Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Family Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board splits single‑family code overhaul; approves height increase and privacy‑wall rules, tables FAR and tree policy
Summary
The Planning Board reviewed a five‑part revision to single‑family rules (FAR, building coverage, heights, privacy walls, tree protections). Members voted to bifurcate the ordinance, approving a height increase (25 to 30 feet) and privacy‑wall rules (with amendment banning roofs) and tabling FAR/building coverage and tree‑preservation procedures for further numeric and procedural work.
The Planning Board debated a package of five proposed changes to single‑family development rules and ultimately split the proposal so some items can proceed while others are revised.
Staff said the package — brought forward at the commission’s direction — would remove covered porches from FAR calculations, modestly increase FAR percentages for common lot sizes, allow indoor floor‑area increases through bonuses, raise the single‑family maximum height from 25 to 30 feet, create regulated "privacy walls" for corner lots, and add an administrative adjustment to preserve large specimen trees without a costly variance.
Several board members supported the intention behind the changes but expressed concern about loose numerical tables and unintended consequences. One member warned the current draft could produce flatter, blockier rooflines if porches are no longer counted in FAR, while staff noted that lot coverage and impervious‑area rules would remain in effect.
The board split its action. Members voted to approve the height increase, measured from lot grade, arguing the change provides relief for finished‑floor elevation and remains consistent with the city’s existing form standards. The privacy‑wall provision also passed with an amendment explicitly prohibiting roofs over privacy walls, to prevent creation of enclosed rooms in what would otherwise be setback areas.
By contrast, the board tabled the FAR/building‑coverage mechanics and the tree‑preservation administrative adjustment, asking staff to return with clearer numeric tables that reconcile FAR, building coverage and impervious calculations and to propose enforceable neighbor protections and maintenance covenants for preserved trees. The board’s bifurcation motion passed unanimously.
Gus Gill, a local builder, told the board the changes would improve design flexibility without expanding footprints, while staff emphasized the goal of making it easier to preserve large canopy trees without forcing a formal variance process.
Next steps: staff will refine the numeric tables, craft clearer language about how porches and balconies are counted, and return the FAR and tree items for further review; height and privacy‑wall language will move forward in the planning‑board package to the city commission.
