Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Technical topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners tweak landscaping, accessory‑structure and R2 technical standards after workshop debate
Summary
Commissioners agreed to soften new landscaping language (replace mandatory 4 in of imported soil and sod with 'turf establishment' options), add tree planting only for new lots, and revisit accessory garage caps (proposed increase to 1,200–1,500 sq ft and exclusion of tuck‑under garages); they also discussed R2 setbacks, heights and parking.
At the Feb. 26 workshop, commissioners reviewed several technical code items that generated concerns about enforceability and fairness: turf/sod requirements, front‑yard trees, accessory structure thresholds and R2 dimensional standards.
On landscaping, staff had drafted a requirement that every newly created front, side and rear yard be finished with four inches of imported 'black dirt' and that all lots be sodded. Commissioners said that standard was too prescriptive and expensive for some builders and homeowners. The group agreed to revise the language to require a documented 'turf establishment' (which can be sod, seed or hydroseed) and to limit mandatory street‑front tree planting to newly subdivided lots rather than older, existing properties that would remain grandfathered.
Accessory structures and garage caps drew detailed comment. The draft treats combined garage, carport and accessory structures over 1,000 sq ft (up to 1,200 in some text) as a conditional use; commissioners raised scenarios where modest sheds or tuck‑under garages could be unintentionally forced into a variance process. The consensus direction was to adjust the thresholds upward (committee members suggested raising the conditional‑use threshold and allowing an accessory building permit up to a higher cap, e.g., 1,200 with conditional up to 1,500 sq ft) and to exempt tuck‑under garages (attached below living space) from the accessory cap calculation.
On R2 changes, commissioners asked clarifying questions about a proposed increase in front‑yard setback from 25 to 35 feet to reduce on‑street parking and strengthen the visible front‑yard character; staff explained the change is consistent with common practice in similar communities, but commissioners requested clearer drawings and a note that the setback measurement is from the right‑of‑way/property line depending on platted right‑of‑way details.
Other technical points: the panel asked staff to add four‑family dwellings (quads) into the permitted uses table and to add quads to the minimum‑lot‑size table; they also asked staff to clarify shared‑parking rules for multi‑unit developments and whether shared‑parking agreements should be required as part of conditional approvals. Staff will bring revised draft language for turf, trees, accessory structures, quads and R2 dimensions at the next workshop.
