Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cottage Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and staff seek to remove 1,300-square-foot cap from Lubbock's 'cottage' definition
Summary
Developers asked the council to amend the Unified Development Code so that the single-family "cottage" designation is defined by lot size (under 5,000 sq ft) rather than a 1,300 sq ft maximum for the dwelling; staff said the change would clarify implementation and avoid garage-area counting confusion.
A developer and planning staff asked the joint Planning and Zoning Commission/City Council to amend the Unified Development Code definition of "single-family cottage" by removing a 1,300-square-foot maximum home-area cap and instead requiring cottages to be located on lots smaller than 5,000 square feet.
Ronnie Wallace, representing Beatenbo Homes, told the commission his company had encountered conflicting interpretations between staff and developers when garages were included in square-footage calculations. "We respectfully submit a formal request to amend section 39 dot 10 dot 0 0 2 of the zoning ordinance regarding the single family cottage definition... we propose removal of the stated 1,300 square foot, maximum home area," Wallace said.
Planning staff said the cap had been added in a recent round of amendments to distinguish cottages from other detached single-family homes. Staff recommended using lot-size criteria rather than a home-area cap to distinguish cottages from other single-family product types: "We think it would be more appropriate to say cottages must be on a lot that is less than 5,000 square feet," staff said, noting the UDC already contains related density and lot-coverage rules (including a 65% maximum lot coverage for cottages).
Council members asked whether limiting living area (for example, "1,300 square feet of living space") would better reflect developer concerns about garages increasing total conditioned area; staff cautioned that living area definitions could complicate multi-story designs and said setbacks and coverage limits would continue to control density.
No formal action was taken at the hearing; staff will include the amendment in the June review process.
