View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

MINUTES OF THE BURLINGTON PLANNING

AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

 

February 23, 2004

 

Council Chamber, Burlington Municipal Building

 

 

CITY MEMBERS:                                                  EXTRATERRITORIAL MEMBERS:

 

George Byrd, Secretary, Present                            Bud Apple, Present

Jim Burwell, Absent                                                John Enoch, Absent

Paul Cobb, Present                                                 Celo Faucette, Present

Elder Greg Hargrave, Present                                  Gale Fletcher, Present

Gordon Millspaugh, Present                                    Richard Franks, Present

                                                                             Ellis Piper, Absent

 

STAFF PRESENT:

 

Robert R. Harkrader, Planning Director

Russ Smith, Assistant Director of Planning Services

John Emerson, Zoning/Subdivision Administrator

Dianne Fogleman, Office Assistant

 

 

       ITEM NO. 1: Mr. George Byrd, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

       ITEM NO. 2: Acting Chairman Byrd called for approval of the minutes of the meeting held February 2, 2004, which had been postponed from January 26, 2004, due to inclement weather.

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       Mr. Carl Buckland, 913 West Old Glencoe Road, stated that he wished to express his grievance and stated that the minutes of the February 24, 2004, meeting were incomplete.  At the meeting, he submitted questions to Commission members and requested that those questions be included in the minutes. 

 

       Mr. Buckland referred to the 5th paragraph on page 3 which began: “When the discussion became more intense.”  Mr. Buckland stated that the discussion became more intense because the Commission has not been telling the truth for five years.  He compared the truth with Big Foot.

 

       Commission Member Apple asked who was Big Foot.

 

       Mr. Buckland then referred to the 6th paragraph on page 3 where Commission Member Enoch stated that he did not appreciate Mr. Buckland questioning Commission members’ integrity and that Mr. Buckland had no right to question members as if in a court of law.  Mr. Buckland maintained that he does have the right to question Commission members and that Mr. Enoch has a duty and took an oath of office to tell the truth.

 

       Acting Commission Chairman Byrd told Mr. Buckland that since the City and Mr. Buckland are in litigation, Commission members could not discuss Mr. Buckland’s comments.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held Februrary 23, 2004.  Bud Apple seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the meeting held February 23, 2004.

 

       ITEM NO. 3: Consent agenda:  (City)

 

(A)  Mr. Bob Dischinger with Evans Engineering, representing Kavanagh Associates, presented an application for final plat approval of the Oak Grove Crossing Subdivision.  The property is located at the northwestern corner of Forestdale Drive and Boone Station Drive as shown on a plat by Evans Engineering dated January 30, 2004, and containing two lots.

 

(B)  Mr. Edward Hayes, representing Unity Builders, presented an application for final plat approval of the Mt. Carmel Estates Subdivision.  The property is located at the northeastern intersection of NC Highway 62 and Lower Hopedale Road as shown on a plat by Associate Surveying and Engineering dated February 3, 2004, and containing eight lots.

 

(C)  Mr. Bob Dischinger with Evans Engineering, representing D. R. Horton, Inc., presented an application for final plat approval of Phase 6A of the Hanford Hills Subdivision.  The property is located on the southern side of Hanford Road within the Hanford Hills Subdivision as shown on a plat by Evans Engineering dated January 29, 2004, and containing 17 lots.

 

(D)  Mr. Edward Hayes presented an application for preliminary plan approval of the Vaux Hall Village Subdivision.  The property is bounded by Lakeside Avenue and Jackson and Madison Streets as shown on plans by Daniel L. Paxson and Associates dated January 22, 2004, and containing 29 lots.

 

       Staff recommended approval of (A) and (B) with no contingencies and recommended approval of (C) contingent upon the applicant posting proper surety for remaining street construction.  Staff also recommended approval of (D) contingent upon the applicant submitting proper engineering drawings to the City Engineering Department and approval of same prior to starting construction.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of (A) and (B) with no contingencies and recommended approval of (C) contingent upon the applicant posting proper surety for remaining street construction.  He also recommended approval of (D) contingent upon the applicant submitting proper engineering drawings to the City Engineering Department and approval of same prior to starting construction. Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission unanimously recommended approval of (A) and (B) with no contingencies and recommended approval of (C) contingent upon the applicant posting proper surety for remaining street construction.  The Commission also unanimously approved (D) contingent upon the applicant submitting proper engineering drawings to the City Engineering Department and approval of same prior to starting construction.

