Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Parcel Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise bike‑trail speed limit and parcel‑split questions during Hooper planning commission public comment
Summary
During public comment at the May 8 meeting, a resident urged a speed limit for a local bike trail and another resident asked about splitting an R‑1 parcel and options including rezoning or an accessory dwelling unit; planning staff explained rezoning and the ADU option and identified frontage and lot‑size limits to consider.
During the May 8 Hooper Planning Commission meeting public comment period, speakers raised two separate concerns: setting a speed limit for a local bike trail and the process and constraints for splitting a privately held parcel.
One resident requested the commission consider a speed limit for the city bike trail to address safety concerns about speeding bicycles and mixed users. The speaker did not specify a proposed speed limit; the comment was recorded as a public‑comment request for the commission to consider safety measures for the trail.
A second speaker identified themselves as a property owner near 4000 South and 5350 and said they own an approximately one‑acre R‑1 parcel and are exploring splitting it into two parcels. The resident said sewer and water are available at the site and asked whether the future land‑use map designation of 0.75 acre would allow a smaller lot or whether rezoning was required. The resident said family history and school proximity factor into their plans.
Planning staff responded that the existing zoning (R‑1) governs current lot rules and that a smaller lot would generally require rezoning or a general plan amendment to alter the future land‑use map. Staff suggested one alternative: an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which would add a second dwelling on the lot without subdividing into separate parcels. Staff noted ADU rules include occupancy and size limits (staff referenced a 960 square‑foot limit for a second dwelling in the example discussed) and said frontage minimums and other development standards could limit a subdivision. Staff also offered to meet with the resident to review parcel frontage requirements and next steps for rezoning or a general plan amendment.
No formal action or vote was taken on either public comment item; staff offered follow‑up assistance to the parcel owner.
