Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to community development housing and general government meeting.

We have uh a new community development and housing general government committee, except for me, of course.

But we have three new members, uh, just like Councilmember Scipio and Public Safety.

Uh everyone on that committee is new, including the chair.

So I I will uh have the clerk to please call the room.

Mayor Per Tim Adams.

Present.

Councilmember Joyner.

Present.

Councilmember Hall, present.

Councilmember Burke here.

Um we have the way we do this for those that you don't know, and I'm sure they learned in their uh orientation that we have consent agenda and we have the general agenda.

And we will ask if there are any items from the consent agenda that needs to be pulled from the committee or from the uh council members present.

Uh I am going to ask for C1.

If there are no others, can I please have a motion to for the balance of the consent agenda?

And uh the clerk will call that one up when the motion passes.

Move for approval.

Second.

I have a motion and a second by Councilmember Burke and Councilmember Mahal.

All those in favor, please by just saying aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Please call up a C1.

Item C1, a request for a public hearing to modify Chapter 4 of the unified development ordinances to amend provisions for single family uses within residential multifamily zoning districts.

Mr.

Murphy.

Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tim, members of the committee, members of council.

Um this is a text amendment uh to change and what I would call unify or uh get everything in line for single family residential houses within the uh multifamily districts.

Our chart and our various tables in the ordinance had what I would call uh some oddly constructed um requirements, and we discovered that actually through something that the city was trying to do at one point with some redevelopment of some uh lots that the housing authority had partial ownership and the city had partial ownership trying to do some single family homes.

What this text amendment does is it basically makes a single family home allowable in any residential building multifamily district with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size.

And Mr.

Murphy, I know that uh you and I and some of us understand this, but I'm gonna ask you to go through this presentation if you don't mind.

If you will hold on a second, and we will.

Thank you, sir.

Especially again, since it's about housing and zoning and what we're trying to do as a city with building more housing.

So okay.

I know the committee can look at it.

Here we are.

Go ahead, Mr.

Murphy.

Uh, this is a a uh text amendment request from planning development services uh staff to modify uh chapter four of the UDO to amend provisions for single funding uses within residential multifamily districts.

It's it doesn't like you.

Okay.

Uh this work program item arose from previous rezoning requests in which it was revealed that single family uses were subject to varying and at times more stringent standards than more intense residential multifamily uses within the same districts.

Uh, this amendment intends to improve the logic and consistency for single family uses, especially as maximum uh allowable density increases.

There we go.

Changes made to table 4.5.18 minimum lot sizes in the RM district will set the minimum lot size for single family uses in all RM districts to 5,000 square feet, and we'll standardize the lot dimensional requirements to the same.

The single unit, the single unit minimum lot size will now be the same for every residential building multifamily district.

This just shows the example of changing that table for RM5.

If you want to do one unit, you have to have a 5,000 square foot lot, and we're keeping that consistent RM8, RM12, RM 18 was already that way, as was RMU.

So we're just making it consistent across the board that 5,000 square foot minimum lot size.

A footnote will be added to each of the RM districts, uh, basically referencing folks back to that table to come up with the standard.

And that is the language that is uh placed as the footnote there in yellow.

Uh this amendment would rectify discrepancies and improve logic.

Uh at the end of the day, this went to the planning board and it was unanimously recommended uh for approval.

And with that, I'm glad to answer any questions.

I can also, if I need to go into some of the logic and construction behind the way we do text amendments, uh there's a footnote in the ordinance that basically if if we're taking a language away, we're striking through it.

If we're adding language, it's highlighted.

Uh this is what's in your packet.

Uh there are some instances where we have county language and city language, and if that's the case, if it's underlined, it's count a county only provision, and if it's italicized, it's a city only provision.