Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Papillion planning commission backs 'R5' missing‑middle zoning update to expand housing choices
Summary
The commission voted 6-0 on May 27 to recommend an ordinance (TC-26-00004) that creates an R5 ‘pocket neighborhood’ district to allow cottage clusters, duplexes and other missing‑middle housing types, with limits (25% cap and area restrictions) and supplemental design rules.
The Papillion Planning Commission unanimously recommended that City Council consider an ordinance to update Chapter 205 of the zoning code to add an R5 “pocket neighborhood” district and related missing‑middle housing regulations. The recommendation on TC-26-00004 passed 6-0 and will be forwarded to council for formal consideration.
Staff described the R5 district as a targeted, design‑oriented zoning tool to permit clustered housing types — cottage clusters, duplexes, triplexes and small multifamily buildings — intended to increase variety in housing choices without allowing the district to proliferate citywide. Staff said the ordinance harmonizes local code language with state missing‑middle definitions and includes design standards that limit monotony, require a mix of unit types, and regulate driveway and garage placement.
“Pocket neighborhoods are really defined by clustered housing where they're clustered around common spaces,” staff said in the presentation, and explained that the district would only be allowed in areas designated medium or high density on the future land‑use map; roughly 13% of currently vacant land would qualify. Staff also described a policy limit allowing no more than 25% of a conventional subdivision to be developed under R5 in order to prevent R5 from dominating larger developments.
Laura Tarpin of Urban Waters, speaking as a proponent, thanked staff and said developers had reviewed the draft and provided feedback during a pre‑application process. “Tools like this R5 zoning really become quite essential,” she said, describing it as a way to provide more housing variety and flexibility.
Commissioners asked whether the code can require ownership rather than rental — staff said it cannot; the code is written to allow both rental and ownership to promote market flexibility. Commissioners also debated whether the district will lower housing costs; staff said the ordinance does not guarantee affordability but can increase supply and provide smaller, lower‑cost product types in some cases.
Several commissioners said they supported the approach while noting the ordinance will need monitoring after adoption. Staff emphasized the ordinance before council is an introduction: if City Council approves the ordinance, staff and council will monitor implementation and adjust the code as needed.
Next steps: the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for introduction and public hearing on the ordinance. The commission and staff plan to track how the district is used and to revise standards if implementation does not achieve the city’s goals.
