Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if it is the intent here is to be consistent and correct errors in the language. Susan Istenes concurred.

7 On motion by Joanne Boulton and seconded by Ron Reim, the public hearing was opened.

Joanne Boulton asked if this is different than a 2-family.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”, noting that townhomes are defined in the code but are not listed as an allowed use.

William Liebermann asked how the two fee-simple townhomes were approved in 1997 if they were not allowed by Code.

Susan Istenes indicated that she did not know the answer to that question, other than to say that it was an interpretation of the Code by the staff at that time. She noted that conditional use permits were issued for those buildings.

Joanne Boulton referred to the impact of these amendments and the comment in the staff report that there are issues that need further evaluation; emphasizing the Overlay and Urban Design Districts.

Louis Clayton indicated that when staff initially looked at proposed text amendments, they considered a broader range and ended up scaling back to allow more research time before changes are proposed.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if that means that what is being considered tonight is limited and other proposed changes will be dealt with at a later time.

Louis Clayton concurred.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked if everyone was okay with that.

Joanne Bolton commented that because she does not know what the inconsistencies are, she can’t say.

Louis Clayton stated that there are only two sections that contain proposed amendments this evening: 405.280 “General Regulations” by replacing “attached single-family dwelling structure utilizing common walls” with “townhouse dwelling” and amending the definition section (405.390) of “townhouse” and deleting the definition of “single-family attached”.

Keith Kramer, 8016 Pershing, asked the members to table this item as there is a lack of clear understanding of the implications and that more careful thought and work may be needed. He stated that he wonders how other cities regulate townhomes with regard to height, density, etc.

Fred Berger, attorney representing the Porta’s who own the property at 8110 Westmoreland, stated that he appreciates the hard work by the City every day. He stated that he believes the text amendments (incorrectly making referenced to Section 405.2160 as the permitted use table) have

Fred Berger, attorney representing the Porta’s who own the property at 8110 Westmoreland, stated that he appreciates the hard work by the City every day. He stated that he believes the text amendments (incorrectly making referenced to Section 405.2160 as the permitted use table) have

8 everything to do with the proposal at 121 North Brentwood Boulevard and that there should be no townhouses in the gorgeous Clayton Gardens area as it would tear apart the fabric of the community. He referred to the staff report prepared for the May 2nd conceptual presentation of the 121 North Brentwood project and the lack of mention of text amendments at that time. Mr. Berger made reference to the use table which sets forth uses and that multi-family dwellings are allowed in the R-3 through R-7 districts with a conditional use permit. He stated that he does not believe this is in error; the City has the right to interpret as they choose; townhouse developments have already been built and the precedent set. He stated that the word “may” is permissible; not restrictive and believes that a townhouse requires a conditional use permit. He noted that the property (121 North Brentwood) was used as a doctor’s office for over 30 years with residential use on the second floor, but that’s gone now and not relevant now.

Chairman Lichtenfeld informed Mr. Berger that we are not discussing 121North Brentwood at this time.

Mr. Berger stated that the point is, the Porta’s will suffer as will all of Clayton Gardens if that development is allowed. He stated that the residents are afraid and are looking for protection; protection that conditional use permits offer. He added that if this townhouse gets built, it will tower the Porta’s beautiful home.

Joanne Boulton reiterated that this discussion is about text amendments; not the proposed North Brentwood project.

Mr. Berger stated that a conditional use permit is critical. He said he is okay with changing the code to address townhomes, but he sees no reason not to require a conditional use permit to offer protection. He begged the Commission to give this careful consideration.

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that many comments he is hearing apply to the second agenda item (North Brentwood proposal).

Joanne Boulton asked if the townhouses depicted in staff’s report required a conditional use permit.

Louis Clayton stated that the fee simple ones did.

Ron Reim asked if fee simple townhouses would still require a conditional use permit under the proposed text.

Louis Clayton replied “yes” ; if they are on multiple lots.

Joanne Boulton asked to clarify if a townhouse is a type of building or an ownership form.

