Committee debates step-backs, leans to forward PBI amendments to council with direction on architectural standards

Kristen Leeson, planning manager, told the Planning, Development and Environment Committee that the Promoting Building Investments (PBI) package is the first element of a two-year set of Title 18 updates requested by council and the development community. "Our 2 questions are, are there any other changes that you would like to see regarding these amendments? And do you recommend moving them forward to the full council on June 29?" she asked.

Leeson described two focal changes. First, step-back requirements for upper floors would be simplified and in some contexts removed: staff proposed a single rule that street-facing facades for buildings six stories or higher must include a step back beginning by the base of the sixth floor (but allowed to start as low as the base of the second floor) with a minimum depth of five feet, while removing multiple, stacked step-back mandates and some terrace/usability requirements. Second, Leeson proposed easing private and common outdoor amenity requirements by raising unit thresholds that trigger minimums (for example, the 100-square-foot-per-unit common requirement would apply to larger buildings and only 30% of units would be required to have 48 square feet of private outdoor space in most cases). She said deviations would be allowed for conversions (such as motels converting to housing) so projects could provide as much amenity space as feasible without an onerous variance process.

Council Member Nichols objected that step-back requirements can make projects financially infeasible and cause loss of housing yield. "This is something where we have direct data...how many housing units we lose by having this requirement in there," Nichols said, urging removal of step-back requirements as a mandate. Leeson and other staff noted the Planning Policy Commission had recommended the proposal as presented in staff materials but confirmed the committee could forward a different recommendation; she outlined two options: (1) recommend removing step-backs citywide now and later reintroducing them as part of architectural standards, or (2) forward the package now to provide immediate, developer-requested flexibility and then address architectural standards in a later phase.

Deputy Council President Chang and Council Member Walsh said they supported forwarding the package to Council while making clear the city intends to fold step-backs into a broader architectural-standards conversation. Chang asked that staff list alternative design options as part of that standards package (material quality, ornamentation, tree retention, etc.) so that step-backs are one of several ways to achieve visual interest. "We should probably name what some of them are," Chang said.

On amenity-space requirements, Chang and others questioned an extra 400-square-foot indoor-or-outdoor common-area minimum for larger projects and noted higher amenity requirements can increase project costs. Leeson said the indoor-or-outdoor option was meant to provide usable space (for example, a common room with seating and a kitchenette) but that neighboring jurisdictions vary on this requirement.

By consensus, the committee directed staff to move the PBI amendments to City Council for the June 29 meeting, with committee members asking staff to: (a) correct a wording error in the ordinance packet that inadvertently reinserted a removed section, (b) include a clear statement that step-backs will be evaluated as part of forthcoming architectural standards (and to provide examples of alternative design options), and (c) present amenity-space rationales and comparables in the Council packet.

Next steps: staff will correct the ordinance language to match the PowerPoint, note the Planning Policy Commission recommendation, add the requested clarifications on step-backs and amenity-space rationale, and transmit the package to Council for possible action on June 29.