Agenda Item Wording:
title
Narrow lot subdivision discussion - Provide staff direction with respect to narrow lot subdivisions, including, but not limited to: establishing objective subdivision design standards; amending the Planned Residential Development ordinance; amending Engineering standards; and amending City street tree standards.
body
Agenda Date: 06/01/2026
Prepared by:
Jarred Olsen, AICP, Principal Planner, jarred.olsen@visalia.gov, (559) 713-4449
Paul Bernal, Planning and Community Preservation Director, paul.bernal@visalia.gov, (559) 713-4025
Department Recommendation: Receive the staff report and presentation and provide staff with direction on a zoning and/or subdivision ordinance amendment to the Planned Development Standards, Single-Family Residential Objective Design Standards, and Subdivision Design Standards.
Summary:
Staff has received recent development concepts for narrow lot subdivisions, which staff defines as subdivisions with lots that are below the City’s non-Planned Residential Development (PRD) threshold of 3,600 square feet, wherein a two-car garage becomes the predominant streetscape feature of the residence, and typically precluding any lower-story windows associated with the living space from facing the street frontage. Just in the last few months, the lot widths proposed on two new residential subdivisions with detached units submitted to the City have been proposed with 33-foot widths, a figure which is unprecedented in recent times. Staff has concerns that various factors stemming from this type of product will lead to reduced livability, which is described further below.
The purpose of this work session is to review the narrow lot residential development concept and to provide the City Council with Planning Commission’s consensus, observations, and recommendations pertaining to this emerging residential development concept.
Background Discussion:
Single family residential subdivisions that do not propose to meet the applicable zoning and subdivision requirements with respect to lot widths, lot area, the use of private streets, etc., require the approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) permit, which generally follow the same process as a Conditional Use Permit through a public hearing.
A PRD permit allows for deviations from subdivision and zoning standards in which the PRD is proposed, while allowing the City to impose special conditions on the project as appropriate. The intent of allowing these deviations is to allow the City to weigh the intended benefits on the project (such as increased density, more affordable design, or preserving important natural features) with the degree to which the application requests deviations from the standards of the underlying zoning district or subdivision design standards.
To date, the City has processed three tentative maps with lots narrower than 46 feet, the minimum width that is allowed without the approval of a Planned Residential Development permit. Two residential subdivision applications with lots approximately 33 feet in width have been submitted in 2026, so far these two residential maps have not yet been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the City anticipates receiving another within the year. In total, developments with lots narrower than 46 feet would equate to over 1,400 lots. Given the relatively quick procession in receipt of these applications, the City anticipates receiving more of these subdivisions as developers are moving to increase density. This in turn impacts good neighborhood design by causing a development to spread land acquisition costs across more dwellings, increasing both affordability and market reach, which may result in neighborhoods and residents feeling “packed in” rather than being part of a community.
While staff understands that increased density allows for land acquisition and development costs to be spread across more dwellings, staff has concerns that the contemporary detached single-family residential unit, with a street-loaded garage subdivision concept, is reaching an attractiveness limit with respect to density.
This report seeks comments, input and potential direction the City Council to determine if additional codified residential design standards should be considered and potentially incorporated to ensure that small lot residential developments balance density with neighborhood livability.
Discussion:
Recently, residential development proposals have increasingly utilized smaller lot configurations as a means of achieving higher densities. While increased density can support broader housing goals, such as, affordability, efficient land use, and reduced urban sprawl, staff has concerns that excessively small lot sizes may create unintended impacts on neighborhood quality, functionality, and long-term sustainability.
This work session staff report seeks input on considerations associated with narrow / small-lot development patterns and identify approaches on how best to address this type of residential development to ensure that new neighborhoods remain desirable, functional, and aligned with the City’s long-term planning objectives.
STREETSCAPE AND VISUAL CHARACTER IMPACTS:
While density is an important component of housing policy, it should not be pursued at the expense of neighborhood livability and vitality. Developments characterized by extremely narrow and/or small lots may often lack adequate private outdoor space, which can diminish residents’ quality of life and reduce overall neighborhood appeal. In addition, with narrow, traditional-shaped lots that strive to facilitate a contemporary residential unit layout (i.e., detached residences with attached garages fronting the street), this may present interfacing issues with the public right-of-way-with increased driveway density, less on-street parking and limits on street tree planting in the parkway space. Staff’s concern with these narrow lots is that the constrained space leaves little room, if any, for amenities that make neighborhoods livable.
