Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews R1A 'Oldtown' zoning to encourage infill, allow duplexes and twin homes
Summary
Planner Travis Brierly presented a proposed R1A Oldtown residential zoning district to encourage infill redevelopment in older neighborhoods, with smaller lot standards, allowances for twin homes and duplexes, accessory‑structure limits, and an ongoing discussion about raising impervious‑surface allowances paired with stormwater controls.
Victoria City Council workshop — The council reviewed a staff proposal to create a new R1A Oldtown residential zoning district that would apply to older neighborhoods south of Highway 5 and aim to encourage targeted infill redevelopment while preserving neighborhood character.
Associate Planner Travis Brierly said the R1A is intended to facilitate single‑property redevelopment (infill) rather than large subdivision growth. ‘‘The intent... is for infill redevelopment opportunities. We want to maintain similar construction in the existing homes,’’ Brierly said, describing the district map and parcels under consideration.
Key elements proposed: smaller lot-dimension minimums for single‑family homes (a proposed 9,100 sq ft minimum), reduced front and rear setbacks (about 5 feet smaller than current R1 setbacks), corner/interior width distinctions (75‑foot corner; 65‑foot interior), and a duplex parcel minimum of about 14,500 sq ft to meet comp‑plan density ranges. The R1A would explicitly allow twin homes (two single‑family parcels sharing a wall) and duplexes (two units on one parcel) where R1 does not.
Design and controls: staff proposed accessory-structure limits tying total accessory footprint (attached plus detached) to the principal structure footprint, limiting accessory heights to the principal structure height, and requiring accessory materials to be similar to the house to avoid garages or outbuildings dominating the visual character. Brierly also proposed limiting temporary shipping containers/conexes on private property to a short time window; staff suggested 48 hours, and council members favored 72 hours.
Impervious-surface debate: planning commission and staff had discussed raising the current 35% impervious-surface limit (to 40% or 50%) so house footprints and garages could be larger under the new bulk standards. Council members signaled conditional support for increasing impervious cover to about 40% where engineering and on‑site stormwater controls (for example, rain gardens or storage) prevent higher downstream runoff or concentration, but staff cautioned such lot-level controls can be difficult to enforce over time.
A council concern involved a nonconforming multi‑dwelling parcel that staff proposed rezoning to Central Business District (CBD) to make the existing use conforming; planners and Mr. Riley explained rezoning could enable property improvements but might also increase the risk of future redevelopment that is less compatible with adjacent single‑family lots; design review in CBD would apply.
Outcome and next steps: Council members generally supported R1A principles and accessory‑structure rules, asked staff to remove a proposed absolute private‑front‑yard prohibition (staff agreed), and requested additional engineering analysis and example scenarios showing how higher impervious allowances would affect stormwater and neighboring properties. Staff will have the city attorney review final ordinance language and schedule public hearings with the planning commission and council if directed.
What’s next: staff will return with refined R1A language after attorney review, engineered impervious‑surface scenarios and example parcel outcomes prior to any public hearing; the planning commission and public hearings would follow before council consideration for adoption.
