Council reviews proposed RMF 35/45 zoning text amendments aimed at incremental multifamily housing

City planning staff presented comprehensive text amendments to the RMF 35 and RMF 45 multifamily zoning districts at the Oct. 7 work session, proposing to streamline lot-area standards, adjust setbacks, add design standards and offer development incentives intended to allow incremental multifamily development without prompting large-lot consolidation.

Chrissy Gilmore (planning manager), Mikaela Bell (assistant planning director) and Brian Fulmer (council policy analyst) described the rationale: the current ordinance (adopted in 1995) does not match built conditions in many mapped RMF neighborhoods and created barriers to the housing types these zones were meant to allow. Staff presented data showing that under the current code a majority of lots are too narrow or too small for the multifamily building types the zones nominally allow: staff cited that “75% of the lots don't allow three-plus units” under current rules, “66% aren't wide enough for the housing types,” and “47% are smaller than 5,000 square feet.” They reported only 4% of mapped parcels had developed since 1995.

Key elements of the proposal explained to council include: - Density metric: standardize required area per dwelling to about 750 square feet per unit for most building forms, with a cap of 20 units per building. - Lot width: replace minimum lot-width requirements with a maximum lot width of about 110 feet to discourage consolidation of multiple lots for large structures. - Setbacks: reduce front-yard setbacks from 20 to 10 feet and interior side setbacks in many cases to 4 feet (with higher 10-foot setbacks where abutting single-family zones); rear-yard minimums proposed around 10–15 feet depending on adjacency. - Parking: shift RMF zones to a neighborhood parking context—one space per unit—reflecting that 96% of mapped lots are close to transit. - Bonus units: provide bonus units as an incentive for retaining existing structures (for example, retaining 1–2 existing units could allow up to two bonus units; preserving three or more units could allow four additional units). - Design standards: adopt street-facing façade design standards and form-based rules for defined building types.

Staff noted public engagement since 2024, including work with the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission. Two major changes from earlier drafts were cited: removal of an affordable-housing–linked height increase (55 feet) that was unpopular in public comment, and retention of separate RMF 35 and RMF 45 districts (though staff will consolidate both into a single chapter of code with separate height rules). Planning staff reported they considered rezoning a small set of parcels from 35 to 45 but concluded only about 23 properties met the criteria for an upzone after neighborhood-plan review.

Council members asked detailed questions about impacts in the Lower Avenues, historic districts, demolition risk, and whether the affordable-housing incentives would remain effective given the density changes. Concerns raised included protecting historic fabric, how smaller lots in already dense areas (like Marmalade and the Lower Avenues) would be affected, and whether the changes would encourage demolitions. Staff responded that demolition pressures exist regardless of code and that the proposal attempts to disincentivize demolition by offering bonus units for preservation and by limiting lot consolidation via a maximum lot width. Staff also said local historic-district demolition controls and Landmark Commission review would remain in place.

No formal action was taken at the work session; staff requested feedback and said the proposal had been through multiple public and commission hearings and would return for formal legislative processes.