Commission advances zoning code update to change how neighborhood open‑space dedications are calculated

The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to forward an amendment to Title 14 (zoning) that changes how the city calculates neighborhood open‑space dedication requirements when developers subdivide land.

Rachel Schafer of Neighborhood and Development Services presented the proposal, saying the current 1994 formula relies on maximum allowed density and produces inconsistent and sometimes unworkable requirements for modern zoning districts. "The neighborhood open space dedication requirement... ensures that those responsible for creating the need for new parks, cover the cost rather than existing residents in the community," Schafer said. She explained the new, proposed formula would use the number of units proposed times persons per dwelling unit (from the most recent census) multiplied by 3 acres per 1,000 people in the city standard.

Why it matters: staff said the existing formula creates several problems in current practice — high, unrealistic requirements in form‑based or riverfront districts (where maximum density is not defined), and burdens for small infill lot splits. The proposed approach removes maximum density from the calculation for most situations, uses unit counts (or reliable proxies) at preliminary plat, and adds a 10% site‑area cap so high‑density but small‑footprint developments are not made infeasible by open‑space demands.

How the new formula would work in practice: Schafer said for conventional single‑family zones lot counts are a straightforward proxy for unit count; for multifamily and commercial lots staff will estimate maximum dwelling units adjusted by a 65% build‑out factor at preliminary plat; for riverfront crossing and East Side mixed‑use districts the developer will provide an estimated unit count at preliminary plat and final numbers will be verified at final plat. For form‑based zones the ordinance ties unit counts to the neighborhood plan. Schafer noted staff surveyed 18 other jurisdictions and selected the proposed approach to align with best practices.

District map change and cap: staff also proposed consolidating several small open‑space districts into larger boundaries (for example combining many central area sub‑districts into a single Central district) and extending district boundaries to the city's growth area, which parks staff said will make it easier to spend fee‑in‑lieu funds within a reasonable timeframe. Schafer explained the cap provision by example: a high‑density riverfront project that would calculate to 1.67 acres under the unit formula but exceed the 10% cap would default to a 0.19‑acre maximum dedication under the cap to preserve development feasibility.

Discussion and edits: commissioners asked procedural questions about when the dedication is triggered (staff proposed applying the requirement at preliminary plat and exempting small final‑plat lot splits), whether fees in lieu can be used for acquisition versus improvements, and whether the 10% cap would prevent voluntary larger dedications. The chair suggested clarifying the cap text to note the cap limits required dedication but does not prohibit a developer voluntarily dedicating more; staff accepted that clarification.

Outcome and next steps: the commission recommended the zoning text amendment with the clarifying cap language and boundary adjustments; staff said a City Council public hearing would be scheduled in September. Schafer said the amendments aim to make the requirement more predictable, fairer for small infill projects and workable across the city's varied zoning regimes.