The most contentious topic discussed was the proposed changes to building heights, specifically the suggestion to increase the height for multifamily buildings up to 78 feet in non-residential zoning districts. This proposal faced opposition from some committee members who voiced discomfort with such a significant height increase. The discussions also covered the practicality of implementing different heights based on use rather than zoning district and the implications for neighborhoods adjacent to single-family homes.

Another point of discussion centered on the addition of a new zoning district tailored for the Milton Square Washington Park area. The committee deliberated on the clarity and accuracy of the minimum and maximum setback tables for core areas, discrepancies noted between these tables and earlier discussions on heights, and the practicality of lot sizes and frontage width in R2 zoning. Suggestions were made to reevaluate lot size and density calculations, highlighting the importance of accommodating different housing typologies, including options for “missing middle” and affordable housing.

Debates also revolved around the inclusion of townhomes, multifamily, mixed-use, office, and commercial types in the zoning code, with proposed changes to minimum lot sizes and setbacks. There was a particularly debate regarding the rounding down of decimals in potential densities of 50 units or more per acre. Furthermore, there was a need for clarity on yard designations for odd-shaped lots and the necessity for administrative guidelines to provide clarity on various aspects of the code.

Sidewalks and street trees on private streets were also a topic of contention, with some committee members advocating for maintaining these standards for safety and accessibility, despite concerns about the financial burden on homeowner associations.

The committee’s discussions extended to planned unit developments (PUDs), specifically the language related to the assessment of maintenance fees for common areas and the need for a funding mechanism for open spaces. The consensus was to keep the language related to maintenance fees in the PUD section. Additionally, the committee agreed on a maximum building height of 12 stories with bonuses in certain target areas, while also considering the role of parking on the ground floor in these height calculations.

In response to public comments, the committee discussed Dave Axel’s concern about the deletion of a section in the code pertaining to private streets and whether private streets should meet the same standards as public streets. Additionally, a comment from J G prompted a debate on the logic of requiring planned unit developments to comply with the code they are negotiating to vary from, especially regarding density and intensity bonuses.

At the intersection of urban design and practicality, the committee tackled structured parking and walkable blocks, the financial feasibility of achieving certain unit densities, and the language requirements for front-loaded garages in urban settings. The inclusion and regulation of automotive shops, street walls, car sales, vehicle storage areas, and drive-through facilities were also examined, with discussions about traffic generation and urban aesthetics.

The committee’s deliberations on the table of permissible uses and the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed regulations concluded the meeting, along with remarks on the aesthetics of two-car garages and announcements regarding the next meeting date and the arrangement of excused absences.