Residents press planning commission to limit Town Center height waivers as task force weighs options

Dozens of residents spoke during public comment on May 13, urging the Planning Commission to reject or tighten Town Center building‑height waivers and to make the process more transparent. Speakers included task‑force members and long‑time residents who said outreach materials and feasibility studies were hard to find and that greater public input is required before permanent changes to height limits are adopted.

Adam Cunningham, who said he reviewed the 1,611‑page Town Center outreach record, told the commission: “In over 1,600 pages of documentation, I could only find six references to building heights above five stories.” Several speakers echoed that outreach and surveys prioritized restaurants, parks and small‑town character over taller housing and increasing density.

Residents raised a range of concerns: design and livability for residents of taller buildings, loss of small‑town character, traffic and parking impacts (particularly in the Villa neighborhood), and the possibility that repeated waivers could slowly change height expectations over time. One resident presented illustrative math showing how a shift from five‑ to seven‑story development could multiply living units in hypothetical buildout scenarios; staff cautioned those were illustrative projections rather than adopted targets.

At the work session that followed, city attorney Amanda Guile Hinman and staff summarized task‑force deliberations and several options presented for refinement. Staff said the task force generally did not support allowing an increase to seven stories and favored more limited approaches; one commonly discussed compromise was to allow either (a) one additional story in limited subdistricts or (b) the existing bonus floor for affordable housing, but not both. Staff summarized the task‑force takeaway bluntly: “The overarching sentiment across the board was seven stories is too much.”

Options under consideration include: retaining the waiver with tighter limits and revised menu items to ensure community benefits; allowing only one additional story in specified locations (for example, closer to I‑5 but not adjacent to neighborhoods); making the affordable‑housing bonus floor an exclusive pathway (no stacking with waivers); or placing a time‑bound review requirement (staff evaluate outcomes after a fixed number of projects or a fixed period) before allowing broader height increases.

What residents asked for: several commenters asked the commission to direct staff and the task force to (1) make all outreach and feasibility studies clearly available; (2) reconsider whether waivers should be allowed at all; (3) tighten menu items so they are truly additive benefits (rather than duplicative of existing state or code standards); and (4) consider a limited pause or mandatory review interval to observe early development outcomes before expanding height allowances.

What staff will do next: City Council will discuss the topic in a May 18 work session, the task force will meet May 19, and staff said the task force’s refined recommendation will return to the Planning Commission in June for possible work session or hearing. Any code changes would then move to City Council for final action.