Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Udc Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs mixed‑use assurance clarifying commercial anchor and residential ratios
Summary
An amendment to UDC section 3.4.5(j) would prohibit solely residential buildings in MU districts, allow nonresidential buildings regardless of stories, and cap residential square footage at twice nonresidential square footage; the commission recommended council adopt the clarification despite a public commenter urging more study.
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve an amendment to UDC §3.4.5(j) intended to ensure a commercial anchor and an overall mix of uses in the city's mixed‑use districts (MU‑N, MU‑C, MU‑TC).
Staff described the amendment as clarifying that nonresidential buildings are permitted at any number of stories, purely residential buildings are prohibited in mixed‑use districts, and total residential square footage in a mixed‑use development shall not exceed twice the amount of nonresidential square footage. Staff said the intent is to preserve commercial corridors (especially along Highway 71 and 620), protect sales‑tax generating uses and provide certainty about how mixed use must be configured on a site.
Mark Pearl, a property owner who said he has properties affected by the proposed language, told the commission the amendment could force commercial uses deep into lots and undermine intermediate housing types (townhouses/attached product) that developers had proposed as transitional products between commercial corridors and nearby single‑family neighborhoods. Pearl cautioned that the change could reopen design conflicts and litigation the city had previously experienced when commercial ended up on the back of single‑family lots.
Commissioners discussed whether the amendment represented a clarification that matches the comprehensive plan or a substantive redefinition of allowable development patterns. One commissioner said the amendment simply clarifies comprehensive plan intent; another property owner speaker said prior staff guidance allowed separate structures and a different approach. After discussion the commission moved to recommend approval and forward the amendment to council for adoption.
