Planning commission debates revisions to RMF (multifamily) zoning standards: density, open space, parking and amenities

Commissioners and city planning staff debated proposed changes to Payson's RMF (residential multifamily) zoning standards during a planning commission work session, focusing on how to incentivize higher-quality design while managing density, parking and open-space definitions.

Planner Michael (staff) introduced the item as a major chapter of Appendix A in the city's zoning code and said the RMF zone is where staff "really wanted to look at things that might be ways to incentivize good design, good product, good layouts." The presentation and ensuing commission discussion covered permitted and conditional uses, minimum project area, density metrics, frontage and lot-size rules, building height, open-space calculations, parking and project amenities.

Key points covered in discussion: - Permitted uses: Commissioners questioned whether accessory structures allowing the housing of animals or poultry belong in the RMF zone. Jill (staff) suggested striking animal-housing provisions that do not refer to household pets. - Minimum project area and frontage: Staff proposed a 5-acre minimum project area for RMF developments; commissioners noted that a 200-foot frontage requirement combined with a 5-acre minimum could permit deep flag-lot configurations and asked whether that was appropriate. - Density metrics: Commissioners weighed maximum units-per-acre values. Discussion noted recent approvals (an RMF-10 zone change west of Redbridge) and the presence of a transit overlay that could allow higher densities (up to 50 units per acre in some overlays). Speakers debated calculating density on net buildable acreage (excluding public utilities, roads and nonbuildable areas) versus gross acreage and the enforcement challenges of gross-density methods. - Lot sizes and housing mix: Commissioners discussed whether RMF should allow smaller single-family lots interspersed with multifamily or townhomes as a means to provide a wider product mix; suggestions ranged toward allowing smaller lots (4,000—5,000 square feet) in limited circumstances while noting public-works and fire concerns about narrow frontages and utility separation. - Building height and emergency access: Commissioners agreed that height limits should balance design flexibility with public-safety needs; a suggestion increased a 43-foot cap to 45 feet to accommodate deeper floor trusses while preserving ladder-truck access and rescue capabilities. - Open space and stormwater basins: Commissioners sought clearer definitions of "usable open space," asking that features such as sports courts be eligible and that stormwater basins not be used to meet the full open-space requirement. One commissioner proposed capping storm-basin credit at 50% of open-space requirements and strengthening standards for how basins are constructed and counted. - Parking: Commissioners expressed recurring community concerns about parking and vehicle overflow on public streets. The current code reference was described as roughly 2.1 stalls per unit. Commissioners discussed whether required stalls should be offered "at no additional charge" to tenants (so that management cannot charge residents separately for required parking and drive them to park on the street), and whether code or development agreements could require or incentivize on-site RV/boat storage. Ideas included allowing additional units-per-acre when an applicant provides structured RV parking or covered storage. - Amenities and incentives: The commission discussed a points-based amenity system in which developers would earn density or other benefits by providing higher-value amenities (pools, clubhouses, restrooms for outdoor social areas). Commissioners favored tying additional density to enhanced design standards, more amenities and provisions for long-term maintenance. - Project-plan approval: Commissioners discussed whether to make a project-plan approval step required rather than optional to encourage better design before final site-plan review, and whether to offer expedited review as an incentive for applicants that follow the process. - Solid waste containers: Commissioners debated whether to allow individual residential trash containers in RMF developments or require shared collection enclosures; staff noted sanitation and access concerns when private drives are narrow.

No zoning changes were adopted at the meeting; commissioners directed staff to refine language and bring revisions back for further review, including clarifications for "usable open space," density calculations (net vs. gross), parking standards and amenity incentives. Several commissioners emphasized the possibility that state legislation could affect local lot-size rules and suggested keeping some provisions flexible until the legislature acts.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the code changes; staff said the city has budgeted for a consultant to help rewrite the chapter and will return with refined language for future hearings.