Councilors question parking, drainage and short-term rental limits in Wilkinson Properties rezoning request

The Urban and Economic Development committee spent the bulk of its May 21 meeting on Rezoning application Z-7809, a request by Wilkinson Properties to change nearly 1 acre in the Lewiston Gardens neighborhood from RS-3 single-family zoning to RM-2 with an optional development plan to allow a six-unit cottage court.

Susan Miller of the Planning Office described the cottage-court concept as detached homes arranged around a common green. The RM-2 request is intended to permit the cottage-house form; Miller said the applicant’s optional development plan (ODP) prohibits apartments and short-term rentals, increases setbacks beyond the district minimums, raises landscaping standards, and adds a second-story window/transparency condition intended to protect neighbor privacy. TMAPC recommended approval 8–1.

Councilors and staff spent much of the discussion on neighborhood concerns raised at the planning commission and in correspondence: driveway and street parking on a narrow, older, dead-end street; drainage and floodplain questions; sewer service and the cost of extending sanitary sewer to the site; and the project’s potential impacts on traffic and public safety. Staff said the developer met repeatedly with neighbors before the planning commission and adjusted his concept in response.

Planning staff explained that under RS-3 the site could be subdivided into approximately five lots but doing so would require a new street and cul-de-sac and greater pavement and impervious surface. The cottage-court layout consolidates parking on-site and, staff said, can reduce the amount of new pavement compared with a conventional subdivision while producing one additional dwelling unit compared with the RS-3 alternative. Staff also noted a survey submitted by the applicant showing 0.97 acres, larger than assessor records, and that the office used the submitted survey to calculate allowable density.

Councilors pressed staff and the developer on public-safety implications of on-street parking on a 22–23 foot wide street (staff said a standard is about 26 feet), whether prohibiting parking on one side should be required, and how stormwater and trash/dumpster enclosures would be handled at permitting. Staff said drainage and stormwater will be reviewed during permitting and that required sanitary-sewer extension costs were a factor in the developer’s design choices.

Several councilors said they supported the ODP approach as a tool to reach compromises between neighbors and developers but flagged potential fairness concerns about limiting uses (for example, banning short-term rentals or apartments on one lot while the surrounding neighborhood allows them). No final council vote on the rezoning was recorded in committee; the item will follow the standard public-notice and hearing path.