ZOUP Draft District Standards March 2026

I would strongly discourage an unlimited height district. High-rise buildings tend to suck up demand at one site to the detriment of nearby areas, leading to inconsistent building environments and vacancies. Tall buildings also cast significant shadows and have significant transportation impacts, among other concerns: disproportionately affecting nearby owners, residents, and users. instead, recommend allowing heights exceeding 15 stories by a special exception or process only. A special allowance for tall buildings would better enable to capture the disproportionate benefits that would otherwise accrue to a minority of owners.

We should simplify our zoning map by removing the N-CT designation and allowing its building types in the next up-zoned category. I dont see a reason to have a zone that only allows cottages and nothing else. If a lot is suitable for a cottage court, it is likely suitable for other missing-middle housing. Let’s reduce the number of restrictive 'micro-zones' and give homeowners more flexibility in how they choose to develop their land.

Section 2.1.16 currently states that CG 'does not allow residential uses.' I am asking the city to strike that line. We shouldn't have any zone in the city that forces a developer to build only a single-story, auto-oriented box. If a retailer wants to help solve our housing crisis by adding apartments above their store, our zoning code should get out of the way and let them.

It seems that there are no parking minimums in any of the zoning types. I think this is a great move for freedom. I think it is reasonable to allow the market to decide the parking needs. If a business or residence determine parking is needed, they can add it. If it isnt needed, they aren't forced to.

I'd like to see this zoning type used more throughout neighborhoods allowing for more commercial to be dispersed around housing, and increasing access and freedom to residents. I feel three stories would be a reasonable fit into any of our cities neighborhoods.

In IX industrial there should be no amenity space requirement. This is an economic burden for a use that might have few employees and no residents. Given the parking restrictions, % build-to-line, active depth the building cannot be serviced - truck access, loading and unloading, etc. and a sigificant amount of space is lost for rental. Again an economic burden for industrial mixed use and unresponsive to the potential of small scale manufacturing and production, and/or creative offices with production.

Mixed-Use industrial should have much the same standards as as light industrial but allow creative offices and residential. As written IX industrial mixed use is too similar to MX5 and from a functional and cost prespective zones out small scale prodcution and manufactuing.

I'm happy to see a two unit max in this low density designation. There are a lot of duplexes mixed in to areas of the city perceived to be "single family" neighborhoods. This will match current form.

I think that having an existing range primary street setback is important for NM zone. The purpose of NM is to allow commercial uses within neighborhoods, but not have them contrast too starkly with the existing built form. NM blocks and corridors that are mostly occupied the should use existing range.

When I look at current blocks that are "would-be NM" I don't see a reason to require a minimum, but allowing for some variation is good.

This comment is specific to The Hill neighborhood.

The goals behind the Zoning Overlay Update Project, including modernization, expanded housing options, and improved walkability, are understood. However, the level of density and flexibility outlined in several of the proposed residential districts does not align with the existing conditions of The Hill.

Allowing increased dwelling units per lot, combined with reduced lot size standards, increased lot coverage, minimal setbacks, and greater building heights, would introduce a scale and intensity of development that is inconsistent with the established residential pattern of the neighborhood.

The Hill is defined by smaller homes, consistent block patterns, and limited infrastructure capacity, particularly related to parking and street width. Introducing higher-density housing types into this environment would create impacts that the current layout of the neighborhood is not designed to accommodate.

Higher-intensity districts such as Neighborhood B (N-B) and Neighborhood C (N-C) may be appropriate along major corridors or at the outer edges of neighborhoods where additional density can be supported. However, applying these classifications within the interior of The Hill would represent a clear departure from the existing scale, spacing, and function of the neighborhood.

Zoning should reinforce and respect established neighborhood patterns. Applying higher-density residential standards too broadly risks introducing building types and development intensity that are not compatible with The Hill’s existing form.

A more targeted, neighborhood-specific approach is strongly encouraged — one that considers lot sizes, parking realities, building scale, and the existing development pattern before assigning higher-density classifications.

