Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Lot Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers ask staff to study a narrow 40-foot lot zoning option; planning staff agrees to convene roundtable
Summary
Developers’ committee representatives asked planning staff to explore a potential new zoning district to allow narrower 40-foot-wide residential lots (R-1C concept); staff agreed to meet with developers and return to the Ordinance Committee.
Get email alerts on the Small Lot Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the close of the Feb. 5 meeting, representatives of the developers’ committee requested that planning staff explore a potential narrow-lot residential district (40-foot-wide lots, approximately 4,000 square feet, with modest side setbacks) or a new R-1C district to enable an urban infill product.
Why it matters: The request responds to demand for compact single-family lots that produce an "urban" look and more housing units per acre. If adopted, a new district could be used in locations with sewer and water to encourage smaller-lot single-family development and reduce reliance on planned-development overlays for similar outcomes.
What was proposed: Tim Balancey, speaking for the developers’ committee and as a T Bird Design representative, described a concept with 40-foot-wide lots, 100-foot depths (approximately 4,000 square feet), 5-foot side setbacks and options for rear-loaded or alley-access designs. Staff clarified that R-1U districts are geographically tied to urban sewer maps and that creating a new R-1C zoning district may be cleaner than changing R-1U maps because a new district could apply wherever sewer and water are available.
Committee action: The committee gave unanimous consent for staff to meet with the developers’ committee to study the concept and return with a proposal or findings to the Ordinance Committee at a future meeting.
Ending: Staff said it will convene a roundtable with developers and return with draft language or recommendations to the Ordinance Committee; no ordinance text was drafted at the Feb. 5 meeting.

