Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment R3 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses major draft to shrink R‑3 lot widths, allow townhome footprints
Summary
A proposed zoning text amendment would reduce minimum single‑family lot widths in the county's R‑3 zone, add rules for townhouse lots and trigger closer review of subdivision and site‑plan rules. Commissioners requested more illustrations, cross‑checks with the subdivision ordinance and public‑utilities planning before acting.
Planning commission members reviewed a draft zoning text amendment that would change R‑3 lot width rules and add explicit townhouse standards, starting with a proposal that "All single family lots shall have a minimum width of 65 feet," said Al Asha during the workshop.
The proposal, presented for first review, would reduce the current prescribed frontage requirements and add a subsection allowing townhouse lots with a minimum area of "2,000 square feet," a provision proponents said reflects how townhouse ownership can be structured. The change is intended to allow denser, more compact subdivisions while preserving larger shared open space, proponents said.
The amendment drew detailed technical and policy questions. Planning staff Allen Ferguson said the county must reconcile the draft with the subdivision ordinance and public‑utilities requirements. "The R3 zone shall only be established where public water and sewer facilities are available," he noted when commissioners raised how existing R‑3 parcels in the county appeared to predate current utilities.
Commissioners asked for illustrations and scenarios before any formal recommendation. Commissioner Whitman asked whether a 2,000‑square‑foot townhouse lot meant the homeowner only owns the footprint; Mr. Ferguson responded that in typical fee‑simple townhouse development "you own the land underneath of your dwelling" and common areas and parking are generally handled by an HOA or site plan.
Developers and the public also discussed practical impacts: roadway and stormwater footprints for narrower lots, off‑street parking patterns, HOA structures for common area maintenance and whether the change would push many projects into the county's site‑plan or planned‑unit‑development review. Mr. Esch, who later described a concept for a farm property, said he favored mostly single‑family detached housing on his site but wanted the option to include some smaller lots or attached units as a corner mix.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized the need to align any zoning text changes with the subdivision ordinance, site‑plan rules and the county comprehensive plan before moving forward. Several members asked staff to produce before the next workshop: illustrative layouts showing the same parcel under current rules and proposed rules, an inventory of existing R‑3 parcels and utilities, and draft language clarifying how setbacks and lot width will be measured.
No final action was taken; the item remained a workshop topic to be refined and returned with graphics and cross‑references to the subdivision and utilities requirements.
