Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Restrictive Covenant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goddard council reviews draft restrictive covenant approach to two‑family (R‑2) rezoning; staff to refine language
Summary
Staff presented a draft template for restrictive covenants to run with rezoned R‑2 properties that would set limits on duplex/twin‑home percentages and impose design standards; council asked for clearer wording on the 40% metric, enforcement and inspection procedures and asked staff to work with attorneys and return with revised language.
City planning staff presented a draft policy for a restrictive covenant template intended to be attached to property that seeks R‑2 (two‑family) zoning, and asked council for general direction on whether the approach should be refined for future rezoning requests.
"If you want this rezoning, you would have to adopt this restrictive covenant," a staff member said, explaining the proposed covenant would address the percentage of lots allowed as two‑family structures and require elements such as parkland, sidewalks, tree planting, architectural variety, facade design, garage standards and sound separation. The draft would be recorded with the county and run with the land; any waiver or modification would require city consent.
Council members probed enforcement and inspection questions. One council member asked whether the planning commission would review covenants; staff said developers would be informed early and the planning commission would recommend rezoning with the covenant before the council issued final approval. Members also raised whether the 40% threshold referenced in the draft applies to lots or dwelling units, and whether "twin homes" (pre‑split ownership) vs. duplexes (single ownership with rental units) were being measured consistently.
Several council members pressed staff on inspections and enforcement. "We need to have our own building inspector," a council member said, arguing the city should not rely solely on an external jurisdiction's inspector to enforce sound separation and design standards. Staff noted the city plans to advertise for a building inspector with four ICC certifications and that hiring qualified inspectors will take time; staff said many two‑family projects are still months from construction and the city has time to refine policy language.
Council members suggested staff work with the city attorney and return with clearer, legally binding wording — and one member proposed a temporary resolution or administrative directive to provide interim certainty to developers until the comprehensive plan is finished. Staff said the draft could be refined administratively and circulated internally if council signaled general comfort, and then distributed to developers and the planning commission prior to any rezoning request.
No formal vote was taken on the policy at the meeting; staff left the item in a review/comment phase and will return with revised language and legal opinion.
