Assembly members and planning staff held a one-hour, on‑the‑record briefing from 11:50 to 12:50 on AO 20-25-64, an ordinance the Assembly introduced that would amend municipal site‑access standards to govern where and how private sites connect to the public street.

The ordinance would allow driveways up to 28 feet wide but require ‘‘vertical separation’’ — for example, bollards, boulders, trees or a depressed separation — where private access exceeds that width. It also sets minimum requirements for covered entrances and for windows on primary and secondary frontages (15% and 10%, respectively), and clarifies how curb space and snow storage on the public right of way are managed.

Assembly member Anna Brawley, a sponsor of the ordinance, said the measure is intended to ‘‘fix problems that are already in our code’’ and to replace provisions the Assembly paused after implementation problems in 2024. Brawley said the proposal is a technical follow‑up to prior code changes: "this project really is, a continuation of what I would say is a 4 year saga around this particular piece of code."

Daniel McKenna Foster, long‑range planning staff, summarized the ordinance’s scope: "What is site access? It's essentially how a private site interacts with the public street, and it's all the aspects of that." Foster described the 28‑foot allowance and the vertical‑separation requirement as an attempt to balance private access needs with preserving curb space as a public asset: "It allows a 28 foot driveway. But it just says beyond that, you have to have some sort of vertical separation."

Planning staff and sponsors traced the rulemaking back to work that began in January 2021 and several subsequent Assembly ordinances. Staff said AO 20-22-80 (introduced Sept. 2022, adopted Nov. 2022) and AO 20-23-50 (adopted July 2023) reorganized parking and site‑access provisions and created new context areas; those changes went into effect in 2024 and soon generated implementation problems that prompted the Assembly to pause parts of the code. Staff reported the working group reconvened in late 2024, held site visits and multiple public sessions, and that AO 20-25-64 was introduced at the Assembly on May 20.

Members asked technical and policy questions about nonconformity and grandfathering. Member Johnson asked what trigger would require an existing driveway to meet the new standard: "What sort of event would trigger them having to to conform to that standard?" Planning staff replied that the municipal code generally brings properties into conformity over time but applies thresholds tied to project cost; staff said projects below the current threshold (described in the briefing as less than 10% of assessed value) typically do not require full compliance, while larger projects can trigger nonconformity rules. Staff also said an additional ordinance addressing nonconformities is planned for Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) review in July to reduce barriers to rehabilitation.

Staff emphasized the distinctions between zoning‑level site‑access rules (which the ordinance addresses) and engineering or traffic‑department approvals for driveway construction; the ordinance is intended to align zoning standards with project‑management and traffic practices so that the same rules apply at plan review.

The briefing addressed intersections with an ongoing design‑standards moratorium passed in 2024. Staff said some elements of site access are paused under that moratorium while many cleanup items and alley‑access clarifications remain outside the moratorium’s scope and are included in AO 20-25-64. Planning staff said the PZC reviewed the proposal in a work session and later recommended adoption of the corrected version of the ordinance as presented.

No formal vote or final action was taken at the briefing; staff and sponsors described the item as a technical code edit that would return for formal review and adoption steps later in the land‑use review process.

The briefing included community stakeholders and development‑industry participants through a multi‑month working group facilitated by contractor Holly Spoas Torres of Huddl. Sponsors and staff said the process produced numerous site visits and cross‑agency discussions to reach the current text.

Next steps described in the briefing: administrative review and PZC consideration in July (as referenced by staff), followed by subsequent Assembly action; staff did not provide an exact adoption date during the briefing.