Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs code changes to bar gated communities and tighten turf rules, with carve-outs for single lots
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended approval of two land‑use code amendments: one prohibiting community‑scale gated developments (with an explicit exclusion for single private residential lots) and another to align local landscaping rules with a new state law limiting nonfunctional turf and restricting most artificial turf, subject to staff‑recommended conditions.
The Timnath Planning Commission voted to recommend that Town Council adopt amendments to the town's land‑use code that would generally prohibit the establishment of gated communities in new residential developments and update landscaping rules to comply with a recently enacted state law limiting nonfunctional turf and invasive plantings.
Staff told the commission the gated‑community amendment would add a definition and prohibit residential developments where vehicular or pedestrian access to multiple residences is restricted by gates, walls, fences or other barriers, with exceptions only for emergency or utility access. Staff proposed adding the restriction in both Article 5 (access) and Article 6 (lot layouts) so it would apply to subdivisions and site plans.
Developer Greg Bamford of White Wing Communities urged the commission to avoid a blanket ban, arguing gates are part of the market for some low‑density, custom communities and suggesting alternatives such as daytime gate openings and pedestrian access through parks. Commissioners and staff debated scope and exceptions: commissioners asked whether projects already in review would be grandfathered (staff confirmed they would be held to the rules in place when they applied), whether single private driveways would be affected (staff and the town attorney said the intent is to target community‑scale gates and not a gate on a single private lot), and whether private streets and maintenance standards require clarification.
On landscaping, staff explained that state legislation (effective Jan. 1, 2026) restricts nonfunctional turf, artificial turf and certain invasive plants in new development and redevelopment and requires local codes be updated. Staff proposed local triggers for compliance (new construction; site plans increasing impervious area by more than 20%; addition of parking; or projects disturbing more than 50 percent of aggregate landscape area) but noted that only some triggers are state‑required. The proposed local code would also ban artificial turf and make athletic‑field exceptions discretionary, add a prohibited plant list, and require plant and irrigation standards to prioritize water conservation.
Commissioners debated wording and directed staff to revise the draft to: (1) exempt gates or fences that enclose only a single residential lot, (2) apply turf requirements proportionally to the portion of landscape affected by an improvement (so redevelopment obligations are proportional to impact), and (3) require community development director approval before installing bluegrass or other high‑water turf in civic and recreational spaces while encouraging low‑water, drought‑tolerant grasses as the default. The town attorney restated those three conditions and the commission voted to recommend the ordinance to council with the conditions.
During the discussion commissioners also asked staff to research performance and maintenance considerations for specific drought‑tolerant turf varieties (examples discussed included Tahoma 31), and staff agreed to return with additional detail in future code revisions.
Next steps: The Planning Commission's recommendation with its three conditions will be forwarded to Town Council for final consideration.
