Council reviews Booth Kelly rezoning and compatibility rules as part of housing-and-design initiative

City planning staff brought the housing and design initiative to the council, focusing on four consultant recommendations to boost affordability and housing choice across mixed‑use districts and on a focused policy conversation about the Booth Kelly Mixed Use District.

What staff proposed: to rezone Booth Kelly to a Mixed Use Employment District and replace the decades-old conceptual development plan and rigid development-area requirements with a phased development plan/master plan or site-plan-review process depending on project scale. Staff highlighted that the current Booth Kelly conceptual plan dates to 1989 and that the multi-step process (conceptual plan → development area plan → site plan) can be a barrier to redevelopment.

Compatibility and design questions: staff presented research showing building form, vegetative buffers and berms can meaningfully reduce noise exposure and proposed several code changes to improve livability when residential uses are near industrial or commercial sites. Specific options discussed included applying or protecting a 50‑decibel limit for noise measured at the property line (an existing code standard staff proposed to apply where mixed uses are allowed), requiring a 20‑foot vegetative/setback buffer where mixed-use housing abuts industrial districts (reducible to 10 feet with a masonry wall plus vegetation), and adding operational standards for light/medium industrial uses such as restricted delivery hours, shared loading areas, and screening for garbage and utility equipment.

Council response: several councilors said they preferred to start with enforceable noise standards rather than broad new height limits or burdensome design rules that could deter development. Concerns raised included who would maintain vegetative buffers after storms, how standards would apply when housing is added near pre-existing industrial operations, and whether the city’s changes might unintentionally remove heavy industrial capacity. Staff responded that existing heavy industrial uses would still be allowed and that compatibility rules would mostly trigger for new development or changes that could increase impacts.

Next steps: staff will produce clearer graphics and a redlined memo showing "what the code allows today" versus proposed amendments, return with more detailed code language and implementation options, and pursue public engagement as the proposals are refined.