Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines R‑1 code tweaks and Westbridge Meadows concept; commission asks for comparison to existing code
Summary
Developers of Westbridge Meadows presented proposed changes to county R‑1 family residential standards — smaller interior lots, alley‑loaded options and adjusted setbacks — to support attainable detached housing and a mixed neighborhood. Commissioners asked staff for a side‑by‑side comparison to current code before formal action.
Developers for the Westbridge Meadows project presented proposed changes to several R‑1 residential standards at the planning meeting on Aug. 13 to make the county’s single‑family zoning more adaptable for smaller detached homes, alley‑loaded lots and neighborhood connectivity.
The applicant team said the aim is to offer a broader range of housing types — including smaller detached homes intended to be more affordable than a typical single‑family product — and to avoid seeking site‑specific overlay zoning or numerous development exceptions. "Rather than create a unique overlay for one subdivision, we would prefer to propose code changes that work for multiple projects," a developer representative said.
Key concepts presented included reduced minimum lot frontages for interior lots, clearer standards that allow alley‑loaded garages on narrow lots, and adjustment of front‑ and rear‑setback rules so modest houses can be built without creating garage‑dominated street frontages. Staff and the developer emphasized that these changes are intended not to increase overall neighborhood density beyond the general plan’s targets but to permit varied building layouts that produce a usable public realm and reduce the cost of entry‑level detached homes.
Commissioners asked staff to return with a side‑by‑side comparison showing current code versus the proposed tables, plus language that preserves the general plan’s average density goals. Commissioners also flagged the need to ensure any changes protect block‑level connectivity, traffic calming and stormwater detention requirements. The developer said they would refine their submittal and meet again with staff; no formal amendment or vote was taken during the meeting.
What comes next: Planning staff will produce a marked‑up comparison between the existing R‑1 provisions and the proposed changes and bring that material back to the commission for further discussion and, if appropriate, formal amendment language to send to the County Commission.