Staff’s assessment, based on preliminary reviews of recent narrow lot development submittals, is that many narrow lot subdivisions appear to emphasize a streetscape in which garages, rather than habitable living space, become the predominant and most visible architectural feature of the neighborhood. When garages occupy a majority of the primary streetscape within a neighborhood, the “public realm” becomes visually dominated by blank garage doors, driveways surfaces, and minimal architectural articulation along the streetscape. This has the potential to also result in neighborhoods that lack visual interest, human scale, community connectivity and a sense of place. This occurs when front doors are no longer visible and accessible from the street, and residential design elements such as porches, stoops, windows and active living space are diminished and pushed further back from the street. As a result, neighborhoods may feel less inviting and less safe for pedestrians due to the absence of “eyes on the street”. Instead of engaging residential frontages, the streetscape can feel more akin to an access corridor for vehicles rather than a vibrant livable neighborhood.
To ascertain how other communities are addressing narrow and small lot residential designs, staff reviewed other jurisdictions’ narrow and small lot design aspects and concludes that there are several design options that can be required to reduce the visual dominance of garages and promote a more pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Staff reviewed three small lot designs in the communities of Clovis, Rancho Cordova, and San Luis Obispo. These developments emphasize well-designed neighborhoods that incorporate both efficient land use and functional living environments. The design measures included:
• Requiring rear-loaded or alley-loaded garage configurations.
• Incorporating front porches, stoops, and articulated entries as prominent design features along the local streetscape.
• Promoting varied architectural elevations to avoid repetitive garage-dominant designs.
• Requiring garage setbacks behind the primary front wall of the home.
Addressing garage-dominant design is critical to ensuring that higher-density neighborhoods remain visually appealing, pedestrian-friendly, and consistent with the City’s goals. Without standards, small-lot subdivisions may create residential environments that prioritize vehicle storage over neighborhood livability.
STREET TREES:
As we are all aware, Visalia is not a coastal city. In general, summers are significantly warmer and less windy than coastal cities. As a result, the need for street trees is greater to help reduce heating of paved surfaces. Aesthetically and functionally, street trees generally improve property values and decrease summer cooling utility bills.
The City’s General Plan contains two objectives with respect to sidewalks where street trees are generally located:
• Objective T-O-8 - “Encourage walking and bicycling in Visalia for commuting and recreational purposes, and for improvement of public and environmental health”.
• Objective T-O-9 “Promote non-motorized accessibility through development of a connected, convenient pedestrian and bikeway network.”
The City’s Active Transportation Plan, adopted in 2017, contains Policy 6.5, which directs the City to “[consider a program for installing shade trees along streets where currently little or none exist to encourage walking.” This policy was adopted in order to meet the objective: “Encourage methods to increase pedestrian access and mobility for all ages and abilities.”
The City street tree ordinance references guidelines for street tree spacing. Generally, on a minimum 50-foot-wide lot, one to two street trees are planted per interior residential lot, and three to five for corner residential lots. With respect to other infrastructure, street trees need to be spaced away from the following elements:
• Driveways and water and sewer lines - 5 feet
• Streetlights - 20 feet
• Fire hydrants - 10 feet
• Other street trees - 25 to 45 feet apart, depending on size
Given that every traditional style home needs a driveway and requires individual water and sewer lines, these constraints significantly narrow where street trees may be placed, and some lots are not able to have a street tree. With respect to narrow lots, staff has determined that strict compliance with these standards would likely result in at most one tree for every two interior lots (i.e. 0.5 trees per home).
PARKING:
The Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces for every single-family residence, with a minimum of one in a garage. All required parking spaces must be located outside of the required front yard or side street setbacks (22 feet for typical lots; 20 feet for curvilinear lots). To ensure adequate parking is provided for both residents and guests of a PRD, the City’s adopted Residential Objective Design Standards requires PRDs to provide off-street parking at a ratio of one stall for every four units where on-street parking is not provided.