 

       ITEM NO. 4: Ms. Candace Rey presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the western side of Alamance Road (206 Alamance Road) and on the western side of Dogwood Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 189, Block 758, Lot 1 and a portion of Lots 4 and 85.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.  Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that this is a transitional area and that O-I zoning will be compatible with surrounding zoning.  In addition, he stated that O-I zoning is consistent with land use planning within the Alamance Road corridor.

 

       Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 5: Mr. Richard Jones, representing Mr. Chadbourn Sharpe, was scheduled to present an application to rezone from O-I, Office-Institutional District, to B-2, General Business District, the property located on the western side of South Graham-Hopedale Road (231, 239 and 247 South Graham Hopedale Road) and to the north of North Mebane Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 140, Block 567, Lots 101, 102 and 103. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the applicant requested that the application be withdrawn.

 

       ITEM NO. 6: Mr. Paul Koonts, representing Ms. Mary Ellen Kavanagh, presented an application to rezone from MF-A, Multifamily District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located at the northwestern corner of Boone Station Drive and Forestdale Drive and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-18, a portion of Lot 15. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Koonts stated that the rezoning will allow the applicant to increase O-I zoning and reduce Multifamily zoning and that the rezoning is being requested for easement purposes.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher pointed out that the line seems to be going across area allotted for parking spaces.  Mr. Koonts stated that the re-location of the line will not take away any parking spaces.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.  Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that this will be a minor zoning change for easement purposes.

 

          Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Greg Hargrave seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 7:  Mr. Glenn  Patterson presented  an application  to rezone from R-15, Residential District, and B-2, General Business District, to CB, Conditional Business District, the property located at the northwestern corner of South Church Street and Engleman Avenue and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-18, Lot 64A. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if staff had received many phone calls inquiring about the rezoning request.  Zoning/Subdivision Administrator Emerson stated that he had received inquiries about the rezoning sign posted on the property; however, he had not received any negative comments.

 

       Mr. Patterson stated that he had talked to three of the four adjoining property owners concerning the rezoning.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader  pointed out  that the majority of the lot is zoned B-2 and that staff recommended approval of the Conditional zoning with the written development conditions listed as an attachment on the application form.

 

       Development conditions listed on the application form are as follows:

 

1.    Developer will install an eight-foot black chain-link fence with black slats along adjoining lot lines (ACTM 12-18-64, 64F and 63G) to the property owners’ lines.  This fence will be installed after final grading, improvements and landscaping of lot.

 

2.    Developer will follow the Western Loop Landscape Guidelines along the perimeter of the lot.

 

3.    Driveway entrances will be abandoned as noted on survey map and approved by NCDOT on July 11, 2002.  The driveway towards South Church Street on Engleman Avenue will also be closed.

 

       Conditional uses to be allowed and shown as Exhibit A on the application form are as follows:  Agencies, allied health offices, apothecary shops, automobile accessories sales, bakeries, banks, carpet sales, child care facilities, cleaners and dryers (self-service), drive-in restaurants, electrical shops, exhibition buildings, fences and walls, flower sales, funeral homes, laundries, medical offices, offices, photographic developing, physicians’ offices, plumbing shops, printing, restaurants, retail businesses, retail sales, service establishments, temporary buildings (construction) and veterinary offices.

 

          Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 8: Ms. Char Morejon, representing Sprint PCS, presented an application to rezone from I-1, Planned Industrial District, to CI, Conditional Industrial District, the property located at 1447 York Court (LabCorp facility) and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 3-11, a portion of Lot 5C.  The request is to construct and maintain a 190-foot monopole telecommunications tower plus a six-foot lightning rod and related operation equipment. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if there was any concern about the 190-foot pole being erected in a 100 by 100 area.  Planning Director Harkrader stated that the tower meets all safety guidelines issued by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith pointed out that the setback for the tower will be measured from the property line and not from the lease line.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that the request meets all required regulations.

