Council hears staff explanation of Journal Square redevelopment amendment after heated public input on height and affordability

Planning staff and developers briefed the council Monday on a proposed amendment to the Journal Square redevelopment plan that removes a previously proposed Zone 4 mandatory‑affordable rezoning after community opposition and separates that component for later study.

Tanya (planning staff) told the council the amendment before them was limited in scope: it addresses map corrections to split‑zoned lots, a parking bonus and accessory use adjustments, and adds two parcels (including a former Dollar General site) into Zone 3 residential infill so they will no longer be stranded without redevelopment rules. She said the mandatory‑affordable language for Zone 4 was taken out following community meetings and conversations with council offices because “they were not ready” to proceed with a wholesale rezoning and the public expressed concern about taller buildings near existing one‑ to four‑family blocks.

Planning staff said Zone 3 already contains mandatory affordable provisions; the removed Zone 4 proposal had included additional mandatory‑affordable language and taller height bonuses that would have applied to larger parcels across the study area. Staff told the council the planning board considered the earlier draft and that a motion to incorporate mandatory Zone 4 language was made but not seconded at the planning board — the change therefore did not carry through that process.

Councilmembers asked whether adding or excluding particular parcels could be treated as spot zoning; planning staff cautioned that selectively including only a few lots in zone expansions without a comprehensive plan could be arbitrary and suggested that any change to Zone 4 should start with a new resolution and a methodical planning board review. One councilmember said residents had attended a widely attended community meeting and opposed tall buildings in lower‑scale neighborhoods, while another councilmember emphasized that newly permitted projects downtown already carry inclusionary zoning obligations.

Staff said the amendment before the council included several community‑requested protections: replacement housing language to require a one‑for‑one replacement when rent‑controlled housing is removed (replaced by inclusionary affordable units at income targets), parking bonus clarifications and the expansion of an Arts Walk overlay. Staff also said the change would trigger historic preservation commission review where applicable because parts of the amendment lie in a historic district, and that any ground‑floor uses under 2,000 square feet for retail and cafes in Zone 3 would require separate approvals.

Planning staff offered to provide the council the prior mandatory‑Zone‑4 language that had been proposed so council offices and community members could review it further. No vote occurred in the caucus; staff indicated they were prepared to continue working with council offices and that councilmanic resolutions could be requested to reopen a study of Zone 4 if elected members wish to pursue that.