Planning briefs commission on proposed RMF‑35/45 reform to promote infill, form‑based code and preservation incentives

Planning staff briefed the Historic Landmark Commission on a proposed city‑initiated text amendment to reform RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 multifamily residential rules into a single, form‑based district. Staff said the goal is to clarify development standards, better match zoning to existing neighborhood patterns, promote moderate infill and provide incentives to preserve existing housing — while adding specific design standards to protect nearby historic resources.

Grant Amon and Aaron Barlow presented the background: RMF‑35 and RMF‑45 date to the 1995 zoning rewrite but staff found those districts often do not function as written — many lots are too narrow or too small to meet minimum lot width (50 feet) or 5,000‑square‑foot lot area thresholds, and since 1996 only a small percentage of properties in those zones have seen new construction permits. Staff proposed a form‑based approach that regulates by building type (urban house/two‑family, cottage court, rowhouse, multifamily, etc.) with tailored lot, setback and fenestration rules for each form.

Key proposal elements presented: - Form‑based rules: different building forms would have distinct limits and standards (height, lot coverage, window area, blank‑wall limits, required porches and quality exterior materials). The form‑based approach is intended to avoid a one‑size‑fits‑all standard and produce buildings that are compatible with adjacent historic houses. Staff suggested step‑back/45‑degree plane protections for landmark sites and asked whether the commission would support similar protections for contributing structures in historic districts. - Preservation incentives: staff proposed a density bonus tied to preservation — for example, retaining an existing single‑family or duplex could allow two bonus units; retaining a multi‑unit building could allow more bonus units — documented by an instrument recorded on the property (staff asked commissioners whether deed restrictions or recorded notes would be preferable to secure preservation). These incentives aim to make preservation economically viable and discourage wholesale demolition. - Parking simplification: because about 95% of properties in the proposed district are within a quarter‑mile of transit, staff proposed a simplified parking standard of one parking space per unit (instead of the more complex present standard tied to unit count and building type). Staff said the intent is to reduce construction cost and encourage more bedrooms and housing rather than oversupplying parking. - Height and incentives: base heights would be limited (e.g., 30–45 feet by building form). Additional height (for example up to ~55 feet) could be permitted only through incentives, such as on‑site affordable housing or documented building preservation commitments.

Commissioners asked multiple detailed questions about how contributing structures inside districts would be treated versus individually designated landmark sites, whether preservation guarantees should be deed‑restricted, how bonuses would be recorded and enforced, and how the 45‑degree step‑back would be applied. Staff said they will incorporate the commission’s feedback; the draft will come to Planning Commission for a public hearing and then return for formal review. The public outreach program has included multiple community councils and open houses; Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in March.

The briefing did not require a vote. Planning staff asked for feedback on: (1) whether bonuses and preservation incentives are sufficient to deter demolition and displacement, and (2) whether the 45‑degree plane protection should apply to contributing structures as well as landmark sites. Commissioners provided preliminary comments and staff will circulate draft code language for later formal review.