Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission holds extended workshop on RM (mixed-residential) zoning and scale of higher-density development
Summary
The Planning Commission held a workshop to discuss RM (mixed-residential) zoning and development scale, focusing on rear-loaded townhome layouts, eligibility-map removal, minimum acreage for master-planned projects and incentives for desired design elements.
The Planning Commission held a prolonged workshop on the RM (mixed-residential) zoning standards and related RPUD / town-center approaches, focusing on where and how the city should allow higher-density housing types.
Levi opened the discussion by identifying two staff suggestions: encourage (or require) rear-loaded townhomes to improve pedestrian environment and consider removing the RM eligibility map so rezonings can be evaluated directly against the future land-use map and rezone process rather than via a separate eligibility step.
Commissioners debated several recurring themes: the trade-offs between a legislative rezoning (which requires City Council approval and may delay projects but secures broader policy review) versus an administrative pathway for smaller developments; whether RM and RPUD rules should be preserved for larger, master-planned developments (40 acres or more); how to ensure sufficient project scale to support common-area maintenance and homeowners associations; and tools to incentivize desired outcomes (density bonuses in exchange for more open space, payments-in-lieu, tiered density by parcel size, or requiring mixed housing types within a project).
Several commissioners urged caution about allowing high-density parcels on very small sites, noting maintenance and HOA issues on small-scale attached housing and potential aesthetic impacts along major corridors. Others argued developers need administrative certainty to keep costs and timelines down; legislative rezones can increase negotiation time and cost and may counteract affordability objectives. Participants proposed options such as: tiered density incentives (larger parcels allowed higher density), requiring rear-loaded townhomes on public-facing streets, improving open-space requirements, or retaining RPUD-style negotiations for larger projects while allowing streamlined administrative review for qualifying smaller projects.
No formal action was taken; commissioners asked staff to incorporate the discussion into a broader general-plan and zoning update process and suggested a site tour and additional follow-up. Levi said the general-plan update and a town-center master-planning exercise are starting soon and that staff will bring refined options to the commission for future consideration.
