Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grading And Buffers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineering director proposes 25-foot nondisturbed buffer and 4-foot grade limit for golf-course redevelopments
Summary
Staff proposed a 25-foot nondisturbed buffer, tree-preservation and planting standards, and a 4-foot maximum vertical grade differential within 50 feet of that buffer to limit impacts when former golf courses are redeveloped adjacent to neighborhoods.
The Development Services Committee on Aug. 4 reviewed staff-drafted changes to the Garland Development Code that would require a 25-foot nondisturbed zone along side and rear property lines of redevelopment sites adjacent to residential districts and strengthen tree-protection and screening requirements. "For a property currently or previously developed with with a golf course or country club use, a minimum 25 foot non disturbed zone is required along any side or rear property line of of a development or redevelopment site adjacent to a residential district," said Michael Poloczek, Director of Engineering.
Poloczek also told the committee staff would require additional plantings where existing trees do not create a natural buffer, and that screening (walls or fences) would be set back on the development side of the nondisturbed zone. He emphasized a transition limit intended to reduce abrupt grade changes: "shall be designed with no more than a 4 foot vertical grade differential from existing grade," he said, referring to the 50-foot area beyond the 25-foot buffer where vertical differences would be limited to 4 feet.
Committee members pressed whether administrative relief should be allowed for special categories such as golf-course redevelopments. Poloczek said the draft includes a caveat allowing the director of engineering to waive the 25-foot requirement if staff determines no negative impact to neighbors. Chairperson Margaret Lutt asked that city administration and the city attorney review the draft before staff reports the item to council; staff agreed that the text may change following those reviews. The committee did not enact code at the meeting but supported reporting the item to council after the recommended administrative and legal reviews.
