In my last update, I mentioned that there was a land use code working group meeting on Sept. 2 to discuss the latest changes to the code—including the controversial OTX 3 zoning on Public Road between Emma and Spaulding—and make recommendations to council. Then, on Sept. 9, there was a workshop between the planning commission and city council to discuss the working group’s recommendations.
WHAT IS GOING INTO THE LAND USE CODE
The working group recommended five code changes that addressed what we asked for in this petition:
1. Public Road character: Update the draft land use code to ensure that development along Public Road (specifically in OTX-3 between Emma and Spaulding) reflects the same general character as the OTX-1 portion of Public Road (between Baseline and Emma).
2. OTX-3 lot coverage: Reduce maximum lot coverage in OTX-3 from 90% to 80% (Note: OTX-1 has 80% lot coverage, so this brings OTX-3 in line with that).
3. OTX-3 building footprint: Reduce the maximum building footprint in OTX-3 from 25,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet (Note: this brings OTX-3 in line with OTX-1).
4. Rezoning the 700 Block: Rezone the west side of the 700 block of Public Road to OTX-1. (Note, this is the block between Kimbark and Spaulding. So OTX-3 would now only be the two sides of the block between Emma and Kimbark, which is home to El Mercado, the historic motel turned affordable housing, the post office, the former Chevy dealership turned offices, the gas station/mini mart, Senor Gomez and Lafayette Florist).
5. Building height in OTX 1 and OTX-3: Limit buildings to 2 stories and adjust the maximum height (in feet) accordingly.
City council approved adding #2, 3 and 4 to the final vote on the land use code, which is scheduled for the Tuesday, Sept. 15 council meeting.
City council also recommended adding #1 to a separate ordinance that will go before the land use working group in November and also have public hearings before PC and council before it’s added to the code, which will go into effect on Feb. 1, 2027.
WHAT ISN’T GOING INTO THE LAND USE CODE
So that’s all good news. But here’s the bad news. City Council decided to punt #5 (building heights) to 2027. AND, importantly, they didn’t say when in 2027.
So for the foreseeable future, all new buildings on Public Road can be 35 feet tall—which both councilors and planning staff said could be 3 stories if the roof is flat.
This means that even with the new reduced building footprint to 10,000 square feet, new buildings could potentially be 30,000 square feet (10,000 SF times 3 stories). That’s more than double the size of the biggest buildings on Public Road between Baseline and Spaulding.
To orient you: The building at the southwest corner of Baseline and Public—Remi’s restaurant, Wild Poppy Salon—is 12,726 square feet (2 stories, 30 feet tall). The Tangerine building at 300 S. Public is 11,426 square feet (2 stories, 30 feet tall).
WHAT COUNCIL SAID
Rather than paraphrase council’s reasoning on height restrictions, I’m just going to quote them directly from the CC-PC workshop, along with planning staff and planning commissioners—with the suggestion that you pay particular attention to Councilor Jensen’s and Gianola’s remarks. So here goes:
Long Range Planning Manager Phil Kleisler: “At council’s May meeting, it was brought up about whether to regulate the [Public Road] height in feet and the height in stories, and there was some discussion at that meeting. At that time, staff thought that more engagement, particularly with the property owners in this area, would have benefitted that, in addition to more analysis, so we had recommended that this be part of perhaps the 2027 work plan.”
Planning Commission Vice Chair Dahvi Wilson: “There was an impatience with waiting because it had been something that came up a lot, so there was a decision to add it to our working group meeting even though it was not initially planned to be in … the meeting. There was a strong sentiment from the public, and I think the working group agreed with this sentiment from the public, that there’s a desire for a 2-story limit so we should just go ahead and move forward with that. But we had a lot of discussion about the right way to balance the height in feet and the stories … so we recommended that staff have more time to think through the best way to regulate that, but it did feel like there was an interest in locking in this concept of a 2-story limit sooner.”
Planning Commissioner Bri Lehman: “This whole land use plan is predicated on the comprehensive plan and what the community set out as its vision, and I think it’s important to note that the community’s … vision is that there is a 2-story limit for Old Town. I’m not saying that other people don’t have their opinions about that; I just think the purpose of this land use code is to adhere to what the community set out for its vision in the comprehensive plan.