The intent should be to allow for thoughtful, compatible growth while maintaining the physical character and functionality of established neighborhoods like The Hill.

While I understand the intent behind this district, the level of density and flexibility outlined here feels more appropriate for areas with larger lots, more infrastructure, or existing higher-density patterns.

Applying these standards to The Hill would represent a significant shift in character and livability, and I strongly encourage a more context-sensitive approach.

Increasing allowable density to this level without clear and realistic parking solutions could significantly impact neighborhoods like The Hill, where street parking is already limited.

I encourage the City to more directly align density allowances with infrastructure capacity and existing neighborhood conditions.

Allowing multiple attached units in a row may introduce building patterns that differ from the traditional layout of The Hill.

I encourage the City to evaluate how these forms of development will integrate with existing residential blocks and whether additional design or placement standards are needed.

Allowing up to three stories across residential areas may not be compatible with the existing scale of neighborhoods like The Hill, where homes are typically smaller and more consistent in height.

I encourage consideration of how building height and massing will visually and functionally integrate with existing homes.

A maximum building coverage of 60% on smaller urban lots could result in structures that feel disproportionately large relative to surrounding homes.

In neighborhoods like The Hill, this could reduce open space and contribute to a more crowded and less cohesive streetscape.

The absence of a minimum lot width raises concerns about how tightly development could occur. In neighborhoods like The Hill, where lots are already compact, this could lead to overdevelopment and further strain on infrastructure and livability.

I encourage the City to establish more appropriate minimum lot standards for areas with existing small-lot patterns.

Allowing up to four dwelling units per lot represents a significant increase in density that does not align with the existing character of neighborhoods like The Hill.

On smaller lots, this level of density could dramatically change the scale, occupancy, and overall feel of residential blocks. I strongly encourage the City to reconsider where this level of intensity is appropriate and to avoid applying it broadly in established neighborhoods.

I encourage design standards that promote architectural compatibility with existing homes. Larger blank wall allowances could result in building facades that feel out of place in neighborhoods like The Hill, which are known for more detailed and varied residential architecture.

A maximum lot coverage of 50% on smaller lots may still result in relatively large building footprints in proportion to surrounding homes.

In neighborhoods like The Hill, where homes are closely spaced, this could contribute to a more crowded feel and reduced open space. I encourage consideration of how lot coverage interacts with existing neighborhood patterns.

The lack of a clearly defined minimum setback or build-to requirement along primary streets could lead to inconsistent building placement along residential blocks.

The Hill has a strong, recognizable streetscape with relatively consistent spacing between homes. I encourage standards that help maintain this alignment rather than allowing wide variation in how buildings sit on a lot.

While accessory dwelling units can provide flexibility, combining ADUs with additional primary dwelling units on smaller lots may result in a level of density that exceeds what neighborhoods like The Hill can realistically support.

I encourage the City to evaluate whether ADUs should be more limited in areas where multiple dwelling units are already permitted, particularly in neighborhoods with existing parking and space constraints.

I have concerns about how the N-A district standards would impact neighborhoods like The Hill, where lot sizes are smaller and development pressure is already increasing.

Allowing up to 2 dwelling units plus an accessory dwelling unit on a typical 25-foot lot could significantly increase density on blocks that have historically been more consistent in scale. This has real implications for parking, congestion, and overall neighborhood character.

The Hill already faces challenges with limited parking and tightly spaced homes. Increasing allowable units without corresponding infrastructure or parking considerations could negatively impact day-to-day livability.

Additionally, standards related to building height, lot coverage, and minimal setbacks could lead to new construction that does not align with the existing scale and spacing of homes in the neighborhood.

I strongly encourage the City to evaluate whether this level of density and flexibility is appropriate for established neighborhoods like The Hill, and to consider more tailored standards that reflect existing conditions.

Once again I don't see the reason for having setbacks for high-density campus uses.

Will there be any sort of exception or consideration for small neighborhood businesses? This is applied to large areas of the City that have existing "commercial" uses that shouldn't be deterred.