Between 2015 and 2024, the American Community Survey (ACS) identifies that the largest growing housing segment, by number of bedrooms, are dwellings with four (+28%) and five (+34%) bedrooms., As shown below in Table 1, the data in the 2024 ACS identifies that around fifty percent of households with three or more persons households have more than two vehicles.
Table 1. Share of Households by Number of Persons and Vehicles Available
|
|
Persons per Household |
|
Vehicle(s) Available |
1-Person |
2-Person |
3-Person |
4+ Persons |
|
0 |
10% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
|
1 |
70% |
24% |
9% |
16% |
|
2 |
13% |
57% |
35% |
40% |
|
3 |
4% |
15% |
36% |
25% |
|
4+ |
3% |
3% |
17% |
17% |
The data above shows that parking demand increases as number of bedrooms increases, while not surprising, it demonstrates that there can be a strain on “on-street parking” as single-family residences are only required to provide two parking spaces (one of which can be uncovered). While most homes are built with two car garages and space available for vehicles to park in the driveway, the City does not have any ordinances mandating that those garages be used for parking. In most cases, garages may commonly be used for additional storage rather than the intended use. In addition, there are some residential developments that provide homes marketed as “multi-generational”, designed to accommodate families with extended family members or older children who live at home-both of which are usually of age to drive and own a vehicle. Lastly, State law requires the City to permit the conversion of garages into living spaces as Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (which would likely increase the demand for spaces to park) and affords the City no ability to require replacement parking.
Exhibit 5 of Attachment A depicts a diagram of a 33-foot-wide lot with a minimally-compliant driveway - 18 feet wide intended to accommodate a two-car garage. This concept meets most of Engineering standards, with the exception of a 50 percent maximum frontage allowance (i.e. a drive approach cannot exceed 50 percent of the lot width; here it is 54% of the lot width).
A driveway meeting the minimum width requirement, when opposed from an adjacent lot’s driveway, provides space on the street for only one vehicle of such length (i.e. 22-foot length). Additionally, the minimum width drive approach connecting to a driveway would provide sufficient space for two cars. There would be no space for an on-street space between two lots with abutting driveways. (In the illustration above, there is only 8 feet between abutting driveways whereas a minimum of 18 feet is needed to accommodate a car.)
Analyzing all of the above information, significantly increasing driveway density may lead to a significant reduction in on-street parking spaces, which in turn could result in illegal parking, such as parking in the front yard, cars obscuring the sidewalk or street when stacked in the driveway, or cars blocking sidewalks, driveways, and fire hydrants. While this is typically handled in an informal fashion, the City handles many complaints each year with respect to parking. Staff has concerns that if these lot patterns are dedicated to the City, City staff would see a higher complaint rate than that of a code-compliant subdivision.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE: ALLEYS AND PASEOS FOR NARROW LOT SUBDIVISIONS:
Typically seen in subdivisions developed in the early 20th century, but now gaining in popularity in other metros in California, homes whose garages face an alley, thereby allowing the home’s living space to be the predominate feature along the local streetscape, present a significant benefit by focusing driveways as well as most utilities to be relocated to the rear of the property. This could significantly free up parkway real estate for street trees and enhance the human quality of making a neighborhood livable for its residents. Alley-loaded garages would allow for the parkway to meet a higher street tree density while meeting requirements for fire hydrant and streetlight spacing. Additionally, on-street parking would be maximally provided. It would also provide significant relief to the City’s solid waste division during collection days as alley parking is prohibited. On the next several pages are aerials and photographs of small lot developments that utilize alleys which allow living spaces to be the predominate feature along the local streetscape.
DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION:
On May 11, 2026, staff discussed this topic at a work session with Planning Commission. Staff posed the following questions to the Commission:
1. At what point does lot width or lot size begin to negatively impact the functionality and appearance of a neighborhood and what objective standards could be considered to establish that threshold?
2. Should additional residential design features be required in small lot/narrow lot subdivisions to ensure homes contribute positively to the streetscape rather than creating garage dominated neighborhoods?
3. How important is it maintaining visible and accessible front doors, porches, windows, and other pedestrian oriented design elements when a small lot and/or narrow lot subdivision is proposed?
