City planning staff presented proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code July 22 covering screening/fencing requirements, dumpster and trash‑enclosure screening, and rear setbacks for single‑family lots.

What was proposed: The planning commission recommended clarifying that commercial developments adjacent to residential uses must provide an opaque six‑foot screening wall; staff brought broader proposals for screening and dumpster enclosures (previously limited to designated corridors) and a proposed 15‑foot rear setback for main buildings on new residential construction.

Council direction and decisions:
- Dumpster enclosures: Council declined to adopt a citywide requirement that new construction use six‑foot masonry enclosures for dumpsters. Councilmembers raised operational concerns (waste haulers’ access and cost to small businesses) and noted existing corridor rules and grandfathering for existing sites; staff will not require masonry dumpster enclosures citywide and will handle dumpster screening in a later workshop item.
- Screening/fencing adjacent to residences: Council asked staff to return with clearer, prescriptive examples of acceptable screening (suggested options discussed included wood privacy fences, masonry, or chain‑link with slats and brick columns) rather than a single mandatory masonry standard. Staff agreed to draft sample language and example illustrations for a future meeting.
- Rear setbacks for single‑family main buildings: Staff proposed a 15‑foot rear setback for main residential structures (accessory structures and patios proposed to have smaller setbacks, planning commission recommended 5 feet). Council members expressed mixed views and ultimately elected not to impose a new mandatory rear setback for existing developed properties at workshop; staff was asked to treat the proposed change as applying to new construction/plats and to craft grandfathering language for existing platted lots.

Operational clarifications: Staff noted permits will be required for accessory buildings and that the proposed changes principally apply to new development; existing buildings would be grandfathered except when substantial reconstruction occurs. Council asked staff for a checklist of city responsibilities (drainage, roads, police, animal services) tied to any zoning changes.

Ending: No ordinance was adopted at the workshop. Staff will revise code language to include concrete examples of acceptable screening materials, clarify the scope (new construction vs. existing), and return with draft language for council review.