Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff recommends raising Heritage District height cap to 75 ft; commission narrowly backs recommendation to council 5‑2
Summary
Staff asked the commission to recommend a change to the LDC that would raise the Heritage District height cap from 55 feet to 75 feet and create a bonus path to 90 feet for parcels off Gilbert Road that provide specified public benefits.
Planning staff presented an LDC text amendment to raise the Heritage Business Center (HBC) maximum height from the existing 55‑foot / 4‑story standard to 75 feet, and to create a discretionary bonus pathway for parcels behind Gilbert Road to reach up to 90 feet if they provide defined public benefits (options include underground parking, at least 10% excess public parking, noncombustible construction or combinations of 10% open space, public art, public amenities, stepbacks and sustainability measures). Staff cited an Urban3 economic analysis and the town’s redevelopment plan supporting denser mixed‑use development in the Heritage District to maximize value per acre and sales tax productivity.
Staff said the proposal would keep stepback requirements where properties abut single‑family, add stepbacks along Gilbert Road starting at 55 feet (one‑foot in, one‑foot up), and remove the fixed four‑story limit in favor of a height limit measured in feet. Staff displayed multiple examples of existing local buildings that currently exceed 55 feet (the Collab, a university building) and comparable jurisdictions that allow greater heights; staff also provided conceptual massing showing how additional height would increase office and residential square footage on small parcels.
Commission debate focused on parking implications, likely uses at taller heights, and preserving Heritage District character (including views to the water tower). Commissioner Simon questioned whether increased height would deliver the office and experience‑based uses staff anticipates, given local vacancy in some office inventory; several commissioners asked for robust parking management and noted the statute and code tools available for off‑site and public parking. The Redevelopment Commission recommended approval (4‑0) and the Chamber of Commerce provided a letter of support. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval to Town Council, 5‑2.
