Commission debates changes to RM mixed-residential zone; asks staff to draft options

Commissioners spent the bulk of a Feb. 6 workshop discussing possible revisions to the mixed-residential (RM) zone and related standards. Commissioners and staff framed the discussion around three goals: clarify allowable housing types and definitions, reduce curb cuts by encouraging shared or rear-loaded access, and calibrate open-space and size thresholds so smaller parcels are not infeasible.

Commissioner Troy urged changes to driveway rules, suggesting a minimum spacing between driveways (for example, 30 feet) to encourage shared drives or rear-loaded alleys. He proposed adding specific definitions for building types — "stacked fourplexes, multiplexes, courtyard buildings" — so developers understand allowed options rather than assuming a limited list.

Commissioners debated the RM code’s buffer and open-space rules. The commission discussed current practice of counting 20% open space for single-family and 35% for multifamily projects and whether that differential unfairly treats multifamily housing. Some commissioners proposed allowing payment-in-lieu for on-site open space if the development is proximate to an existing or planned city park; others favored retaining on-site open space but lowering the percentage for smaller developments.

Multiple commissioners raised the idea of a tiered site-size approach: smaller proposals (for example, under 5 acres) could face stricter limits, while larger consolidated projects (for example, 20–40 acres) would be eligible for higher densities and amenities because they provide economies of scale for infrastructure and public facilities. Several commissioners said the commission should discourage isolated small multifamily infill that lacks sufficient frontage, infrastructure, or access.

No code changes were adopted; commissioners directed staff to return with written draft options that respond to the driveway, definitions, setbacks, open-space calculation, and tiered site-size concepts for further review. The commission discussed whether the RM provisions should remain an administrative approval or be structured as a legislative overlay (similar to an RPUD) that would require a higher level of review for approvals.