Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Urbana council declines zoning change to remove duplex lot‑size limits after public debate and staff compromise
Summary
After extensive public comment and staff briefing, the City of Urbana Committee of the Whole voted down both a staff‑recommended compromise and the original text amendment that would have removed additional lot width and area requirements for duplexes; two votes failed on Dec. 2.
The City of Urbana Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2 voted down a zoning text amendment that would have removed additional lot‑width and lot‑area requirements for duplexes in R‑2 and R‑3 zones.
Council members debated the measure after a series of public comments that both supported broader duplex allowances and urged caution. Staff member Kevin summarized the city’s position and said the amendment conformed to existing policy in the 2005 comprehensive plan and the draft comprehensive plan Imagine Urbana, and that it was intended to permit “incremental” housing options. Kevin said staff had explored a compromise that would set a 50‑foot minimum width and 5,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size for duplexes on existing lots; staff recommended adopting the amendment as presented but offered the 50 ft / 5,000 ft² alternative as a compromise.
Several residents urged different outcomes. David Huber, who identified himself as a resident and developer, urged the council to allow the change and called the ordinance’s current lot rules “textbook exclusionary zoning.” A Salt & Light staff member and other residents urged the council to reject or delay the change, saying the Philo Road neighborhood has many convenience and liquor outlets and that residents felt underserved by planning decisions. Multiple written submissions (emails) from residents in the Hyuna neighborhood opposed eliminating minimum lot sizes, citing small historic house lots and concerns about privacy, smoke migration and neighborhood character.
Kevin told the committee that only a small share of eligible lots currently contain duplexes — “3% of lots in the R‑2 district” and “9% in R‑3” — and staff said the change was unlikely to cause rapid dramatic conversion of single‑family housing. Staff also noted that in the R‑2 district duplexes remain subject to conditional‑use review, which requires findings that a proposed duplex “preserve the essential character of the district.”
Council Member Grace Wilkin moved to place the ordinance on the regular council agenda for approval; the motion was seconded. Council then considered a staff‑recommended amendment (50 ft / 5,000 ft²) moved by Wilkin. Roll call on the proposed compromise showed two yes votes and four no votes (Miss Colosetti and Miss Wilkin voting yes; Miss Wu, Mr. Evans, Miss Hersey and Mr. Quisenberry voting no), and the amendment failed. The council then voted on the original text amendment; the roll call produced the same outcome and the original proposal also failed.
No ordinance was adopted; staff asked council for clearer policy direction to guide future zoning updates and compliance with the forthcoming comprehensive plan.
