Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Builders warn Goddard design standards would raise home costs; council seeks middle ground
Summary
Local builders told the Goddard City Council that proposed citywide design standards — including a 0.5-acre park requirement and a rule limiting garage frontage to 50% of a home’s front — would increase development costs and could be passed to buyers; council asked staff to work with builders on narrower compromises.
Tyler York, representing the Rich Dad Area Builder Association, told the Goddard City Council that his members support high-quality neighborhoods but worry the city’s proposed design standards are overly prescriptive and could materially increase housing costs.
“The proposed standards contain several requirements that will significantly increase development and construction costs,” York said, arguing the city should focus on outcomes rather than detailed formulas. He highlighted a proposed 0.5-acre park requirement with active amenities and long-term maintenance obligations as an example that would increase special assessments and homeowners’ association fees.
Builder Paul Kelsey and other developers elaborated on practical impacts. Kelsey said the garage-width rule — limiting garage frontage to no more than 50% of a house front — would force wider lots or design workarounds that drive up costs. “Do you realize what if it’s winter? How are we gonna get trees in the yard?” Kelsey asked about a related tree-planting-as-occupancy requirement, illustrating timing and cost concerns.
Council members acknowledged the need to address constituent concerns about repetitive building patterns and occasional poor-quality units while also weighing affordability and market realities. One council member noted repeated, identical product types allow builders to capture efficiencies and lower per-unit prices; another said constituents want assurance that new homes fit the community character.
As alternatives to a uniform, citywide ordinance, York offered two options: direct staff to work with builders to draft amendments that address specific industry challenges, or rely on master development plans and development agreements to allow project-specific standards. Staff and several developers also pointed to the city’s existing Planned Unit Development (PED) pathway as a vehicle for articulating more detailed design controls on a project-by-project basis.
Council instructed staff to meet with builder representatives and requested the association return with a short list (their top three to five) of concerns for consideration. Members signaled a desire to produce compromise language soon, potentially before the next major meeting cycle.
The conversation underscored the tension between design goals — variety and neighborhood character — and the economy of scale that helps keep homes affordable. Council did not adopt a final ordinance during the meeting; staff will continue discussions and bring refined options back to council.
