Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds zoning ordinance amendment on duplex standards until Jan. 5 after debate over housing impacts
Summary
Councilmembers debated and ultimately agreed to hold second‑passage consideration of PCO 27‑25 (zoning changes affecting fences, drive‑throughs and duplex lot standards) until Jan. 5 to get planning director input and examine potential effects on duplex construction and housing supply.
On second passage of PCO 27‑25 — an ordinance amending Appendix A of the zoning ordinance to reinstate dimensional standards for duplexes and address fences and drive‑through clearances — the council on Nov. 17 agreed to hold the item until Jan. 5 to allow additional review and input from planning staff.
Councilman Ricks argued the ordinance as presented could make it harder to build duplexes in single‑family zones and urged the council to consider the broader effect on housing supply. "If we're going to do less than we can to make housing possible, we should at least know what the alternatives will cost the city," Ricks said, pressing for a careful review of whether the change restores an omission or tightens standards.
Administration staff clarified that prior zoning updates had inadvertently omitted dimensional table entries for two‑family dwellings, leaving the zoning board with incomplete standards when reviewing special‑use permits; this proposal would reinsert standards and thereby give the zoning board clear criteria to apply. The planning director was not present; councilmembers requested his attendance and analysis before final action.
Councilman Ricks briefly moved an amendment to align two‑family minimum lot sizes with single‑family dimensional requirements but withdrew that amendment and instead asked to hold the ordinance to the Jan. 5 meeting so the planning director can provide context and staff can answer technical questions. Council agreed to the hold. The committee recommendation had been to move the ordinance to the floor; the council chose a temporary delay to allow further review.
