The minutes were approved after having been previously sent to each member. PUBLIC HEARING – TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO TOWNHOUSES

Chairman Lichtenfeld opened the public hearing.

2 Susan Istenes noted that the City’s definitions and regulations pertaining to townhouses have been modified through the years and are at times inconsistent and/or conflicting. Previous iterations of the Zoning Ordinance specifically listed “Townhouse” in the zoning use tables of the R-4 to R-7 Zoning Districts (Multiple Dwelling Districts) as allowable, provided a Conditional Use Permit was obtained. Because of subsequent modifications to the Zoning Ordinance, “Townhouse” was dropped from the use tables, but references to Townhouses continued to remain in other parts of the regulations (including the “Definitions” section and the “Governing Regulations” section). Consequently, “Townhouse” is defined in the Zoning Regulations, but is not expressly allowed in any zoning district, pursuant to Section 405.130. Based on the current definition, a townhouse may occupy a single platted lot (condominium form of ownership) or multiple platted lots (fee simple form of ownership) as illustrated below. These two ownership types are treated differently by the Zoning Regulations even though when built they are often indistinguishable. Historically, condominium type townhouses have been considered a type of multi-family land use, which is a permitted use in multi-family residential zoning districts (R-4 to R-7) and subject to the minimum lot width and area requirements for multi-family residential units. Townhouses built on individually owned lots (fee simple) historically have required a conditional use permit and each individual lot is subject to the minimum lot width and area requirements for the zoning district. Director Istenes noted that there are existing townhouse developments located in the City; staff proposes revisions to the current Zoning Ordinance definition of townhouse to clarify that a townhouse is a type of multiple-dwelling. This change would make townhouses with a condominium form of ownership (one commonly owned lot) an allowable use in all multiple- dwelling zoning districts (R-4 to R-7), which is consistent with the City’s historic requirements for this type of use. These changes will not affect the intended code requirements for a conditional use permit for townhouses built on individual lots (fee simple). Minor changes are also proposed to Section 405.280 for consistency with the definitional change and a limit to the number of units in a row is also proposed (capped at 5). In general, townhouses are a desirable housing type which is appropriate in multiple family zoning districts. If adopted, the proposed amendments will clarify that town house is a type of multiple-family dwelling and therefore, when all units are built on a single lot, the use is considered a permitted use in all multiple- family zoning districts, which is consistent with the City’s historic requirements for this type of use. The changes do not affect the conditional use permit requirement for Townhomes built on individually owned (fee simple) building lots. Staff does not anticipate negative impacts associated with the proposed text amendments and the proposed changes will make the zoning district regulations consistent with the definition of townhouse and harmonious with the provisions of Section 405.280, which address the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit to develop townhouse dwellings on individual building lots. The changes also set forth development standards for townhouses including a minimum lot width requirement which reflects the minimum lot widths to which existing townhomes have already been developed and caps the number of townhouses that can be located within one building to five (5) in order to ensure the mass of a building remains residential in appearance. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval of the text amendments to Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations) of the City’s Land Use Code to the Board of Aldermen as proposed.

The changes also set forth development standards for townhouses including a minimum lot width requirement which reflects the minimum lot widths to which existing townhomes have already been developed and caps the number of townhouses that can be located within one building to five (5) in order to ensure the mass of a building remains residential in appearance. Director Istenes stated that staff recommends approval of the text amendments to Chapter 405 (Zoning Regulations) of the City’s Land Use Code to the Board of Aldermen as proposed.

3 Chairman Lichtenfeld stated that he sees no reason to require a Conditional Use Permit for a townhouse project. He asked how larger sites that could accommodate more than 5 units in a row would be handled.

Susan Istenes stated that because the minimum number of combined units is three (two is considered a duplex), there could be 3 and 3 or 4 and 2; she stated that she’s open to contemplating more than 5.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to a former application [ultimately withdrawn] for a townhouse project that was submitted and he believes there were more than 5 in a row.

Susan Istenes agreed. She added that she believes the width of those units were also smaller than the minimum width these text amendments propose.

Will Liebermann asked how larger developments would be handled.

Susan Istenes stated that the Planned Unit Development option is available.

Scott Wilson stated that he would hate to shut the door on larger townhome developments.

Susan Istenes indicated that the limit is in an attempt to reduce massing.

Chairman Lichtenfeld referred to the townhouses on Gay Avenue; noting there are three groups of 3 units each. He stated that those units are larger than 20 feet wide.

Susan Istenes stated that these proposed regulations reduce the minimum width from 50 feet.

Ron Reim asked about the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement.

Susan Istenes stated that the former regulations required a CUP for fee simple townhome projects, but not for townhome projects on one lot (condo type ownership), but she could not find rationale for that CUP requirement.

Ron Reim agreed about eliminating the CUP requirement as it just seems to make the application process more complicated than it needs to be.

Chairman Lichtenfeld commented that the proposed regulations seem straightforward and he also sees no need for a CUP requirement. He asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience.

None were received.