Staff outlines zoning text amendment to change landscape and common open-space standards

City planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the zoning code that would change how landscaped area and common open space are measured and required on private development sites, and asked the Planning and Economic Development committee for direction on district-by-district standards.

Alfredo, the staff presenter, said the effort is split into three parts and that this session focused on the "standards" portion. He told the committee that landscaped area refers to ground cover, foundation plantings, street and shade trees and lawns required of all projects, while common open space applies only to planned-unit developments (PUDs) and may include landscaped area. "We didn't cover that last time — we're gonna dive into the terminology," Alfredo said as he walked through the distinctions.

The amendment would retain some long-standing quantity standards but apply them more granularly in special districts. Staff proposed reducing the residential requirement in certain primary assessment-district downtown areas — where buildings are often lot-line to lot-line — from historically higher percentages to much lower levels in cases where existing conditions make on-site landscaping infeasible. Alfredo said the goal is to "increase the quality and quantity of green space" while offering alternatives to blanket waivers and directing funds or off-site improvements to locations identified in the comprehensive plan.

Council members pressed staff on practical examples and triggers. The committee heard that landscape requirements generally take effect when a property's use changes (for example, commercial to residential) and that existing nonconforming sites would keep current on-site quantities unless a change of use occurs. Tim, a planning staff member, said blended percentages are used for mixed-use conversions so only the portion converted to residential would carry a residential percentage requirement.

Members discussed alternatives to simple waivers, such as allowing developers to provide landscaped area off-site in the vicinity, to convey credits into a bank, or to pay into a city-managed green-space fund. Alfredo said Part 3 of the amendment will address those alternatives in detail and that the comp plan would guide where off-site investment should be concentrated. The staff memo also includes an "absolute minimum" proposal — for example, requiring that a percentage of required landscaped area still be provided on-site even when alternatives are used — to avoid blanket exceptions.

Committee members asked staff to avoid creating code language that would force demolition or removal of historic fabric to meet new requirements. Alfredo confirmed exemptions and no-net-loss language are included for properties in primary and secondary assessment districts and for qualifying historic-district sites. "In no case shall the on-site amount be less than what is there prior to the change of use," he said, pointing to proposed text in the packet.

The committee expressed support for the policy direction while asking staff to refine the draft to prevent unintended consequences and to clarify implementation steps so developers and staff know early in review what will be required. The committee asked staff to return in August to present Part 3 (waivers and alternatives) and the finalized language to forward to the Planning Commission and council.