Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Double Frontage Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table plan to eliminate 'double‑frontage' lot rule after concerns
Summary
A proposal to remove the zoning code's double‑frontage‑lot treatment — which would have designated one yard as a rear yard — was set aside for deeper review after commissioners said the change raised practical and design concerns for corner and Main‑Street properties.
A proposed rewrite that would eliminate the zoning code's definition for "double‑frontage" lots was tabled by the Ferndale Planning Commission May 14 after commissioners raised concerns about its practical effect on corner properties and Main‑Street frontages.
Roger, city planner, proposed simplifying the code by removing the double‑frontage definition so "a lot has one front yard, which is customarily designated with the street address... and the two remaining yards are side yards." He said the change would simplify setback application for most properties. Several commissioners pushed back.
"I actually disagree with this," Commissioner Brazen said. "I think we've used that quite a bit. ... I think there are instances where it's important to have it in previous years." Brazen and others argued that corner lots and properties that face two streets — notably along retail corridors such as Troy Street — are treated differently by design and setback standards. Commissioners worried removing the double‑frontage concept could unintentionally require identical front setbacks on both streets and reduce space for rear‑facing services like patios or loading and dumpsters.
Chair Foster and staff acknowledged the issue had wider design implications. Foster recommended pulling the double‑frontage item out of the current packet for a future session so staff could develop clearer language and examples before the council hearing. Staff agreed to include the subject in the committee review of dimensional rules and return a draft that clarifies how main‑street frontages (e.g., Troy Street) could be treated differently from secondary frontages.
The commission did not take a final vote on the double‑frontage language; it remains under study.