Susan Istenes explained that the 14,926-square-foot property is located at the southwest corner of North Brentwood Boulevard and Westmoreland Drive, has a zoning designation of R-2 Single-Family Dwelling District and is located in the Clayton Gardens Urban Design District. The subject property was originally developed and used as a single family

10 residential structure, however over 30 years ago, the ground floor use was converted into a medical office and the second floor was used for residential purposes. The most recent medical tenant vacated the premises in 2011 and the building has recently been demolished. Director Istenes referred to specific criteria to be contemplated when considering a rezoning. She noted an error in the staff report that indicated a minimum lot size for a single family residence in the R-2 zoning district as 5,000 square foot; the correct minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet. Director Istenes stated that the developer is requesting a rezoning to R-4, Low Density multiple-family dwelling, because he is proposing a new development project which consists of the construction of a four unit town house dwelling on a single lot with shared open space. Each unit will have access to two underground parking spaces. On May 2, 2016, the project was presented conceptually to the Plan Commission/Architectural Review Board. While multi-family is a permitted use in the R-4 Zoning District, the proposed use would be considered a townhouse which is defined in the zoning regulations but, due to what appears to be an error, is not expressly permitted in any zoning district. Therefore, the project will require approval of a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations in addition to the rezoning. The details of the design of the proposed project are not under consideration as part of the rezoning; however, if approved, will be examined through the subsequently required Site Plan Review and Architectural Review processes.

Joanne Boulton made a motion to open the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Ron Reim and unanimously approved by the members.

Chairman Lichtenfeld noted that while comments are appreciated, he asked that comments not be repeated.

John Porta, 8110 Westmoreland Avenue, voiced his opposition to the rezoning. He stated that he moved here from the City 2 years ago, when the subject property contained a first floor medical office and a residence on the 2nd floor. He stated that this is a neighborhood of single-family residences. He added that he knew 121 was for sale and was comforted by the fact that it is zoned single-family residential. He stated that the developer wants to turn the alley into a constant stream of vehicles. He noted that Brentwood Boulevard provides a buffer between them and Maryland Walk and that if this is approved, that barrier will jump to the west and will begin the push to turn single family lots into multi-family. He stated that the Master Plan recognizes the need to protect Clayton Gardens and that this building would tower over the houses; noting that there is no other similar density found in Clayton Gardens.

Chairman Lichtenfeld announced that there will be a break in public comment for now to give the applicant a chance to make their presentation.

Mike Rechan, developer, began a PowerPoint presentation.

Chairman Lichtenfeld advised Mr. Rechan that only the rezoning application is being considered; not architectural review.

Chairman Lichtenfeld advised Mr. Rechan that only the rezoning application is being considered; not architectural review.

11

Mr. Rechan noted that he lives in the neighborhood and held a community meeting where he heard a lot of input and a lot of opposition. He distributed letters in support of the rezoning. He stated that contrary to previous comments, he is not an out-of-town developer. He noted that he is asking for four units when, in fact, eight or nine could be built there; he developed three single-family residences on the former masonic lodge site where there could have been twelve. He stated that the previous landlord allowed the commercial use to lapse and that this property has never been used as single family. He noted that he could ask for a variance from the Board of Adjustment that would probably have been approved. He commented that this project will enhance property values and the lot is not a typical size; it is large and can accommodate four units. He added that the alley is already pretty active and that the Maryland Walk site used to be a car dealership.

Slides depicting various photos of the neighborhood/alley were presented, including parking meters along Brentwood Boulevard. He emphasized that his proposal includes below grade parking and that the building would be 23-feet off the Porta’s property. He added that there is no extra lot coverage allowance for R-4; there is a height increase of an extra story.

A slide depicting a color rendering of the project was shown. Mr. Rechan commented that it would be tough to make the argument that this is out of place in the neighborhood, while showing views from Oceano Bistro with Maryland Walk nearby and slides of two story homes adjacent to one story homes.

Chairman Lichtenfeld asked Mr. Rechan to go back to the rezoning request.

Joanne Boulton told Mr. Rechan that he is making assumptions based on an R-4 zoning; she asked him to focus on the rezoning.

Mr. Rechan reiterated that he has letters of support and that not everyone opposes this request.

Joanne Boulton asked the applicant if he felt that there was a precedent due to the previous use of the property.

Mr. Rechan commented that the historical use of the property has been more than one unit and this panel needs to decide what the appropriate transition is. He stated that this development will not add a traffic burden.

Joanne Boulton asked Mr. Rechan if he believes the prior use of the property is pertinent here.

Mr. Rechan replied “yes”.

Chairman Lichtenfeld reminded Mr. Rechan that the property is zoned R-2.

Mr. Rechan concurred and added that he proposes to change it to R-4.