.jpg)
Lexington City Council unanimously voted to amend the lot width requirement for multifamily dwellings in the Residential-Multifamily and Residential-Light Commercial districts to a required minimum lot width of 100 feet at its meeting last Thursday.
The change had been recommended by the Planning Commission in a unanimous vote at its May 11 meeting.
City planner Arne Glaeser presented Council with the Commission’s recommendation, as well as a spreadsheet showing the zoning requirements for multifamily dwellings in several other local jurisdictions. Some of the jurisdictions listed, including Buena Vista and Rockbridge County, have no minimum lot width requirement for multifamily dwellings, while others have a consistent minimum requirement that doesn’t change with the size of the development as Lexington’s requirement did.
“We’re trying to address an inconsistency between the minimum lot area, which will stay … and we’re trying to, perhaps, provide a minimum lot width that is a little bit more in keeping with what other folks have and is perhaps a bit more reasonable than one that ratchets up as the number of units increases,” Glaeser said Council directed the Commission to look at the lot width requirement for multifamily dwellings after a conditional use permit for a proposed apartment building on Spotswood Drive was approved, despite not meeting the lot width requirement of 50 feet for the first four units and 10 feet for each unit above that.
The proposed development of 62 apartments would have required 630 feet and the lot had just over 400 feet of width at Spotswood Drive. The development did meet the city’s lot area requirements for multifamily dwellings, which require 10,000 square feet of area for the first four units and 1,500 square feet for each additional unit.
The Planning Commission held a discussion on the lot width requirement at its April 13 meeting, reaching the decision of amending the lot width requirements for multifamily dwellings to 100 feet.
The decision was revisited at the Commission’s May 11 meeting due to receiving a formal request from Council after the April 13 meeting. At both meetings, the Commission also discussed various aspects of density within the city and agreed that a larger discussion on the issue was warranted.
