Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Prd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Directors clarify when planned-development review is required for quadplexes
Summary
At a March 31 agenda review, city staff told the board that a quadplex counts as four units for zoning, making a mixed plan a seven‑unit planned development (PRD) and triggering the PRD process; directors discussed whether the review could be streamlined to encourage housing.
At a March 31 agenda meeting, board members pressed city staff on when a planned‑development review is required and were told that a quadplex counts as four dwelling units for zoning purposes.
The question — raised during an April 7 agenda review planning discussion — centered on a proposed development combining two adjacent properties. One board member asked whether seven total units was the reason the project needed a PRD. Brad, a city staff member, replied, “If it’s quadplex, it’s four units,” and explained that the proposal would be treated as a seven‑unit planned development made up of three single‑family homes and either two duplexes or one quadplex.
Why it matters: counting rules determine when projects must go through a PRD rather than be built under standard zoning. Brad said the PRD was also required because two separate property owners (one identified in discussion as “CDC” and the other as “Two Moons”) were combining lots and because setbacks and other site constraints often make standard R4 development infeasible.
Board members discussed whether the city’s rules could be streamlined so developers could add residential units without always requiring a PRD. One director said the city should look for ways to encourage development by reducing procedural hurdles where possible; staff replied that setback constraints and underlying zoning vary by site, meaning the PRD remains the tool for resolving those site‑specific issues.
The board did not take a formal vote on changes to the development code during the meeting. The matter was reviewed as part of the agenda preview for the April 7 meeting, where the city will consider related items.
