Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning And Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City staff to seek ordinance change removing 50-foot maximum front setback in PC overlay district

2849598 · April 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Copperas Cove staff asked council whether to remove a 50-foot maximum front-yard setback in the Primary Corridor (PC) overlay; council voiced support and directed staff to take an amendment to the Planning & Zoning Commission and back to council.

City staff asked the council on April 1 to consider removing a 50-foot maximum front setback requirement in the Primary Corridor (PC) overlay district to make the code more compatible with prospective commercial development. Council signaled support and directed staff to pursue a formal amendment through the Planning & Zoning Commission and city council.

Development Services Director Bobby Lewis told the council that, during a March 26 development review meeting with a business prospect considering a proposed 24,000-square-foot retail store, the existing PC overlay’s 50-foot maximum front-yard setback could be too restrictive for some parcel configurations. Lewis said his understanding — informed by the city’s zoning ordinance update consultant — is that the “maximum setback” requires a building face to be no more than 50 feet from the front property line so parking is placed to the side or rear and parking does not dominate the corridor.

Lewis recommended council provide direction on whether to remove the 50-foot maximum front setback in the PC overlay district. Council members asked clarifying questions about grandfathering of existing buildings (staff confirmed existing built properties would not be changed) and whether the change could be reversed later; staff said an amendment could be added back in the future if council so chose.

Several councilmembers expressed support for removing the requirement. Council did not take a formal vote on an ordinance at the meeting; instead, staff was directed to draft an amendment and present it to the Planning & Zoning Commission and then return to council for formal consideration.

Next steps: Development Services will prepare an ordinance amendment for Planning & Zoning Commission review and subsequent council consideration.