Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Lot Policy Discussion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission reviews smaller single‑family lot sizes; commissioners cautious about 6,000‑sq‑ft minimums
Summary
Planning staff presented options for allowing smaller single‑family lots (e.g., 6,000 sq. ft.) to increase housing affordability. Commissioners praised design controls but expressed reservations about narrow side setbacks and preserving community character; no action was taken.
Planning staff briefed the commission on a policy discussion about allowing smaller single‑family lots (for example, 6,000 square feet) to help provide lower‑cost new construction and a wider mix of housing types. The presentation outlined the rationale—rising lot and construction costs, interest rates and a local affordability gap for new homes—and compared Delavan’s RS‑5 minimums (8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size and 66‑foot width) with smaller‑lot examples used in other communities.
Staff said smaller lots can help developers share infrastructure costs, provide a broader product mix within a neighborhood and support more affordable new homes, but cautioned that smaller lots require careful design controls to avoid “garage‑forward” streetscapes. Staff recommended design standards that limit garage prominence, require front‑door orientation to sidewalks, require quality materials and preserve usable open space. Staff presented examples of neighborhoods with 6,000–7,200 sq. ft. lots and alley‑loaded units, and noted builder constraints on floor‑plan options for narrow lots.
Commissioners asked about building footprints, setbacks and parking. Staff noted a 6,000‑sq‑ft lot with 60‑foot width and 100‑foot depth still supports a marketable two‑story house (examples showed typical footprints of 1,400–1,800 sq. ft. per floor and two‑car garages). Several commissioners were uneasy about 6‑foot side setbacks (some suggested 10‑foot minimum) and urged design controls to prevent monotonous garage‑dominated facades. Commissioners also emphasized preserving Delavan’s identity and ensuring new developments include green space and usable public areas rather than maximizing lot counts at the expense of livability.
No formal action was taken; staff said the item was informational and that future development proposals could be considered case‑by‑case or by adopting a new zoning district or a PIP approach that allows lot‑size flexibility with design standards.
