In a survey conducted earlier this year the most frequently cited reason for living in Highland was large lots. The city now has three residential zones; which one meets your minimum criteria for large lots?
Selection Votes 
R-1-20: 20,000 sq. ft. or greater 17%14 
R-1-30: 30,000 sq. ft. avg with min. 20K sq. ft. & no more than 25% of lots less than 25K sq. ft. 13%11 
R-1-40: 40,000 sq. ft. avg with min. 20K sq. ft. & no more than 25% of lots less than 30K sq. ft. 70%58 
83 total 

Comments Left About This Poll

Showing comments 1-20 of 23.
Page: 1 2

 Posted by Roger Dixon  September 28, 2016 at 2:12 amFrom 97.126.249.x  Report Abuse 
We need the smaller lots option for those who do not want to maintain a large lot. We know a number of people for whom their large lot has become a burden as their families leave the nest and they themselves age. The open space sub-divisions are a great option because they offer smaller lots with park areas for gatherings and play areas.
     Posted by Cody Yeck in reply to Roger Dixon  September 28, 2016 at 5:54 amFrom 76.8.215.x  Report Abuse 
    I love my parks, Roger, it is my understanding that the city will not be putting any more parks in, unfortunately.
       Posted by Rod in reply to Cody Yeck  September 28, 2016 at 10:04 amFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
      The current city council is not interested in adding additional open space developments. The city still owns undeveloped park acreage. At some point these will get developed.
         Posted by Andrew Ford in reply to Rod  November 13, 2016 at 3:52 amFrom 66.87.126.x  Report Abuse 
        The property near 9860 N and 6300 W that was to be a park was sold this last year from what I understand. In the long run it would have been a super asset to the community.
           Posted by Rod Mann in reply to Andrew Ford  January 2, 2017 at 3:14 amFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
          That piece of property was not sold. We discussed it and I supported selling most of it but we never voted on it.
             Posted by Rod Mann in reply to Rod Mann  January 2, 2017 at 3:21 amFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
            The proceeds from the land could have been used to develop the other larger undeveloped park property adjacent to Mountain Ridge Jr. High. For the foreseeable future we will have two large undeveloped park properties.
 Posted by Mike Spain  September 27, 2016 at 12:30 pmFrom 65.124.74.x  Report Abuse 
We need to get back to the original zoning plans. The R-140 should be the standard with very few exceptions in order to maintain the unique community Highland is in contrast to many surrounding communities
 Posted by Jess Adamson  September 27, 2016 at 5:17 amFrom 73.3.79.x  Report Abuse 
The one thing that has made Highland unique from surrounding communities is our R-1-40 zoning. When the city incorporated in 1977 this became our only zone. The R-1-20 zone came later to address the needs of parcels that had specific challenges and was used sparingly over the years. I believe that the addition of the R-1-30 zone has brought undesirable consequences and has diminished the original intent of the R-1-40 zoning that has defined our community since incorporation. However the greatest departure from our one acre density philosophy has been the creation of Flex zoning in the Town Center. This has allowed much greater density than can be found in neighboring communities and has created many problems. Let's keep the vision of the R-1-40 zoning that has served us well for 40 years.
     Posted by Rod Mann in reply to Jess Adamson  September 27, 2016 at 9:20 pmFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
    My understanding is that R-1-20 was a zone that the county applied to some developments in Highland before it was incorporated. Is that incorrect?
       Posted by Jess Adamson in reply to Rod Mann  September 28, 2016 at 3:40 amFrom 73.3.79.x  Report Abuse 
      Before incorporation the county was approving subdivisions with lots around 1/3 acre. This was the primary motivation that led residents to petition for incorporation. These lots are now considered pre-existing R-1-20. The R-1-20 zone was established some time after the original R-1-40 and was only used as a transition from these pre-existing small lots to new R-1-40 developments. You can clearly see this on the zoning map.
 Posted by Cody Yeck  September 27, 2016 at 3:51 amFrom 76.8.215.x  Report Abuse 
Rod, please check on this website. I only replied once and it has my comments duplicated. Thank you :
