Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates urban design redlines; motion to add descriptive paragraph fails
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed edits to the urban design chapter and voted down a motion to reinsert a descriptive paragraph about design standards and community character; staff will proceed with streamlined redlines and code-focused edits.
The Liberty Lake Planning Commission reviewed a set of proposed redlines to the draft urban design chapter on June 25 and rejected a narrow motion to restore a descriptive paragraph several commissioners had proposed keeping.
Amy (city planner) led the session and summarized edits intended to shorten and clarify the chapter, remove outdated language and shift implementation details to development code and engineering standards. Staff proposed removing an antiquated reference to "planned unit development," consolidating redundant policies, and avoiding design-review requirements that would extend to single-family homes.
During discussion Commissioner Charlie (recorded as Charlie Jenks) argued for retaining a paragraph that, in his view, described the city's character and the role of design standards. He said the paragraph "does describe the character of the city, which I think is good." Another commissioner supported removing the paragraph on the grounds that the chapter should be concise and the material is duplicative of nearby text.
A motion "that we include that paragraph within the body of the second paragraph" was moved and seconded. The commission called the voice vote and a majority opposed the motion; the chair announced, "The motion is defeated 4 to 2 4 to 3." Staff then continued the chapter review. Other edits the commission discussed and accepted in principle included removing the term "urban village" from the goal statement (commissioners agreed to delete the word "village") and removing a policy that called for unspecified "appropriate treatment" of scenic entry points because staff said the city has not designated those resources and the provision was a mandatory "shall" without clear standards.
Commissioners also asked for coordination with the city's newly hired urban forester on tree species guidance and for the urban design chapter to refer to an engineering/resolution-based list for street trees rather than embedding a fixed species list in the comp plan.
The planning commission did not take a formal final vote to transmit the urban design chapter at the June 25 meeting; staff said the redlines will be advanced and combined with other plan elements for later Council consideration.
