Staff refines middle-housing code: narrower lot-widths, removed 20% administrative variation; appeals follow for nonconforming lots

Lindsey, a planning staff member, reviewed proposed refinements to the city's middle-housing standards and told the commission the changes came after 18 months of application experience and stakeholder input. "The intent of the code amendments are not to be a silver bullet for the city's housing crisis," Lindsey said, adding the changes are focused on clarity and consistency. Key draft changes presented included narrower minimum lot widths in certain cases (for example, duplexes through fourplexes may be allowed on 40-foot lots with an alley and 45-foot lots without an alley, and a two-story duplex option reduced to a 35-foot lot width with an alley), a rewritten articulation requirement for long building elevations (requiring vertical breaks for 20% of any elevation longer than 50 feet), and the removal of a staff-level 20% administrative variation that had lacked clear criteria. Staff said the proposed changes would increase the percentage of lots that could accommodate middle housing from roughly 87.05% to 91.61% where the standards are applicable, and reminded commissioners that only about 28% of city lots are in the targeted TDR land-use area and not all are vacant. Later in the meeting planning staff introduced two appeals of administrative denials for proposed middle-housing projects on nonconforming lots. Staff said the denials rested chiefly on the intent and design standards of the middle-housing rules (Article 4.6 of the zoning code) which aim to produce neighborhood-scale forms compatible in footprint, height and setbacks with surrounding houses. Staff described the two appealed projects as falling into a gray area between "townhouse" and "multiplex" types and said that, in their view, the designs produced dwelling forms that do not meet the townhouse orientation and livability expectations: staff said such perpendicular or "slot" forms can loom over neighbors, create poor outdoor space and orient windows toward adjacent houses rather than the street. Staff reiterated that the amendments are intended to clarify the rules and avoid ad hoc administrative variations. Commissioners discussed neighborhood outreach and site visits; one commissioner said several members had visited properties and met residents who had questions about the standards. The commission scheduled further consideration of remaining amendments at the next meeting and acknowledged that several applicants have appealed staff administrative denials to the appointed board for determination. The planning office did not take a formal vote on the amendments at the agenda-review meeting; staff said they removed the administrative variation and adjusted lot-width thresholds as described and recommended continuing the items for final consideration.