Commissioners debate frontage-improvement rules for small infill projects

Commissioner Welch and others raised an amendment idea: treat projects of four or fewer units similarly to the current ADU exception for frontage improvements, to reduce upfront costs for small developers and encourage modest infill.

Commissioner Welch argued that keeping frontage requirements for small projects could be cost‑prohibitive and block the very incremental density the city wants to encourage. "If we stay under the 4 or less ... that would still add more density, but ... there would be cost prohibitive if we had to do lots of frontage improvements," Welch said. Staff noted the complexity of frontage‑improvement costs — they vary by lot, curb/gutter, stormwater needs and topography — and cautioned that development presently funds many missing sidewalks. Planning staff said the city had experimented with fee‑in‑lieu programs and lower‑cost interim facilities in other cities but had not adopted those approaches here.

Commission members expressed mixed appetite for pursuing the amendment. Staff said the code already includes exceptions where the city engineer finds existing frontage adequate and that public‑works reviewers evaluate frontage on a case‑by‑case basis during permit review. After discussion, the proponent withdrew the amendment and the commission proceeded to accept staff modifications and vote on the main resolution.

The discussion highlighted a broader policy tension: encouraging small‑scale infill while ensuring sidewalks, stormwater and ADA standards are not left unaddressed — and who should pay for missing frontage improvements.