Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee debates rezoning single‑family lots along University Boulevard; staff proposes CRN with overlay and 45‑foot compromise

Montgomery County Planning, Housing and Parks Committee · September 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council staff recommended converting many R60/R90 parcels along University Boulevard to a modified Commercial‑Residential Neighborhood (CRN) zone with an overlay; the committee debated how far into neighborhoods the zone should extend and agreed in straw vote to prefer a 45‑foot height on select properties while deferring final SMA map decisions.

Committee members spent the bulk of the work session debating the plan's land‑use recommendations for single‑family residential properties abutting University Boulevard. Council staff said the proposed CRN zone, modified by a University Boulevard overlay, is intended to encourage small‑scale residential infill (duplexes, triplexes, townhouses), require sidewalks and streetscape improvements when redevelopment occurs, and include compatibility standards for lots under 15,000 sq ft (35% coverage, limited setbacks).

Planning and council staff explained the overlay was designed to preserve existing civic and institutional uses in some R60/R90 lots while allowing the CRN form‑based elements that bring buildings closer to the street to enhance pedestrian safety. The planning recommendation originally proposed a 50‑foot maximum height for corridor‑fronting CRN parcels; council staff proposed lowering that recommendation to 45 feet for the Berkeley Court/Westchester site and some R90 properties as a compromise. "We typically use roadways as a way to define zoning boundaries," planning board representative Carrie Sanders said, explaining the rationale for defining which parcels should receive the new zone.

Councilmembers disagreed about whether to apply CRN only to parcels that front University Boulevard (the chair's preferred compromise), to adopt planning's deeper block‑in approach, or to defer rezoning entirely and rely on the recently enacted ZTA 2502. The chair asked staff to bring clearer maps and for the committee to continue district‑by‑district votes at subsequent sessions. The debate left the underlying policy question — how to balance infill housing near transit with neighborhood compatibility — unresolved for the full SMA process.