Staff outlines draft SB 840–related multifamily design standards: height, parking, build-to lines and amenity menu

Planning staff presented detailed draft amendments on Sept. 9 to implement design-oriented standards for multifamily developments under Senate Bill 840, focusing on height, parking location, building articulation and a scaled amenity menu.

Staff said drafts borrow from local mixed-use design rules and proposed two options for placement in the code: either a new special-standards section (2.52) or expanded multifamily district rules (section 2.39). The presentation included a range of design measures meant to preserve urban character while complying with SB 840’s statutory limitations.

On height, staff proposed raising the minimum height for new multifamily projects to about 40 feet (roughly 3–4 stories) and suggested a default maximum in the draft near 60 feet while noting the state’s statute “does say the maximum height requirements in our case cannot be less than 45.” Staff asked the committee for direction on an appropriate maximum.

Parking and site layout proposals would prohibit surface parking in the front yard of buildings and encourage locating surface parking behind buildings; head-in and angled parking were offered as flexible options. Staff also included draft standards for above-grade structured parking to require compatibility with building architecture and to incorporate at least two of several design elements (variation in wall plane, material/color variation, pedestrian-scale elements, or a distinguishable first floor).

Other proposed changes included minimum 8-foot sidewalks in new multifamily projects (with allowances to match existing conditions where appropriate), horizontal and vertical facade articulation to prevent monolithic walls, limits on monotonous roof forms and defined block lengths (draft suggested a minimum of about 200 feet and a maximum around 500 feet), and build-to-line ranges (a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 20 feet) to shape the relationship between building facades and the street.

Staff proposed replacing a current mandatory swimming-pool requirement with a menu of approximately 10 eligible amenities and tying the number of required amenities to project size. The draft included scaled thresholds (for example, staff discussed applying a higher amenity requirement as unit counts rise) and suggested the committee could use a point system so amenities of differing cost or value could be weighted.

The draft also proposed permitting townhomes in certain commercial zones to encourage housing-type variety; a requirement that SB 840 sites post temporary on-site signage so neighbors are informed of new multifamily permits; and clarifying the definition of “development” in subdivision regulations so conversions cannot avoid required water/wastewater capacity analyses.

Committee members largely supported the direction and offered refinements: add clubhouse and size standards for amenities, consider window or glazing requirements as an alternative to a blanket ban on “boxy” façades, allow trade-offs (architectural innovation in exchange for relief from other standards), and protect residential neighbors through setback buffers where multifamily abuts single-family neighborhoods. Staff said they would work with legal and engineering to refine standards, capacity-assessment triggers and illustration material for subsequent drafts and return to committee and council.

No final code changes were adopted; staff requested direction and will prepare firm draft language and examples for the committee and council to review.