sufficient off street parking for at least three cars, and some had room for more. (One had a three car garage at the back of the property and a long driveway to get to it.) There were two properties where I couldn't tell one way or the other.

Looks like not enough room for off street parking isn't the flaw of older smaller homes in Crestview isn't the all pervasive problem it's being painted as when you really take a look.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Just for the record, having had friends (multiple houses) living in Crestview for the past, oh, must be 30-40 years now, and having sold property there, so far I have yet to see a house, even with a one car garage, that won't allow three cars to be parked off the street.

But I haven't looked at all the houses in Crestview with an eye to now much off street parking they have, it's true. So I decided on a compromise - I looked at all the houses for sale, pending, or having sold within the last 90 days that are in Crestview that are NOT the ones that were built on the graves of older houses in the past few years.

Of those (there were 23), I looked carefully at the photos. Not all had garages - some had carports (there were a mix of one and two car garages and carports). I saw 3 that didn't clearly have, from the photos, sufficient off street parking for at least three cars, and some had room for more. (One had a three car garage at the back of the property and a long driveway to get to it.) There were two properties where I couldn't tell one way or the other.

Looks like not enough room for off street parking isn't the flaw of older smaller homes in Crestview isn't the all pervasive problem it's being painted as when you really take a look.

But according to Muzzle of Bees, people won't park in those driveways. Because they'd block the car in the carport, turning any of those single carport+driveways into a 1-car space.

Plus many of those garages have become storage only, because of the lack of space in the houses.

Either way you look at it, the new houses have _more_ parking than the old ones.
Either people will park in the driveways, making it ~4 vs. ~3
Or people won't park in the driveways, making it 2 vs. 1

[mesmer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But according to Muzzle of Bees, people won't park in those driveways. Because they'd block the car in the carport, turning any of those single carport+driveways into a 1-car space.

Plus many of those garages have become storage only, because of the lack of space in the houses.

Either way you look at it, the new houses have _more_ parking than the old ones.
Either people will park in the driveways, making it ~4 vs. ~3
Or people won't park in the driveways, making it 2 vs. 1

I've known a few people who've lived (either as renters or owners) in that area, in the original houses. None of them were in a roommate situation. All of them parked a car on the street. Take this data as you will.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by mesmer

I've known a few people who've lived (either as renters or owners) in that area, in the original houses. None of them were in a roommate situation. All of them parked a car on the street. Take this data as you will.

Makes sense: "why clutter up your own property with a large, clunky metal object when you can park it on public right of way for free?" I never quite understood why taxpayers should be paying for seriously expensive road which includes subgrade and surface pavement suitable for driving a multi-ton vehicle at a high rate of speed on it, only to have it clogged with a private citizen's parked car or truck, all at no charge (usually) to the parker. Please don't tell me you think your tiny gas tax and registration payments cover all the associated costs.
With all that said, I park on the street, every night.