Ordinance committee reviews expansion of courthouse-proximate/Upper Main Street zone, discusses nonconforming residences and owner notification

Ordinance committee members on April 2 reviewed a proposed amendment to the downtown Central Business District that would expand the area designated as the courthouse-proximate and Upper Main Street zone one block to the south. Staff said the change would map the overlay rather than rely on a lengthy definition in the ordinance and would continue to prohibit most first‑floor residences in the expanded area, with specific historic purpose‑built residential properties exempted.

"With the 1998 adoption of the zoning ordinance, there was an area put in there as, called courthouse proximate and Upper Main Street area," a staff presenter said, explaining that the overlay has traditionally prohibited first‑floor residences except in limited circumstances and that the proposed amendment would clarify the area by creating a map. Staff noted two purpose‑built residential properties dating from the late 1800s that would be exempt from the overlay.

Dennis Carson, Economic Development Director, attended and said he was available to answer questions. Committee members, residents and staff discussed which properties would become nonconforming under the expanded boundary, what triggers loss of grandfathered status, and whether owners should be notified before the matter reaches city council. One committee member summarized the practical triggers for losing grandfathering: vacancy or damage greater than 50 percent; staff confirmed that demolitions or damage beyond that threshold would remove nonconforming status.

Several speakers raised concerns about imposing nonconforming status on buildings whose owners had invested in repairs and maintenance. A resident asked whether the Lahr Building and other downtown apartments would be forced to convert; staff and committee members said existing residential uses would remain lawful so long as they continue in use, but that the overlay would make them nonconforming going forward. "They're still intending to rent them as residences, and we're perfectly fine with that," a staff member said.

Committee members discussed outreach and timing. City staff committed to notifying the specific property owners identified as nonconforming and to discussing the boundary with city council; the committee agreed to forward the proposal to the April APC public hearing agenda and to the May APC meeting with the understanding that city council can adopt, modify or exclude parcels. "I would commit to notifying them and talking to them," Dennis Carson said of affected property owners.

The committee also discussed how practical issues such as financing and insurance market responses can affect owners of nonconforming properties, noting that banks and insurers increasingly consider nonconformity when underwriting. Staff emphasized that the zoning rules and state code limit certain remedies (for example, APCs cannot grant use variances) and that adjustments generally require map or ordinance amendments through the legislative process.

The ordinance committee voted to send the proposed expansion forward for APC consideration and agreed to place the item on the May APC meeting agenda after providing notification to the identified property owners. The committee said city council ultimately decides legislative changes and can amend the proposal after receiving input at public hearings.