4. Should the City prioritize preservation of on-street parking opportunities when evaluating narrow lot subdivisions?
5. Should narrow lot subdivisions be designed differently than traditional subdivisions? If so, what specific design approaches should the City encourage or require?
6. Should alley-loaded garages or rear-loaded access be required in order to improve streetscape design when narrow lot subdivisions are proposed?
7. Should the City revise the adopted objective criteria for planned residential developments to further enhance residential homes appearance for small lot/narrow lot residential subdivisions?
8. Should the City establish a minimum private open space standard, in terms of minimum dimension and minimum area?
9. Should the City enforce its maximum driveway frontage of 50 percent on all public streets?
10. Should the City require private streets be owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association where deviations to City standards are requested?
11. Should the Engineering Division review their standards and make modifications, such as to drive approach standards, as necessary to accommodate these projects?
12. Should the City convert its street tree guidelines to a standard?
13. Any additional input that the Planning Commission would like to provide the City Council regarding the overall future of small lot/narrow lot subdivisions?
While Planning Commissioners were not able to answer all of the questions, they shared their concerns over a lack of ground floor windows looking out onto the public way, on-street parking constraints, concerns over solid waste and fire access, and lack of adequate shading.
Resident Jim Reeves expressed concern and said that minimum standards should be held; narrow lots should make up no more than 20% of a subdivision; narrow lots should be alley accessed, no private open space standard should be required; parking should not be prioritized; Engineering standards should not be modified; street tree guidelines should not be a standard; and that additional residential design features should be added when narrow lots are proposed.
In response, staff would like to mention that a Planned Residential Development, which all narrow lot subdivisions would be processed under, currently would not be subject to any limit, either as a percentage or absolute maximum. The City could, through a zoning ordinance amendment, establish an absolute lot width minimum that could only be deviated under unique circumstances (e.g. an oddly-shaped lot not caused by the developer or a predecessor-in-interest). Additional residential design features would require an amendment to the Objective Design Standards that Council adopted in April 2025. Lastly, the City must allow residential developments within the prescribed density range allowed in the Low Density Residential land use designation (2 to 10 dwelling units per acre), but can prescribe development standards on how to get there. There is no requirement in the land use designation that detached single-family residences be proposed; as discussed in the General Plan, “duplex units, townhouses, and small-lot detached housing may be incorporated as part of Low Density Residential developments.”
Local engineer Steve Macias expressed concern that if the City were to require such projects to have alleys, construction material and maintenance costs would increase.
Staff would like to mention that the City could require off-street parking clusters if insufficient guest parking is provided. This would likely result in increased construction and maintenance costs, which the City would require a homeowner’s association to be formed to fund the maintenance thereof.
NEXT STEPS
Should Council wish to direct staff to pursue an ordinance or objective design standards amendments, staff will meet with stakeholders to discuss. After completion of the outreach, staff would bring a proposal to a public hearing with Planning Commission for their recommendation prior to bringing forth the item for your review and approval.
Fiscal Impact including annual maintenance and operating costs: None at this time.
Prior Council Action: On April 29, 2025 and July 23, 2025, Council approved and adopted Single-Family Residential Objective Design Standards and an ordinance to implement those standards, respectively.
Alternatives: Per Council direction.
Recommended Motion (and Alternative Motions if expected):
recommendation
I move to direct staff to begin drafting ordinance and objective design standards amendments to address narrow and/or small lot design and to conduct outreach with stakeholders to discuss the proposed amendments.
Environmental Assessment Status: N/A
CEQA Review: The requested action, directing staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for review, would be considered not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because any proposed zoning or subdivision ordinance amendment would not cause either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Once an ordinance amendment is brought back to your Council, it will be reviewed for environmental impacts under CEQA.
Deadline for Action: N/A
Attachments:
Attachment A - Photo Exhibit
Attachment B - Engineering Standards
Attachment C - Street Tree Guidelines
Attachment D - Applicable Objective Design Standards
Attachment E - Presentation
Strategic Goal: Indicates which City Strategic Goal(s) this item supports. Check all that apply.
|
☒ Economic Vitality |
☐  Organizational Excellence |
☐ Fiscal Strength |
☐  Infrastructure & Growth |
☒  Quality of Life |