Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft UDO changes to implement Senate Bill 418; members raise concerns about setbacks and neighborhood fit
Summary
Staff outlined proposed interim Unified Development Ordinance changes to comply with Senate Bill 418 — allowing homes up to 2,500 sq ft on 3,000 sq ft lots, minimum dimensions and façade/garage standards — and committee members asked about setbacks, fire-marshal side-yard rules and preserving neighborhood character.
Leslie, staff lead on the Unified Development Ordinance update, presented interim modifications to Chapter 18.377 to implement Senate Bill 418 and solicited committee feedback.
Leslie said the state "requires us to allow houses of up to 2,500 square feet on lots as small as 3,000 square feet subject to setbacks." Staff proposed minimum lot dimensions of 40 feet wide by 75 feet long, setback recommendations of 15 feet front, 20 feet rear and 6 feet on each side, and a design guideline that would limit garage width to two-thirds (0.667) of the front façade so the house, not the garage, remains the primary street-facing element.
Committee members probed whether the proposed standards could create inconsistent setbacks along a street and asked whether staff has discretion to encourage conformity with neighboring properties. Staff said the intent is to strike a balance between honoring the state mandate and ensuring new infill fits within established neighborhoods; staff noted the director would retain the ability to waive strict measurement in service of design intent. The fire marshal was referenced as insisting on a minimum 6-foot side-yard setback for fire-protection reasons.
Council members asked about height (2.5 stories standard), accessory dwelling units and the potential need for additional briefing on the historical logic of setback standards to inform the broader UDO discussion. Staff said there have not yet been applications under the new law but recommended getting standards in place before applications arrive; a public hearing before the planning commission was scheduled for the following Monday, and the planning commission’s recommendation would return to the full council.
No formal action was taken; staff will refine language and present the ordinance through the planning commission and then for full council approval.
