Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning and Zoning Commission approves setback and ADU-definition changes
Summary
On July 10 the Lucas Planning and Zoning Commission approved amendments to Chapter 14 (zoning) that set minimum side- and rear-yard building lines for certain nonresidential uses in residential districts and clarified accessory-building versus ADU definitions; the measure was approved 5–0 and will go to City Council.
The Lucas Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5–0 on July 10 to approve amendments to the City of Lucas Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14 (zoning), that establish minimum side-yard and rear-yard building lines for allowable nonresidential uses in residential districts and clarify definitions for accessory buildings and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Staff member (S4) described the setback tiers during the presentation, saying, "a side yard adjacent to a street shall be established at 75 feet from the center line of the street right of way or street reflected as type C, D or D on the master thoroughfare plan, 85 feet for type B and 110 feet for type A." The changes replace phrasing that read "less than" with directive language specifying that side- and rear-yard building lines "shall be at least" 75 feet (with larger distances for higher-order streets), and the same language is inserted across the residential districts under consideration (R2, 1.5, R1).
Commissioners focused on wording and clarity rather than numeric changes. Chair (S1) and staff agreed edits were largely grammatical and aimed at making the code easier for lay readers to understand; Chair (S1) said the edits would not alter the distances discussed at prior meetings. Commissioner (S3) moved to approve the amendment "as amended," and Commissioner (S5) seconded; Chair (S1) announced, "Motion carries by vote of 5 to 0."
The commission held a public hearing on the ordinance but noted no members of the public offered comments before Chair (S1) closed the hearing at 6:43 p.m. The approved draft will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration by ordinance. The commission did not identify individual votes by name in the record; the tally was recorded as five in favor, none opposed.