 

          Commission Member Cobb made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Gordon Millspaugh seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 9: Mr. Jeffrey Collier, representing Carolina Conference Association, presented an application to rezone from R-9, Residential District, to O-I, Office-Institutional District, the property located on the eastern side of Alamance Road at the north side of Trail Four and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 182, Block 730, Lots 114 and 115.

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Collier stated that the property had been donated to the Carolina Conference Association for a Christian-oriented radio broadcasting facility and that eventually a church will also be constructed on the property.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the broadcasting facility will interfere with other nearby churches.  Mr. Collier stated that FCC regulations prohibit the 100-watt facility from interfering with other broadcasting facilities.

 

       Commission Member Faucette asked if the facility will require a tower and was told that a single 100-foot pole will be erected.

 

       Commission Member Millspaugh asked if the tower would have to be FAA approved and was told that it would.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked what the coverage of the tower will be and was told it will cover approximately a six-mile radius and maybe up to 15 miles.  Mr. Collier explained that the facility will be community-oriented.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked if the station will be AM or FM and would there be commercials to off-set costs.  Mr. Collier stated that the Christian-oriented radio station will be AM, and regulations require at least eight hours a day of broadcasting.  He also stated that there will be commercials.

 

       Acting Commission Chairman Byrd asked about the hours of broadcasting and was told it will broadcast 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning on the basis that O-I zoning is consistent with what has been previously approved in the area and that O-I zoning is consistent with land use planning in the area.  Planning Director Harkrader pointed out that the request for a tower will have to be presented separately.

 

          Commission Member Hargrave made a motion to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for rezoning.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 10: Mr. Paul Koonts, representing Keystone Homes, presented an application to rezone from R-15, Residential District, to CR, Conditional Residential, to allow construction of 125 detached townhouses.  The property is located to the west of Alamance Road on the southern side of Trail Six and the northern side of South Mebane Street and being as shown on Alamance County Tax Map 12-14, Lot 40. 

 

       This was a City item.

 

       Mr. Koonts stated that the proposed development will be located behind Stearn’s Ford, and that wetlands and topographic conditions limit development of part of the property.

 

       He introduced Mr. Scott Wallace with Keystone Homes.  Mr. Wallace estimated that residents will generate approximately 88 trips in the mornings and 110 in the afternoons and evenings, and these 800 trips will be disbursed among three planned entrances to the development.

 

       Mr. Wallace distributed ledger-size layouts of the proposed development and listed the following additional development conditions:

 

1.    Along Trail Six, the developer shall provide the following conditions to help obstruct the view of the townhomes from Trail Six:

 

       a.    Earth berm with heavy landscaping buffer to include trees and shrubs.

 

       b.    Professional entrance features and signage to include attractive columns and fencing.

 

2.    Along the western property lines where the subject property abuts the Woods of Grove Park, Section One, Elderwood, Section One, and Crestwood Subdivisions, the developer shall provide a heavy landscaping buffer to include trees and shrubs to help obstruct the view of the townhomes.

 

3.    Swimming pool and community building shall be located along South Mebane Street which has the most intense B-2 zoning uses.

 

4.    Developer shall construct the connector road from South Mebane Street to Trail Six in a meandering route method with a minimum of one stop sign to provide vehicular traffic calming and mitigate vehicular cut-through.

 

       Mr. Wallace stated that the townhomes will be from 1,400 to 2,000 square feet in size and will range in price from $140,000 to $200,000.  In addition, the development will have sidewalks and restrictive covenants.

 

       Commission Member Faucette pointed out that there will probably be two cars per household and asked if the developer had conducted a traffic study of the area.  Mr. Wallace stated that no traffic study had been made.  He stated that typically there will be two adults per unit with no children which will generate less traffic.  He also estimated that there will be 4.006 townhouses per acre which equals density in R-10 zoning.

