Council denies text amendment that would have expanded special exceptions for multifamily development

The City Council unanimously denied a text‑amendment request to change Article 22‑21 of the zoning code, which governs "special exceptions" that allow multifamily dwellings on certain lots in single‑family zones.

The proposed amendment would have widened the code’s eligibility rules in several ways, including increasing the maximum lot sizes eligible for the special‑exception pathway (the applicant sought allowance of lots up to roughly 48,000 square feet) and loosening the block‑level test for determining when a lot sits within a predominantly multifamily area. The applicant also requested a revised density‑calculation approach for larger lots and modest architectural and materials adjustments.

City staff explained that the existing rule is narrowly drawn to permit multifamily only on specific leftover or infill parcels surrounded by multifamily development; the applicant described a parcel just north of University Parkway and west of State Street and said the current code prevented a townhome project he had engineered. The joint public record included project renderings and staff analysis of how many lots citywide could be eligible under the proposed new standard.

The public hearing drew about a dozen residents and neighborhood representatives. Many neighbors testified that the local streets are already congested and that on‑street parking near the block is frequent at night; they cited safety concerns, potential overflow parking and a desire to preserve single‑family neighborhood character. Other speakers emphasized housing affordability and said more for‑sale, owner‑occupied housing options would be desirable; an applicant representative said the proposed product would be aimed at owner‑occupied townhomes with lease‑to‑own options when market conditions allowed.

Council members discussed competing priorities — neighborhood stability and traffic vs. affordability and housing supply — and several members cited process concerns about creating a citywide code change tailored to one parcel. After discussion the council voted to deny the text amendment request; the council’s denial was a final local decision on the amendment at that meeting.

Ending: Council members asked staff to continue broader housing policy work and to explore options that might encourage owner‑occupied units and other affordability pathways without resorting to project‑specific code amendments.