(Councilor Annmarie Jensen asked where it says this in the comprehensive plan.)
Councilor Adam Gianola: “I did find the reference in the comprehensive plan. It’s on page 161: Principal maximum building height South Public Road main street, 2 stories; E. Simpson and Baseline Road main street: 2 stories on E. Simpson St., 3 stories on Baseline Road. Other streets in old town, 2 stories. So that’s where the very clear reference is to that in the comp plan.”
Councilor Annmarie Jensen: (Regarding the 10,000 SF footprint limit): “I really support this. I feel like the massing was far more an issue than the height issue in terms of creating the Old Town feel.
I feel like there was misinformation provided to the public when the term ‘big box stores’ was being used, as if any of us wanted that in Old Town. I don’t think that anyone I ever heard wanted that kind of framework. So I think height was used as a substitute for ‘Do you support big boxes in Old Town?’ And I feel that was a bad way to frame it.
But as I look at the urban design principles in the comprehensive plan, I feel like if we could have 3 stories in downtown, and we had not one big monolith, but commercial on the bottom and apartments on the top kind of situation, we would be supporting the businesses of Old Town. We would be creating people who live down there, who go to the coffee shops, would go to the restaurants, create foot traffic, be the volunteers for the peach festival, which is very different than talking about a Target that was large and taking up a whole block, which feels like that was where the conversation was pushed.
And if I look at the [comprehensive plan] values—allows for, let’s see, integration of office uses and residential on upper floors above active uses on ground floors. Ground floor use that would create greater activity, including retail, entertainment, lodging, civic uses, additional housing types—again, we’re talking about apartments, even condos above commercial. There’s a lot of things, values, in the principles of the comprehensive plan that will get lost and not be able to be implemented if we limit it to 2 stories. And I personally don’t see that 35 feet or 30 feet is significantly different in the visual appeal of Old Town, and so I am strongly in favor of keeping it at 35 feet.
And in fact, I think … we should have this conversation at a different time and place and consider what value height brings to Old Town, because I feel very strongly about this that we would be violating some of the other principles of our comprehensive plan, and also the fidelity that we as council, when we all got together on our retreat and said that we support small business and we want to do things to help small business—those small businesses downtown are struggling, many of them, and if we create an opportunity for people to live downtown or even live and work downtown, we create people who can go to those businesses.
So I would say either take this [height discussion] off the [table] or just make it go away entirely and just leave it at 35 feet and not even talk about it at a future date. I feel very strongly about it."
Councilor Kyle Beaulieu: “Just to slightly pile on Councilor Jensen’s remarks, I think she really hit the nail on the head. I think a couple things for me—one, I would welcome, I do welcome a conversation as council on the height question as we discussed previously in May, but my concern is I think that would be such a robust and engaging and deep question and conversation that that would potentially push us back, to make it difficult to pass [the land use code] on second reading on the 15th. So there’s that concern there.
And second, I pulled up the comp plan and there’s been a lot of discussion about the merits and demerits of height, specifically on Public Road and specifically in OTX. And to Councilor Jensen’s point, with great respect to the working group for this recommendation, I think our logic and partnership with staff some months ago to table building height was quite sound because of all the different avenues we have to explore and make sure we get this right for the community.
And so pointing out just the resilience component and element in the comp plan about identifying and implementing development incentives to include increased building height to encourage sustainable development practices, I take the point that designing this land use code, as folks mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, so it serves our community for the next several decades is really important, and so robust conversation on the building height is needed, but I am uncomfortable with reneging with what we had provided as guidance a few months ago, when we’re so close to the finish line."
Gianola: "To the extent that Councilor Jensen could not be more strongly in favor of 3 stories, I could not be more strongly in favor of 2 stories. I think the comprehensive plan was a robust discussion about stories. The discussion about height incentives in other parts of town in the comprehensive plan was not focused on Old Town as far as I read it. It focuses on the adaptable commercial areas—that’s not Old Town. Old Town is a very distinct zone.
