Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the College Town Form Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to refine College Town form-district rules on height, row houses and site features
Summary
Planning staff presented a series of targeted amendments for the College Town Area Form Districts; council generally asked staff to return with clarified height rules, consider eliminating the row‑house incentives in MU/CR zones, regulate sunken patios, and rezone five parcels into CR‑4 where appropriate.
Planning Department staff presented proposed targeted amendments to the College Town Area Form Districts and related design guidance at the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 12, focusing on building height, a row‑house incentive, sunken/front-yard patios, green‑space requirements, and rezoning five parcels into CR‑4.
The presentation traced the district’s history — a College Town plan and hybrid form-based code adopted a decade earlier — and explained that the mixed-use (MU) districts contain dual limits: a maximum number of stories and a maximum number of feet. Staff said recent projects have reached building heights and story counts that make variance requests common and raise questions about whether the code should measure height by feet only, by stories only, or retain the two-part requirement but realign feet and stories to current construction practice.
Council reaction and guidance: Several council members said they favored giving developers more flexibility in College Town (some suggested allowing additional stories in MU‑2 near core corridors), while others urged caution and a comprehensive zoning process before dramatic citywide changes. After discussion staff reported the committee generally supported a targeted fix rather than leaving the status quo: staff said they are leaning toward option 4 (keep feet and stories but realign the relationship so the regulation meets built reality) and will return with specific language.
Row‑house incentive: Staff proposed eliminating the current “row‑house” incentive that allows longer building lengths and reduced side setbacks in MU‑1 and CR‑4 because the outcomes built under that incentive have not matched the form the incentive intended (true townhouse-style row houses with vertical unit separations). Council responses were mixed; some members supported removal, others preferred to retain the incentive pending more study of specific blocks. Staff will bring back more analysis.
Front-yard/sunken patios and green space: Staff proposed regulating so-called sunken patios or large front light wells by (1) prohibiting sunken patios in the front yard when they create sub-grade outdoor rooms that undermine the streetscape, and (2) counting such features toward lot coverage (similar to decks). Council asked staff to refine definitions and to bring site-specific examples to a future review and to analyze green‑space requirements and stormwater implications.
Rezoning small set of parcels to CR‑4: Staff proposed rezoning five parcels on Oak/Delaware/Linden areas to CR‑4 to remove nonconformities (several parcels already lack required off‑street parking under current zoning). Several council members expressed support for making zoning more congruent with existing conditions and asked staff to return with maps and analysis.
Ending: Staff said they will draft more specific code language and mapping changes and return to committee with recommended ordinance text and visual examples for council review.
