Council hears lengthy staff, developer and neighborhood debate over proposed townhomes at 106–108 South Lee Street

Madison Homes on Tuesday presented a rezoning application for 106 and 108 South Lee Street that would rezone two R‑1A lots to the city’s transitional zone (T‑1) and allow construction of 12 for‑sale townhomes, prompting extensive questions from staff, the developer and council about plan consistency, neighborhood character, infrastructure and proffers.

Why it matters: The lots sit at the southern edge of the West Broad Street planning opportunity area and are designated “transitional” on the future land‑use map. City staff told council the applicant’s proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the West Broad Street small area plan because the plans envision deeper, consolidated parcels for commercial or mixed‑use redevelopment along West Broad, and because the small area plan calls for a structured approach to transitions from the commercial corridor into established single‑family neighborhoods.

Staff presentation: Henry Zhang, the lead reviewer for the case, told council the two parcels total roughly 0.5 acre — 106 South Lee Street at about 0.24 acre and 108 at about 0.26 acre — and are presently zoned R‑1A with existing houses dating from 1927 and 1978. Zhang said staff found the proposed residential townhome use “inconsistent with the planned future land use for those properties,” and he cited the small area plan’s emphasis on consolidating narrow parcels to create viable commercial redevelopment. Zhang also listed infrastructure and physical‑impact concerns, including localized sewer pressure and flooding history in the nearby area. He said the applicant’s proffer language included a clause that attempted to delegate future changes to the city manager and asked the applicant to remove that clause because rezoning is a legislative act the council cannot delegate.

Applicant presentation: Andrews (Andrew Painter and Andrew Rosenberger) representing Madison Homes described the proposal as a context‑sensitive set of 12 townhomes accessed by a shared private alley off South Lee Street, with a proposed 6‑foot sidewalk, a raised crosswalk to replace an existing speed bump and an underground storm facility that the applicant said would detain the 10‑year storm and reduce runoff to the municipal system. Rosenberger said townhomes provide for‑sale housing choices missing from the city’s housing stock and that Madison has seen buyer interest from both current city residents and outside buyers.

Staff and applicant tradeoffs: The applicant’s conceptual plans show building eave heights around 31 feet and midpoint heights around 37 feet; the T‑1 zone maximum building height is 45 feet, and staff said the proposed buildings would be taller than nearby single‑family homes. Zhang said staff recommended either increasing horizontal setbacks relative to building height (a 1:1 ratio was proposed) or reducing allowable building height to better protect neighborhood character. Staff also recommended that, if the project is considered a public‑benefit rezoning, at least two units should be designated as affordable housing (the applicant proposed one affordable unit, or about 8.3 percent of the total units).

Neighborhood and council response: Dozens of written comments from neighbors were on file and several council members said they had heard extensive opposition. Councilmember Downs said she supports more townhome options in the city generally but expressed concern that this particular site and its narrow street (South Lee) would increase on‑street parking and create traffic and safety issues. Councilmember Snyder said the theoretical benefit of a buffer to protect the single‑family neighborhood “falls apart” if nearby residents reject the proposal. Several members, including Councilmembers Underhill and Connolly, pressed the applicant and staff on sewer and stormwater capacity and on the precedent a rezoning might set for similar single‑family lots along the corridor.

Applicant response and next steps: The applicant said they have met with neighbors and circulated materials and that the design intentionally places unit front doors toward South Lee Street and orients the buildings to provide a stepped transition from the higher‑intensity corridor to single‑family homes. The applicant also said consolidating parcels with neighboring 701 West Broad (commercial) remains an option but carries different tradeoffs for access, loading and height.

Staff timeline and legal context: Zhang told council this is an initial staff review and that the applicant is expected to resubmit materials; the planning commission and advisory boards were scheduled for additional review on June 18 and the applicant expected a resubmittal in July. Zhang repeated staff’s legal point that conditional rezoning with proffers is a legislative action governed by state law (he referred to the Dillon Rule context) and that the council is the final authority on zoning decisions.

What council asked staff to do: Council members asked staff to obtain additional hydrology and sewer‑capacity analysis, clarify pupil‑generation estimates, and work with the applicant to tighten proffers and buffering details, including consideration of a fence and a more robust landscaped buffer. No formal action or vote was taken; the item remains in work‑session review and will return to the planning commission and council for additional hearings and possible future action.