Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs minimum lot sizes and built‑environment setbacks to guide infill
Summary
To limit unexpected dense infill, the commission recommended establishing minimum lot sizes (proposed 0.33 acres in P‑3 and 1 acre in P‑2) and administrative setbacks tied to adjacent lots so new construction better matches the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend code edits that set minimum lot sizes in residential place types and establish administrative rules so new houses match the existing built environment’s setbacks.
Staff said Bastrop currently lacks citywide minimum lot size standards for many residential place types, which has allowed proposals that could subdivide older lots into very small parcels or permit multiple units on a single lot in areas not designed for dense infill. Using parcel data, staff reported average lot sizes in P‑2 (primarily more rural neighborhoods) and P‑3 (established residential neighborhoods), and proposed minimums intended to reflect the existing neighborhood fabric: a one‑acre minimum in much of P‑2 and approximately 0.33 acres (about one‑third acre) in P‑3. The intent is to provide predictability for neighbors and to avoid exacerbating stormwater, utility and parking impacts on streets and drainage systems built for larger lots.
The commission also recommended an administrative nonconforming‑lot provision that allows property owners on smaller lots to proceed with building consistent with the “built environment” on their block (an administrative review of two lots on either side and within 500 feet), so long as the new development is consistent with adjacent setbacks, lot lines and characteristics. Commissioners emphasized the proposal is not intended to ban redevelopment; rather, it aims to limit sudden, large density changes that could overburden local infrastructure.
Several residents and development stakeholders urged flexibility to preserve affordability and permitted tools such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and planned development districts for projects that need higher density; staff said the code already includes ADU provisions and that planned development and PD districts remain options for tailored, larger projects.
The commission approved the proposed minimums and asked staff to return with any revised language and graphics for a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance language capturing the recommended minimum lot sizes and administrative nonconforming‑lot review and forward the text for council consideration.
