Consultants Katie McGruder and Eliza Harris Juliano provided insights into the implications of these proposed changes, emphasizing the goal of maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood by ensuring lots meeting the new standards would not be subdivided further. The committee acknowledged that existing non-conforming lots could still develop under the new zoning but would need to adhere to various setback requirements. This proposal necessitated a review of existing plat maps, revealing that some lots measure as narrow as 28 feet, prompting reconsideration of the proposed minimum lot width of 50 feet.

Input from the Local Planning Agency (LPA) suggested creating standards allowing for a more straightforward development process in these areas. This input led to a proposal to revise the 50-foot width requirement to better accommodate existing lot sizes. Additionally, the committee addressed the expiration of Planned Developments (PD) and the subsequent zoning implications, clarifying that properties would revert to their previous zoning classifications unless otherwise stated in PD documents.

The committee also proposed amendments to provide the land use administrator with the authority to approve certain setbacks for smaller lots without necessitating a deviation process, intending to streamline the approval process. This included reducing the open space requirement to 10% for these smaller lots, considering that a typical minimum of 25% would be impractical given the dimensions of the lots in question.

Debate ensued regarding these proposed changes, particularly the implications for open space and overall neighborhood character. Concerns were raised about the long-term viability of the area and the potential for overdevelopment. Despite these concerns, there was an acknowledgment that the staff would continue refining the proposed amendments and that further discussions would be necessary to ensure alignment with community needs and regulations.

Another topic was the compliance of narrow lots with front and rear setbacks, particularly on a 28-foot wide lot, which raised concerns about whether current restrictions would allow for habitable structures. The committee deliberated on revising the comprehensive plan to ensure that new developments under expired Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) do not exceed previous unit limitations. This conversation also touched on the implications of commercial areas within PUDs and the need for additional language in the code to address this, recognizing that sometimes commercial areas exist alongside residential designations.

The committee discussed the necessity of restrictions for these developments, particularly regarding the proposed bonus units for new developments that were previously expired. Questions arose about front setback deviations, prompting a deeper examination of whether a 15-foot front setback was sufficient for narrow lots. It was noted that setbacks are generally more challenging for side yards rather than front yards, as many of these lots are deep enough to accommodate the required setbacks without issue.

Streetscape requirements in the downtown core were also a focal point, with specific emphasis on the dimensions of various zones within new streetscapes, including a furnishing zone, pedestrian clear zone, and optional retail zone. Legal implications regarding the requirement for developers to contribute to public infrastructure improvements were highlighted, referencing House Bill 479, which clarified that any improvement or contribution required from developers must be credited against impact fees. This raised concerns about the appropriateness of imposing such requirements on private developers, especially when it could lead to costs ultimately borne by the public.

The committee proposed alternatives for managing streetscapes, such as moving the landscaping buffer away from buildings to enhance pedestrian comfort without imposing unreasonable requirements on developers. However, it was acknowledged that such changes could detract from the urban form intended by the city. Challenges associated with properties not under city jurisdiction further complicated the enforcement of streetscape standards.

Discussions also centered on the alignment of proposed streetscape requirements with the newly adopted Mobility Plan, intended to outline future multimodal roadway requirements. Concerns were raised about the practicality of enforcing standards that may not align with the city’s overall plans for transportation and infrastructure improvement. The need for clarity in the code regarding jurisdictional boundaries and the implications of requiring easements and construction led to further debate.