would need to be considered in the context of all development with the City not
just “small lots”.
A possibility to limit it the modification to just new “greenfield” development
would be an option, but if the idea is good for the new style of lots why not all lot
types. It was agreed that the suggestion would be looked into further to see what
issues may be created if the reduction were applied community wide. The concern
was not the additional encroachment, but the possible impacts to utility corridors,
safety, and neighborhood continuity along the street facade.
Mr. Zenner then went on to address the remaining contents of Appendix A that
staff identified as possible areas of revisions to accommodate the new “small lots”.
There was discussion that the street profiles outside of the “residential” category
would not be addressed as part of any amendments associated with current
project; however, depending on what the City’s consultant identified as possible
“complete street” change modification to all the profiles may be considered.
Mr. Zenner also sought further clarification that the Commission desired to have
specific standards developed that would address minimum criteria for when alleys
were integrated into new developments and served as a “small lots” accessible
street frontage. Commissioners agreed that such standards were appropriate and
that “service” alleys needed to possibly be allowed to be created with small
widths. Several Commissioners noted existing developments within the City were
narrower than 20-foot alleys were more than sufficient to address access needs.
Mr. Zenner noted that a discussion with the Fire Department and Public Works
would be needed to ensure that if lesser right of way were allocated it would not
impact public safety or service delivery.
It was suggested that possibly the use of “one-way” alleys could be considered as a
means of reducing width. Mr. Zenner noted that could be considered as part of the
discussion as well. He also noted that it may be appropriate to create a specific
section within Appendix A that dealt with “street standards for small lot
development”. Doing so would reduce possible confusion and clearly define if one
provided certain types of improvements the reduction would be applicable and if
not the standard street requirements would apply.
Mr. Zenner looked through his remaining notes within Appendix A and indicated
that all matters of possible conflict in creating “small lots” had been discussed. He
noted that he would now begin the process of preparing the written text changes
to both the provisions of Article 5 (Subdivisions) and Appendix A that had been
discussed. Mr. Zenner thanked the Commission for their contributions and the work
session discussion.
VII. NEXT MEETING DATE - October 23, 2025 @ 5:30 pm (tentative)
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm.
Move to adjourn