Fairview staff unveils 476‑page draft development code, seeks public input before Sept. 14 deadline

Fairview city staff on Monday reviewed a 476‑page draft development code and urged residents to submit feedback before the public‑comment deadline. Ethan, the staff presenter, said the draft is posted online and that staff had received just six written comments so far, adding, "6 people out of 10,000 is not a great number." Comments are due Sept. 14; staff will compile feedback and send it to TPUDC for a final draft.

The draft reorganizes the town's zoning into a set of traditional zoning classifications and four new character districts (CD 1–CD 4). Ethan described CD 1 as a largely natural district and said CD 4 is intended to accommodate mixed uses. He said the draft allows residential uses in CD 4 only up to 40% of a site if a developer chooses to include housing, with the remaining area prioritized for commercial frontage to promote walkability.

Staff said the zoning map was built from a matrix using satellite imagery, local knowledge and the town's 2040 plan to translate future‑land‑use guidance into new designations. The draft also moves several uses between categories; one example Ethan cited was reclassifying indoor storage facilities as light industrial rather than commercial based on community input.

The draft changes traffic‑impact study triggers. Current local thresholds require studies for developments at about 100 residential units; the draft lowers that unit threshold to 40 and reduces trip‑based triggers so more projects will require traffic analysis. Ethan said the 40‑unit threshold was selected because many of the developments the town has seen come in at roughly 25 acres and about 40 units, and because on‑site sewer and water approvals tend to cluster around that size.

Article 7 proposes tighter sign regulations: "electronic LED signs are no longer permitted within the city," Ethan said, with two narrow exceptions for government information displays and gas‑station price signs.

A major design concept in the draft is a three‑layer lot system intended to shape how buildings and site elements present to the street. Ethan explained the layers as the front setback (first layer), a second layer set back a fixed distance behind it, and a third layer for rear functions such as mechanical equipment, storage and pools. He described the second layer's purpose as pushing garages back so pedestrians see the front of houses rather than garage doors.

Several meeting participants pressed staff on the proposed 20‑foot second‑layer setback. One attendee said the 20‑foot figure would be "limiting to how you could design homes on certain size lots," while others argued it is an engineering norm tied to vehicle stacking distances. Ethan said the draft used 20 feet as a starting point from TPUDC's standard but invited comment, noting some committee members prefer a 12‑foot figure to balance aesthetics and practical home design.

Attendees also raised concerns about driveway widths and topography: if the front‑setback and second‑layer rules are strict, many existing driveways could be rendered nonconforming, and steep lots might not accommodate the prescribed layouts. Ethan said the draft includes slope standards and provisions for extreme topography and that staff expects to revisit specifics based on public input.

On the public‑participation process, one board member said, "I submitted 220 comments, and 20 of them were put in," and asked how decisions about which comments are incorporated are made. Ethan said the client draft and staff selected regulatory edits to ensure the code is consistent; the development code committee and staff will review all public comments, compile a list of suggested changes and explain which ones will be adopted or rejected. He named committee participants in the hearing: Kevin Chastain (consultant planner), Curtis Broadbent and Will Owen (consultant engineers), Brandon Butler, Tim Mangrum and Dave McGowan Jr., and said the mayor serves on the committee as a planning‑commission member.

Next steps: staff will gather written comments through Sept. 14, review them with the development code committee, submit a consolidated comment list to TPUDC for a final draft, and then the item will proceed to the planning commission and ultimately the Board of Commissioners for adoption. Ethan also told attendees staff would provide printed copies on request.

The presentation closed with a brief recess; the group planned to resume at 7:01 PM. The planning process timeline in the draft means substantial details remain subject to revision based on the public comment and committee review.