 

       Mr. Nolan Moran, 2719 Trail 6, stated that this was a beautiful plan, but it was not good for this area.  He pointed out that traffic is already a problem in the area and that he envisions Trail 6 becoming a traffic cut-through for those going to the mall.  He was also concerned about the development creating more drainage problems in the area.  He stated that the City has installed two water drainage pipes in front of his house; however, during a heavy rain, water comes to 15 to 20 feet of his home.  He maintained that single-family homes would be more favorable than condos or townhouses.

 

       Mr. William Rice, 2717 Trail 6, stated that he was concerned about increased traffic.  He pointed out that Trail 6 is narrow and that 3,000 cars a day utilize the street.  At one time, 18 wheelers were using the street, but now they are prohibited.  He also pointed out that it is already difficult to make a left turn and that the hill makes the street even more dangerous.  Mr. Rice stated that the City changed the height and contour of the street but did not provide a catch-basin for water run-off.  In conclusion, Mr. Rice stated that the townhouses could devalue surrounding property.

 

       Mr. Jim Moody, 2803 Trail 6, stated that he was concerned about traffic and the noise that it generates.  He stated that cars do not adhere to the speed limit on Trail 6 and that there is also a blind turn.  He concluded that the proposed development is attractive and will have covenants; however, the developers need to do more study on the traffic situation.

 

       Mr. Carl Buckland, 913 West Old Glencoe Road, stated that traffic is not a valid reason to deny the development and the courts say that people have a right to develop their property.

 

       Mr. Koonts stated that a connector street with a stop sign will be constructed through the development from South Mebane Street to Trail 6 and that the proposed street and stop sign may prevent it from becoming cut-through. 

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked since the connector street will be private, who will enforce and limit it from becoming a cut-through street.  Mr. Koonts stated that the proposed homeowners’ association will maintain the street.

 

       Mr. Charles Bateman, also representing Keystone Homes, entered the meeting while the item was being discussed.  Mr. Bateman stated that the developers have no desire to have the road become a cut-through for traffic.  It was his opinion that the majority of traffic from the development will be going to the mall or I-85 and will utilize the South Mebane Street exit.  In regards to the possibility of increased water run-off because of the development, he stated that engineers will address those concerns.

 

       Commission Member Fletcher asked if the developers plan to construct a retention pond and was told that there will be 12.2 acres available if engineers determine that a pond is needed.

 

       Commission Member Cobb asked if there was anything that the City could do to help with Mr. Moran’s drainage problem, such as installing larger drainage pipes.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the City can look into the problem; however, the proposed development flows away from Mr. Moran’s property.  Mr. Harkrader stated the pipes could possibly be placed differently or they may be undersized.

 

       Mr. Cobb asked how high the proposed berm separating the development from single-family homes will be.

 

       Mr. Wallace stated that the berm will be from four to seven feet high and will be heavily planted with shrubs and trees.

 

       Mr. Cobb inquired about the upkeep of the shrubs and trees.  He stated that these natural areas, such as the one at Bi-Lo, often don’t survive because of drought conditions.  Mr. Cobb also asked what type of fence is planned.

 

       Mr. Wallace stated that this will be a quality development and that some type of fence other than chain link will be erected.  He stated that the homeowners’ association will be responsible for caring for the plants.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith stated that proposed ordinance changes to be considered later on the agenda address landscaping in the Western Loop and other areas except single-family homes.

 

       Mr. Wallace stated that the company will follow Western Loop landscaping guidelines.

 

       Mr. Smith noted that plants that don’t survive will have to be replaced.

 

       Commission Member Hargrave stated that the main concerns are traffic and safety issues.  He asked if any signalization is planned.

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that the North Carolina Department of Transportation will decide how the proposed street will line up and whether or not signalization will be needed.  According to the State TIP, the first phase of widening South Mebane Street to Chapel Hill Road will begin early 2005; the second phase, a year later.

 

       Staff recommended approval of the request for rezoning.  Mr. Harkrader pointed out that traffic is an issue in our area and that traffic will only get worse whether Commission members approve this development or not.  He stated that traffic is a by-product of growth, and growth is a by-product of economic prosperity.  The proposed development is consistent with land-use planning in the area, he stated, and will be a positive influence for the community.

