Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs objective standards for single-family subdivisions as developers push smaller lots and reduced setbacks
Summary
Staff asked council whether to adopt objective, checklist-style standards to streamline approval for smaller single-family lots (developers requested minimum lots as small as ~2,500 sq ft, rear setbacks down to 5–10 ft, narrower park strips and larger garage-frontage allowances); council members raised privacy, safety, parking and neighborhood character concerns.
City planning staff opened a council discussion on Feb. 17 about adopting objective design standards for single-family subdivision developments to reduce discretionary negotiations and improve certainty for builders.
Staff said state law already requires objective standards for multifamily and residential mixed-use developments; the proposed work would extend a measurable, checklist-style approach to single-family subdivision projects (not individual infill lots) and would address measurable items such as parcel size, setbacks, floor-area ratios, parking, open-space minimums, garage frontage, exterior materials and façade variation.
Consultant stakeholder interviews and developer requests reviewed by staff showed market interest in smaller-lot products: developers suggested minimum lots as small as 2,500 sq ft, reduced rear setbacks (10 feet or less in some proposals), side setbacks of 3–5 feet, reduced park-strip widths and higher allowed garage-frontage percentages (developers asked to increase a current 50% limit to near 75% on narrow lots). Staff recommended placing measurable setback and lot-size rules in the zoning ordinance and adding objective design checks — for example, requiring three distinct floor plans/elevations, minimum open-space usability (a minimum dimension rather than a narrow strip) and streetscape standards (windows facing the street, defined entry walkways).
Council members and residents raised concerns during the discussion. Several members said deep two‑story houses with a 10-foot rear setback could create privacy and shading problems for existing neighbors; others questioned whether allowing small lots and high garage frontage would create streetscapes dominated by garage doors and reduce property values. Council members also asked about parking impacts, fire-safety clearances and whether reduced lot sizes would require a new zoning district or could be implemented by amending small-lot provisions and adding objective requirements for subdivisions.
Staff said options include maintaining current zoning setbacks while creating an objective exception checklist for smaller-lot subdivisions (for example, allow reduced setbacks only if checklist criteria are met), requiring offsetting public open space or additional off-street parking, and continuing to require design variation so that small-lot development does not become visually monotonous.
Council did not adopt new standards at the meeting and staff said they will return with examples, proposed text and visuals that show how proposals would look in Hanford neighborhoods to inform further direction.
