From:  Jon R. Oliphant, AICP, Planning & Development Director
Subject:  Zero Lot Line Multi-Family Residential Developments
Date:  May 21, 2010

You may remember that a public hearing was held in January regarding Subdivision and Zoning Code amendments pertaining to rowhouses. Following a lengthy discussion, the amendments were recommended for approval. If approved by the City Council, the amendments would have allowed for rowhouses in the R-2 district. Among other items, rowhouses would be allowed to have shared elements, such as driveways and roofs, and they would have only needed 20 feet of frontage onto a public street (all other residential lots require 60 feet). While this would have applied to all potential rowhouse developments in the city, the amendments have been considered mindful of how to consider the five-unit structure in Wilmor Estates.

Dean Essig and Tony Berry asked to meet with staff shortly after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss an alternative to the rowhouse amendments that were recommended for approval that they refer to as zero lot line multi-family (ZLLMF). After the meeting, the City Council’s first reading ordinance was tabled for the time being.

Enclosed is a summary of changes that Dean and Tony are asking the Planning Commission to consider. Please note that this is not a public hearing but rather a discussion topic. Also enclosed for comparison are the Subdivision and Zoning Code amendments that were recommended for approval at the January public hearing.

By and large, most of what Dean and Tony are proposing meets what was recommended for approval. The one big exception is that they do not favor requiring 20 feet of frontage for each lot onto a public street. This was the primary point that was repeatedly mentioned at the public hearing.

Staff’s concern with not maintaining the 20 foot frontage requirement is that the ZLLMF could theoretically be built in any R-2 district where the lot standards could be met. This type of structure could exclusively take the place of traditional rowhouses. Also, unless certain design standards were added with the ZLLMF language, there could be many structures that have blank facades facing a street, which would have a negative impact on neighborhoods. If the Planning Commission is generally in favor of the ZLLMF concept, staff would recommend requiring that 25-30% of the side of the building facing a street must have windows, doors, or other building articulation in order to break up the blank façade.

Dean and Tony plan on discussing this topic at the June 2 Planning Commission meeting.