A notable point of contention during the meeting was the proposed requirements for developers to provide wider street areas and sidewalks as part of new development projects. The discussion centered on the balance between encouraging a pedestrian-friendly urban environment and respecting property rights, with concerns raised about the legality and fairness of imposing such burdens on developers. The debate extended to the potential legal implications, including the constitutionality of the requirements and the risk of inverse condemnation claims, which could render properties unusable and amount to a taking.

The committee also discussed the possibility of adding a sustainability model to the existing certifications for building developments. Questions arose about whether to require a fund or mechanism for sustainability measures or to rely on certifications. The suggestion to break down different types of sustainability measures and assign credits to them was debated.

A discussion revolved around the naming and definitions within zoning districts, resulting in the renaming of the mud CA district to downtown core. The committee reached a consensus on the addition of the word “residential” to specify land use in the mixed-use category.

The committee grappled with street side setbacks, multiplex definitions, and the distribution of bonuses for affordable housing and green building initiatives. Specific attention was given to the feasibility of guaranteeing green certifications and the repercussions for non-compliance, highlighting the desire to integrate sustainable design into the city’s future while remaining practical.

The topic of pedestrian access in mixed-use developments led to a discussion on the enforcement of operational business hours for access points and the ability of property owners to secure their premises. This discussion was part of a broader conversation about balancing public access and security, particularly in multi-family complexes and businesses operating outside typical hours.

The issue of personal storage facilities in urban districts was addressed, focusing on architectural standards and the need for mixed-use components. The committee debated the appropriateness of personal storage facilities in targeted areas and the potential economic implications of specific design criteria.

There was a discussion on the street tree section of the code, prompting a suggestion for flexibility in tree placement to accommodate different urban settings. The committee reviewed the permissible uses table, making language adjustments to clarify primary and secondary uses and adding a definition for temporary residences.

The committee also tackled the inclusion of disaster mitigation in the code and the categorization of various manufacturing types, with a particular focus on the regulation of home occupations in light of state preemption laws. Concerns about potential changes in legislation affecting underground utilities were raised, underlining the need to future-proof the code against legislative shifts.

Finally, the committee set the next meeting date while considering the varying availability and scheduling preferences of its members. The next meeting was scheduled for April 16th, with the potential for timing adjustments to accommodate the committee’s needs.