@MichMatters yes the minimum width (contradicted by the zoning ordinance, but the subdivision ordinance governs) and depth-to-width ratio thing is out of control. Even the State's standard is 4:1. Planning & Zoning Office is working on an amendment so this isn't an issue anymore. You're totally right - if it fits a house and a driveway, one should be good to go.
Funny enough Planning & Zoning got a call from a neighbor here arguing against the lot split because the city is trying to cram in more housing. The caller failed to understand the irony that the proposed parcels are the exact same dimensions as their property.
@MichMatters@citykid This is off-topic, but maybe one of you could help... I have a friend who I'm working with on investment properties and sometime in the next few years I'd like to build something from the ground up. I'm specifically going to push for a 3 floor / 3 unit building because I think it would fit well on a house-sized lot and be properly scaled for most older neighborhoods while maximizing the lands use. What zoning would I be looking for if I wanted to build something similar to the picture below?
It'd have to be R-MX (Mixed Residential) or any of the commercial/mixed-use districts.
@citykid, yeah, I've always imagined that the FBC didn't go further because you're going to have some really loud NIMBYs, whereas the people who don't mind aren't going to be vocal one way or the other. Along with changes to the land subdivision, I'd really like to see accessory dwelling units permitted to allow aging-in-place and other living arrangements where you might want someone to be able to live on your lot with you, but with a bit of privacy. I want to see us be much more experimental; if something doesn't work, it can always be reverted.
@MichMatters I finally dug into it a bit, am I reading it right that R-6b allows up to 6 units per lot in single building? The use table also lists 3+ units as conditional use but I'm having trouble finding what those conditions might be. There's a lot more R-6b than R-mx to choose from.
Depends on how tall it is. R-MX gives you a bit more clearance. Wasn't sure how tall the structures were and if the picture above was an exact representation. If you can keep it under 35 feet, yeah, R-6B would be the more common choice. Anything taller than that, you got to go into a more intense zone.
Yes, you can get up to a max of 6 units, and the number of units is controlled by the size of the lot and the number of bedrooms planned for each unit in the building (Efficiency: 2200 sq. ft. 1-bdrm: 2600 sq. ft., 2 bdrm: 3000 sq. ft., 3+ bdrms: 3800 sq. ft.). The "condition" on multi-family in this district is the number of units (i.e. can't be more than 6).
Thanks for the insight, that particular design is 33' tall so would work. It's very good to see that R6b zoning accommodates that kind of building because that zoning covers most of the area I'd be interested in placing it, I also think this sort of housing is generally good for the city.
Yeah, it's one of the few big changes they made from the old code, and is meant to accomodate "missing middle" housing to an extent and help out smaller developers. I just wish it was something they'd allow in ALL R-6 (and maybe even R-5) zones, because it's how neighborhoods historically developed. My mom grew up in Detroit in a duplex/flat mixed among single family homes, and at most of the residential intersections was at least one small apartment building or slightly larger ones on residential arterials. It gives people more options of where and how they want to live in a walkable area.
Agreed. Looking at the map most of r6 areas look like areas that already have older duplexes mixed in, it's a little odd they didn't at least allow duplexes in 6a.
It's my hope this year that we take the city council elections kind of seriously, and press candidates on this. But, it's coming up pretty quickly. Primary in two months away. I'd like to get them on the record on issues of zoning and the code. Because this is something that could be changed fairly easily, but it has to be on our leaders' radar and they have to have an interest in it. What I fear is that we're going to get Washington back on council, and she has absloutely no positive interest on this subject.
In addition to R-MX and R-6b, you could also look at DT-1 for that triplex model. I'll be pretty frank - FBC was relatively conservative (by this forum's standards) by design because of who was in power and who was designing the actual text. The old planner did not have much zoning experience so there is some wonky stuff, like all the senseless residential district types. We will be doing away with the de facto density limits mentioned before and rely on maximum lot coverage, and parking, instead. Using that equation most developments would need like three parcels to actually accommodate the 3-6 units, which defeats the purpose of gentle density and ruins the built environment. R-1 through R-6a should become one district and R-6b will stay the same. I do think duplexes and ADUs should be allowed by-right given a minimum lot size, but I do not have insight on how Council will feel. I do think the next body will be more progressive than the current one, and honestly there will only be a handful of people who will build this kind of density. There will probably be another round of zoning amendments after the election, they just have to be grounded in the Comprehensive Plan Update then reviewed and vetted.
I'd be surprised by a Washington comeback, and I don't know where she stands on this stuff today, but I will say when Planning and Zoning was conducting presentations and renewed outreach in the lead up to the FBC vote, she was on a call and voiced her support for its passage. Surprised the heck out of us.
Comments
Funny enough Planning & Zoning got a call from a neighbor here arguing against the lot split because the city is trying to cram in more housing. The caller failed to understand the irony that the proposed parcels are the exact same dimensions as their property.
@citykid, yeah, I've always imagined that the FBC didn't go further because you're going to have some really loud NIMBYs, whereas the people who don't mind aren't going to be vocal one way or the other. Along with changes to the land subdivision, I'd really like to see accessory dwelling units permitted to allow aging-in-place and other living arrangements where you might want someone to be able to live on your lot with you, but with a bit of privacy. I want to see us be much more experimental; if something doesn't work, it can always be reverted.
Yes, you can get up to a max of 6 units, and the number of units is controlled by the size of the lot and the number of bedrooms planned for each unit in the building (Efficiency: 2200 sq. ft. 1-bdrm: 2600 sq. ft., 2 bdrm: 3000 sq. ft., 3+ bdrms: 3800 sq. ft.). The "condition" on multi-family in this district is the number of units (i.e. can't be more than 6).
I'd be surprised by a Washington comeback, and I don't know where she stands on this stuff today, but I will say when Planning and Zoning was conducting presentations and renewed outreach in the lead up to the FBC vote, she was on a call and voiced her support for its passage. Surprised the heck out of us.