If we’re going to go, in my view, [against] a direction that couldn’t be more clear in the comprehensive plan, we need good public engagement, to really understand what the public wants for downtown OTX height limit in that area. Because I remember during the comp plan development, there was robust discussion and it was very clear—so clear that it was put in the table in two words—2 stories; 3 stories on Baseline. So if we’re going to against that, we should really make sure we’re engaging the public and understanding and getting their input on that.
The thing that I struggle with is why this was not put into the draft code originally, when I felt the directive for 2 stories was so clear in the comp plan that we’re trying to implement. I just have really strong confusion about that, and the number of times it got brought up at the working group meetings in 2025, 2024—that it was just never incorporated into the code, I’m flabbergasted by that.”
Jensen: "I recognize that table does say 2 stories, but there are lots of other value statements woven into the comprehensive plan about transit-friendly, affordable, pedestrian-friendly that all sort of contradict that 2-story model. And it could be why it wasn’t officially put in there—I don’t know—but like most comprehensive plans, there are values that conflict in the comprehensive plan and I think it’s hard to capture them all in our recommendations. And part of the reason I feel so strongly about it is because of those other values—that we want to try to create affordable housing, that we want to be transit-friendly, we want to be pedestrian-friendly, we want to support our small businesses---so I saw that [table saying 2 stories in Old Town] as sort of an example table rather than a mandate table."
Councilor David Fridland: "I think this could be a really long conversation and I don’t think we are served by having it tonight. In listening to the working group … I feel like their 2-story recommendation was just a clarification, because as [Planning] Chair Thomas said, stories can be different. You could get 3 stories potentially in 35 feet, and they were just clarifying that 35 feet is the cap, at 2 stories. Just clarifying so there was no confusion and leaving the longer conversation about is 2 stories right versus 3 to a later date. So I don’t feel like it was a recommendation of 2 stories versus clarifying that we don’t want 3 stories, even if you could fit it in really tightly within 35 feet."
Councilor Crystal Gallegos: "I also had a thought on [the discussion of what is a] clear definition of a story. So I’m just thinking if someone’s in a basement apartment and someone else is maybe owning a business above that, then are we at that 2-story level? So I think we need to continue that conversation on what defines a story. Building more affordable housing is a part of our comprehensive plan, and having that option to include basement-level apartments or garden-level apartments I think is something that we shouldn’t put off until ’27, but at some point in the future we need to have that clear definition of what a story looks like and what is excluded from 2 stories."
Mayor Pro Tem Tim Barnes: "The old town [residential zoning] overlay, the [Downtown Development Authority] Old Town Tomorrow plan, public input, the comp plan made it pretty clear that we’re in the right direction. I feel it’s painful because it’s a transition—it’s coming to grips with how do we maintain that [Old Town] character, and I’ve heard it stated many times that character is at the forefront. The DDA is in line with maintaining that feel here. The public has weighed in, and I look for the working group to contribute in helping us move that forward."
Jensen: "I sort of feel like by saying it’s limited to 2 stories, you are really pushing the height limit down, effectively, in order to get that 2 stories. We’ve had several people testify that at 35 feet you could put 3 stories on a flat-roofed building, so effectively you’re saying that if we have further conversation on this in the future, we will have to undo—let’s say we want to keep the 35-foot limit because we do want to have 3 stories, we would have to undo that 2-story limit in the future. And I feel like crawling back from that limit creates a lot of public confusion and angst that I don’t want to do, and I would rather wait and not make a decision on this until we have the further, bigger conversation about height, stories—how we’re going to do that."
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Contact your councilors! Several councilors mentioned their desire to hear public input, so PLEASE let them know what you think—and that you want to have an amendment to the land use code about Public Road building heights sooner rather than later.
Here’s how to contact council as a group or individually. You can also make comments for the record for the Tuesday, Sept. 15 vote on the land use code either through this form, by attending the meeting at city hall and speaking (public comment starts at 5:30 p.m. and you have five minutes to speak) or by calling in (instructions here).