Planning staff presented an exploratory briefing on the city’s street‑frontage rules and the planning commission agreed to investigate whether the municipal code’s 75‑foot minimum frontage requirement in several large‑lot residential zones should be amended to support additional housing opportunities and to avoid uneven treatment across zones.

Staff member Mark walked commissioners through existing code excerpts (Title 17 subdivision provisions and related boundary‑line adjustment language) and identified three zoning districts — R‑20, R‑15 and R‑10 — that currently include a minimum street‑frontage requirement. Mark described uncertainty about historical intent and noted the unified development code was adopted by ordinance in 1999; he encouraged the commission to decide whether to make a targeted amendment (street frontage) or to tackle a larger code update.

Why it matters: Minimum frontage rules affect whether large lots can be subdivided or developed with multiple housing units. Commissioners said changing the frontage requirement could enable more 'middle housing' on large parcels, but they also raised concerns about critical areas, tree canopy, emergency access, privacy, side‑yard impacts and other unintended consequences that would require additional code provisions.

Discussion details

Mark said the relevant language exists in several parts of the municipal code and that boundary‑line adjustment rules and unit‑lot subdivision options create real‑world ambiguities, particularly around panhandle or flag lots and easements. He said the city’s code currently lacks detailed provisions addressing panhandles, easements for access, or design standards for long, narrow access drives.

Commissioners asked staff to research whether recent subdivisions or short plats had used easements or other mechanisms to create back lots in the large‑lot zones, and whether the 75‑foot frontage minimum in the code had been applied consistently. Several commissioners suggested staff should check recorded plats and bring examples back to the commission. One commissioner suggested focusing on the problem statement first: "What is the problem we're trying to address? Is it a negative consequence that you would want to prevent? Or is it a positive result that you're looking for?" The commission discussed fairness questions (whether some neighborhoods would shoulder more of the region’s housing need) and environmental tradeoffs (tree canopy and critical areas).

Possible code elements and related concerns

Commissioners proposed that if the ordinance were amended, the city should also consider companion changes elsewhere in the development code: clearer rules for flag/panhandle lots, standards for access easements, fire and emergency access requirements, side‑yard and upper‑floor stepback rules, and protections for trees and critical areas. Several commissioners noted the city’s existing minimum lot areas, setbacks and unit‑lot subdivision provisions would still apply and that any change should be tested for unintended effects.

Next steps

The commission directed staff to: (1) assemble draft purpose statements that identify the problem(s) an amendment would address (examples included fairness among neighborhoods and enabling middle housing on large lots); (2) research ordinance history (including Ordinance 773, adopted 1999), recorded plats and recent examples of flag or panhandle lots; and (3) return with test cases, a short list of potential code approaches (from narrowly targeted street‑frontage edits to broader code changes), and a recommended outreach plan that could include developer interviews and site visits.

Commissioners also discussed inviting developer stakeholders for a briefing and organizing a site‑visit or field trip to see examples of small‑scale middle housing. No formal code changes were adopted at the meeting; the discussion established the scope for future work and a request for staff research and a draft purpose statement for the commission to review at the next meeting.

Ending

Staff will compile the requested background, draft a clear problem statement for commission review, identify recent local plats and examples, and propose an outreach plan. Commissioners agreed to revisit the topic after staff returns with those materials.