Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner presents Highway 20 overlay amendment with new design and screening standards
Summary
Staff presented a proposed Highway 20 overlay covering roughly 942 parcels with new open-space, streetscape, screening and architectural requirements; commissioners pressed for numeric screening definitions and clarity on signage and allowed uses ahead of a scheduled public hearing.
Dana (presenter, S5) walked commissioners through a draft text amendment to Articles 16 and 4 of the county’s zoning ordinance that would create an overlay district along Highway 20. The presentation described the proposed boundary (942 parcels), tiered open-space requirements (5% for developments under 5 acres, 7% for 5–10 acres, 10% for projects over 10 acres), a 25-foot streetscape depth with a double staggered hedge row (or berm alternative where topography requires), tree spacing, and pedestrian-connectivity standards linking Highway 20 and cross streets to primary buildings.
Dana also laid out architectural and material standards for commercial buildings: heavier materials such as brick or stone, storefront/window requirements (minimum 50% of the wall facing Highway 20; 25% on side streets), and limits on parking (a maximum of two rows between building and street). The draft would require permanent-material dumpster screening (brick, textured block or split-face concrete) and roofed enclosures, prohibit drive-through service windows between building and street where they would impede parking, and allow up to a 20% parking reduction in exchange for improved pedestrian access.
Commissioners asked for numeric clarity on several points. Chair (S1) and others sought a concrete definition of the baseline screening requirement before the 50% visible-from-the-road bonus applies; Dana said the 50% standard for office/industrial complexes is drawn from existing code and offered to make the language consistent across use-restriction sections. Commissioner Ragsdale (S4) raised concern that two sign-size tiers might spur many variance appeals; Dana said the visual-preference survey sketched the public’s preferred ranges and agreed the board could select a single size if desired.
Dana said the planning team had incorporated about five community comments and had forwarded planning commission minutes to the board. The item will proceed to a public hearing (scheduled for July) and staff said they hoped the board would be ready to act after hearing public comment.
The board did not take a final vote at the work session; commissioners asked staff to provide clarified screening definitions, sign-size options and suggested language to make clear that listed restricted uses must still be permitted by zoning before they can be deployed under the overlay.
