IDO 2025 Update - Council Amendments - Duplex - Fiebelkorn

seems dumb to exclude R-A, aren't those often bigger lots?

agree that there should be no setback requirement (Obviously impossible) on common property line.

However, this can be architecturally complicated; for example, if two different owners, and roof repair is required, how is that handled?

I thought the purpose of R-MC was "to accommodate manufactured home communities and to require this communities to incorporate high-quality planning and design."

By allowing SFH and now wanting to add duplexes, doesn't that potentially create risk for owners of mobile homes? Many mobile home communities are filled with residents who would not be able to move their homes if their park becomes 'bulldozer bait' for investment speculation.

This is another in a long line of efforts to undermine R-1 zoning. I thought when the LUPZ Committee voted 4-1 against letting multi-family housing go on R-1 corner lots, that the efforts would slow down. This amendment proposes wholesale permission for multi-family housing, with no height restrictions even, for R-1 zones everywhere. Ironically, it exempts R-A lots, which are, at least in the North Valley, usually large enough to accomodate multi-family housing with no problems.