Planning staff urge limited fixes to MU‑1 zoning to resolve density and retail inconsistencies

Planning staff and commissioners discussed fixes to mixed‑use (MU‑1) zoning to resolve conflicts between existing MU‑1 zoning and the city’s future land‑use map.

Staff explained that MU‑1’s implementing districts currently carry different minimum densities depending on the future land‑use designation: mixed use implements an 8‑unit minimum, residential medium can allow a minimum as low as 5.5 units per acre, and residential high requires 12 units per acre. Staff said that mismatch means some properties zoned MU‑1 sit inside residential designations, producing what they called an "incongruity" between zoning and the plan. Staff also noted that some formerly RO (residential office) parcels were rezoned to MU‑1 during the code update but remain shown as residential medium or residential high on the future land‑use map.

Why it matters: commissioners said the issue affects whether parcels retain the previous RO flexibility (including no maximum density) or become subject to minimums that effectively down‑zone them. Several commissioners favored an approach that preserves development opportunities in downtown corridors while preventing unexpected down‑zoning of parcels that had no density cap under RO.

What staff proposed and the direction: staff presented three broad alternatives: (1) rezone former MU‑1 parcels to residential categories (RM8 or RM12), which would prohibit retail/office where those rezones apply; (2) keep the MU‑1 minimum density at eight units per acre and amend the comprehensive plan (future land‑use map) so MU‑1 parcels that are currently shown as residential medium would instead be designated mixed use (thereby raising their plan minimum to eight); or (3) leave the current situation in place. Staff said ADUs are counted toward densities and that any redevelopment would be subject to the current MU‑1 rules as a matter of right.

Commissioners and staff signaled a preference against rezoning RO parcels back to residential categories because that would reduce flexibility and require conditional‑use processes for uses that currently can occur by right. Multiple speakers said they were "leaning toward alternative 2"—amending the future land‑use designation to match MU‑1 zoning where appropriate—while acknowledging the need to avoid removing legitimate rezoning options applicants might want later.

Retail square footage and signage: commissioners also asked staff to reconcile an inconsistency in the use table that allowed only "small" retail by use category but elsewhere referenced larger gross floor‑area allowances (up to 15,000 sq ft). Staff and the group discussed making MU‑1 allow the "medium" retail category and setting the medium/large threshold at 15,000 square feet. The group favored requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) for retail when the property's future land‑use designation is residential (so retail would be reviewable where the plan designates residential but the zoning is MU‑1). That CUP would also give deliberative bodies the ability to review signage, scale, and neighborhood impacts for retail proposals on those parcels.

Sign code approach: the commission discussed three ways to address sign/regulatory conflicts created by legacy RO and B1 maps: keep an administrative regulation referencing the legacy map (short term), adopt an overlay map in the zoning code to replace legacy references, or adopt MU‑1 standards that replicate former B1 signage allowances for properties intended to retain commercial character. Staff said an overlay keyed to the future land‑use map (rather than the legacy zoning map) would be cleaner. The group asked staff to draft language that preserves former B1 opportunities in MU‑1 generally while using a CUP requirement tied to the future land‑use map where retail would be inconsistent with a residential plan designation.

Next steps: staff left the alternatives matrix for commissioners to refine; commissioners asked staff to prepare proposed code text (or map/overlay options) that: keep MU‑1 minimum density at eight units per acre; allow medium retail up to 15,000 sq ft in MU‑1; and require CUPs for retail where the future land‑use map is residential, with signage handled either by the overlay or CUP review. Commissioners asked staff to avoid rezoning parcels as part of this cleanup and to return with language and map options for formal action.

Ending: staff and commissioners agreed there was no urgency to force a citywide rezoning; the direction was to tidy the code and maps so zoning and the comprehensive plan align better while preserving development flexibility in downtown corridors.