 Posted by Cara Larson  September 20, 2016 at 5:43 amFrom 155.98.164.x  Report Abuse 
I feel that larger lots are more desirable, improve property values, and basically look better. Larger lots allow for more green space and have more curb appeal than house after house crammed close together.
     Posted by Rod in reply to Cara Larson  September 20, 2016 at 12:37 pmFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
    The question is really what constitutes a larger lot 20,000 sq ft, 25,000, ... . I probably should have written the poll differently and not used zone names. Depending on your perspective 20K sq. ft. can be a large lot or 40K sq. ft a small one.
 Posted by Laura Harding  September 19, 2016 at 5:43 pmFrom 71.199.7.x  Report Abuse 
Large lots allowing owners to bring their own builder to build a custom home is in HUGE demand in Highland city and is something that cannot be found in Highland unfortunatly. Highland is overrun with production home builders and our city council keeps granting the requests of these production home builders to rezone to higher density to accomidate their financial desires. All to the detriment of Highland city, residents and land values here. I feel like Highland city development is being determined by large development and production home building corporations. And the end land owner never gets a chance to build what they want on the lot they desire to own, live on and use. Meanwhile, production home builders, who are not residents of our city, walk away with their pockets full and poorly planned developments left in their wake. It's very unfortunate what has been happening.
Thank you for the poll. It will be interesting to see the results.
     Posted by Rod Mann in reply to Laura Harding  September 20, 2016 at 3:57 amFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
    You are welcome. It takes about 400 respondents to ensure a poll is meaningful.
 Posted by Tom Bates  September 18, 2016 at 2:52 pmFrom 73.228.66.x  Report Abuse 
When the city was formed, the majority of the citizens wanted lots to be a minumum of 1 acre. Despite that, the realtors and developers rammed through the idea of a "1 acre average density". The result was a lot of homes on much smaller lots and a lot of "open space" that those home owners now expect the city (us tax payers), instead of their HOA's, to maintain. Now you want to degrade the situation even more? Before long, your going to want to implement developments with an "average density" of 1/4 acre lots.
     Posted by Rod in reply to Tom Bates  September 19, 2016 at 9:09 amFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
    Actually, although the council voted to have the city be zoned 1 acre my understanding from the mayor is that according to a survey of the residents a majority preferred R-1-20. However that was over 30 years. What is more relevant than what residents thought 30+ years ago is the impact on city infrastructure and what the resident point of view is today.
 Posted by Cody Yeck   September 16, 2016 at 2:39 amFrom 74.81.251.x  Report Abuse 
The zoning of R-40 sounds large but after roads, sidewalks and minimum size quota, the lots are really .50-.69 average. With setbacks on sides, front and back, it leaves a building footprint that MAY allow for extra garages, sportcourts, pools or actual green space in yards that you can run and play in. Go smaller and it will eliminate options for your "Dream home"and a place you want to stay for a long time.
     Posted by Rod in reply to Cody Yeck   September 16, 2016 at 12:23 pmFrom 98.202.124.x  Report Abuse 
    Using Highland Fields, which is located immediately east of Ridgeline Elementary, as an example of the actual size lots in an R-1-40 zone here are the numbers.
    1) 15 lots total
    2) Average lot size 32,340 sq. ft. or 0.74 acres
    3) Minimun lot size 30,000 sq. ft. or 0.69 acres
    4) Maximum lot size 42,122 sq. ft. or 0.97 acres.
     Posted by Rod in reply to Cody Yeck   September 16, 2016 at 3:29 amFrom 65.102.76.x  Report Abuse 
    Only 25% of the lots in a R-1-40 zone can be less than 30,000 sq. ft. (0.69 acres). In a R-1-30 no more than 25% can be smaller than 25,000 sq. ft. (0.56 acres). When you couple this with the front and side yard set back and frontage requirements, developers can generally not build the theoretical maximum number of lots in either zone.

Page: 1 2

Add a Comment

Your Name:

By posting, you confirm that you have read
and agree to Pollcode's terms of service.
Polls are subject to error and are for entertainment only.