Staff: First-year middle-housing rules produced dozens of applications; city staff seek code clarifications and process changes

Planning staff presented the first annual report on the city's middle-housing standards, saying the rules adopted after Planning Commission review in December 2023 and formal adoption by City Council on Feb. 6 have produced dozens of applications and several implementation issues.

The report, delivered by Lindsay Lanoi and Michelle Portier, shows 50 middle-housing applications submitted between March 2024 and Jan. 31, 2025. If all were built as proposed, staff said those projects would add 43 dwelling units to the city's housing stock. Planning staff told commissioners that 97% of applications were approved and 3% denied; two denials were appealed to the Planning Commission and staff decisions were upheld. Staff also reported 45 pre-application consultations during the same period and said average review time for most projects was three to four weeks, although some cases took less than a week and others up to eight weeks.

The report assessed how the new Article 4.6 middle-housing standards have been used and identified recurring problems that staff recommends the zoning code amendments should address. Key issues include confusion about the standards' intent, conflicts between middle-housing rules and base-zone dimensional rules, how the standards apply to nonconforming lots of record, and a gap that allows multiple primary structures on a single lot. Planning staff recommended clarifying where Article 4.6 supersedes base zoning, adding guardrails for nonconforming lots, and creating new standards for lots with multiple primary structures so those developments relate to each other and the block face.

Staff also reported the distribution and types of proposals: about 60% of applications were for duplexes, 26% for fourplexes and 8% for townhouses; 86% of applications were concentrated in the RN2 zoning district; applications came from 24 applicants (one submitted 11 applications, another submitted eight); and applications were received across 16 neighborhoods, with Mechanicsville (12), Lonsdale (6) and Morningside (6) receiving the most.

To address appeals and design-review questions, staff recommended delegating middle-housing appeals from the Planning Commission to the Design Review Board (DRB). Staff said the DRB already hears detailed, design-oriented cases for the infill housing overlay and downtown zones and includes members with design and development expertise; appeals from the DRB would still be able to escalate to the Planning Commission. Staff also recommended streamlining administration by folding middle-housing review into the regular permitting process with Plans Review and Inspections, to eliminate the separate application, fee and two-step review that applicants currently face.

Commissioners asked about the timeline and public engagement. Lanoi and Portier said they plan to bring zoning code amendments to the Planning Commission in late spring or early summer, and noted the annual report did not include new neighborhood outreach; most of the approved projects remain in permitting and have not been built yet, so physical impacts are not yet broadly visible. Staff also flagged front-setback calculation issues, minor definition clarifications, and recommendations to update how the standards apply where block face averages are calculated.

The Planning Commission discussion emphasized two additional points: whether the DRB should be given variance authority for middle-housing appeals (staff said any change would require a code amendment and current DRB variance authority is limited to properties in the infill housing overlay), and whether conversions of single-family homes to duplexes required additional design guidance (staff said duplex conversions are rare and a separate ordinance amendment addressing duplex dimensional and principal-use standards is scheduled for further review).

Staff closed by offering to update commission members and bring recommended ordinance language for review; they also noted a map of submitted cases will be updated quarterly on the planning website.

The presentation was technical and largely informational; commissioners did not take a formal vote on any code change at the meeting. Staff said they would return with proposed text changes and an implementation timeline for the Planning Commission to send recommendations to City Council.

Ending: Planning staff said they will draft specific zoning-code amendments and offer those changes to the Planning Commission in early summer; attendees were invited to follow up with staff after they review the full annual report and supporting charts on staff's project webpage.