Will there be any sort of exception or consideration for small neighborhood businesses? This is applied to large areas of the City that have existing "commercial" uses that shouldn't be deterred.

Has any consideration been given to how to encourage (usable) front porches? Setbacks usually discourage front porches in favor of larger square footage unless an explicit exception is made to exclude porches from setbacks/built to requirements, which may be in the standards, but I haven't found anything.

Many of the neighborhoods currently marked N-B in South City currently have 3 story/ 6-unit buildings. These are important to encourage for density and affordability. Zoning district N-B should either allow up to 6 units to accommodate this type of construction (preferred) or these neighborhoods should be zoned with more N-C.

Regarding NM-3, NM-5, and NM-8: although there is currently no maximum for dwelling units per lot, I recommend implementing minimum unit size requirements to prevent overcrowding. Specifically, I suggest a minimum of 100 sq. ft. for residential units and 200 sq. ft. for commercial units.

Additionally, residential units should be required to have private kitchens and bathrooms rather than shared facilities.

Would a driveway or drive thru be allowed between the building and street?

There should be a minimum FAR. Land wasting low productivity land uses must be discouraged, like the fast food drive0thru with a FAR of 0.06 recently approved at 3224 S Kingshighway..

Should consider adding a height limit of 500 or 600 feet so that the Arch remains our tallest building. With the amount of vacant/underutilized land we have this would also encourage more development overall

Please ban drive thrus, gas stations, car washes, and any other land use whose goal is to attract cars anywhere near residential, hospitals, schools, day cares, etc.

It's not clear whether ADUs will have the same standards or not.

I'm confused. In a residential neighborhood in South city, isn't most of the parking between buildings and the street?

I find no need for minimum setbacks in any zone really, but especially in mixed-use.

There should be a maximum setback for this zone

I think that N-CT designations should be allowed to have one (1) building of low-impact commercial like the NM- designations have as having a small corner store, a small neighborhood bar, anything like that could add a lot of flavor to these potential districts

This applies behind just this zone. Can we make sure every zone has min&max setbacks to avoid long suburban style setbacks being built in the city?

There shouldn't be a minimum setback for N-C. We have neighborhoods like Soulard where there are no front yards and its no problem, front yards are rarely a useable space and are usually a hastle for homeowners to maintain.

There shouldn't be a required minimum setback for NM-8 or any Neighborhood Mixed Use districts, the front lawns of these places rarely get used by residents and its a waste of space/gas for lawn moers.

Having building coverage for an unlimited height skyscraper at anything less than 100% seems so off. Unless the alley or sidewalk counts into the coverage, this would essentially mandate some setback, despite the zone allowing 0ft setback. Most of the loft buildings along Wash Ave downtown would be non-conforming.

80% building coverage for quite tall buildings like this seems low. Especially if the existing building frontage is 0ft setback against the sidewalk. Parking garages would typically fill in the rear of the build, wrapped with apartments on the front and side. Unless the sidewalk and tree lawn count, having 20% of the parcel as not-built, would probably just end up as parking lot, or some other concrete surface (Like a loading bay). With the amenity space being on the roof, or above the parking garage on like the 4th floor.

As these are smaller buildings, and this is a very common zone, I could see the side street active depth requirement being a common variance to fit in parking/elevators/hallway/stairwell, in addition to the active depth on the main street.

Would this max units in a row apply across multiple parcels? Since this is NB and it has a 4 unit cap, I get the 4 unit max. But lets say a developer owns 2 side by side 50ft parcels. They want to build 5 rowhomes over those 2 parcels, would that not be allowed because its 5 in a row, even though its over 2 parcels? Would they need to ask to merge the lots and apply for a rezoning to NC? Or should they instead ask to merge and split the 2 lots into 5 lots to build the townhomes?

Or would the simplest option (the most likely option any developer would take) would be to merge the 2 lots and then apply for a variance for the unit max from 4 to 5, rather than rezone it to NC. Either way would require a public hearing and lots of zoning staff time.