 

          Commission Member Millspaugh made a motion to recommend approval of the request for Conditional zoning contingent upon at least a five-foot high berm and the developers adhering to the Western Loop landscape regulations.  Paul Cobb seconded the motion.  The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for Conditional zoning contingent upon the construction of at least a five-foot high berm and the developers complying with landscape regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

 

       The Commission found that the zoning change as requested would not adversely affect the adjoining property and would be in keeping with land use planning in the area.    

 

       ITEM NO. 11: Staff presented proposed amendments to the City of Burlington Zoning Ordinance text. 

 

       This was a City and extraterritorial item.

 

       Assistant Director of Planning Services Smith stated that the majority of the proposed changes are technical amendments that are needed to make the Zoning Ordinance clearer and eliminate confusion.  Several of the amendments deal with landscaping.  Mr. Smith stated that the first amendments propose that the Western Loop Corridor Overlay Landscaping Ordinance be adopted Citywide.  The Tree Committee has unanimously recommended that the overlay landscape ordinance replace the City’s existing landscaping ordinance.  Mr. Smith informed the Commission that the proposed landscaping ordinance is very similar to the one that the City of Graham has had for the past five years.

 

       Mr. Smith then stated that the remainder of page 1 through the top of page 16 deals with clarifying setbacks in the City’s zoning districts. He explained that the current ordinance does not clearly define the minimum setbacks for each zoning district and that this has caused problems in the past.  Mr. Smith stated that many other zoning ordinances that he was familiar with all had tables such as the ones being proposed to establish setbacks.

 

       Mr. Smith explained that the remainder of page 16 through page 17 involves technical corrections that are needed as a result of the major changes approved last June by the Commission and City Council.

 

       Page 18 and the top of page 19 address minor changes to the landscaping ordinance to deal with exceptions to the provisions and clearly define the way trees should be measured to meet ordinance regulations.

 

       Changes in the sign ordinance that will update the definitions of pole and ground signs within the City are outlined on pages 19 and 20, and these amendments reflect changes made by the sign industry and the types of signs being requested.  The proposed amendments will also establish a minimum setback for signs off rights-of-way.

 

       Mr. Smith stated that the final pages of the proposed amendments have to do with definitions of boarding houses and rooming houses and also make changes to the Table of Permitted Uses.  The proposed amendments will remove boarding and rooming houses in R-6 and R-9 zoning districts as a permitted use.  Additionally, the definition will include specific standards for future boarding and rooming houses, the most important being that a property owner or lessee must reside on the property.

      

       Mr. Carl Buckland, 913 West Old Glencoe Road, asked why weren’t the proposed amendments attached to the agenda and how long had Commission members had the proposed amendments. He asked Commission members if they were mere puppets or if they had even bothered to study these amendments.

 

       Commission Member Apple stated that Commission members received the proposed amendments about two weeks ago.

 

       Mr. James Johnson stated that he owns a rooming house at 202 Rolling Road and that the sewer lines stay stopped up. 

 

       Planning Director Harkrader stated that there are several rooming houses in the Beverly Hills area, and under the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, the existing ones will be allowed to stay unless there’s a change in ownership.

 

       Mr. Jack Rutherford of Rolling Road asked if boarding and rooming houses have to meet minimum standards and was told that they do.  He pointed out that about a half a dozen families are living in a single-family house with one kitchen and one bathroom and that the roof links.

 

       Mr. Harkrader stated that living facilities creating public or health hazards should be reported to the Inspections Department.

 

       Commission Member Franks made a motion to recommend approval of the amendments.  Greg Hargrave seconded the motion.

 

       The Commission voted unanimously to approve the following amendments:

 

AMEND SECTION 32.i, PAGES 2, 3 AND 4 (TABLE OF CONTENTS) TO REFLECT THE PROCEEDING CHANGES

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.2A:D.7.

 

7.   Landscaping - Move to Section 32.11A

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.2A:E

 

E.    Land Use Classification Table - Move to Section 32.11A:1.j.

 

 


AMEND SECTION 32.3 AS FOLLOWS:

 

FROM:

 

SECTION 32.3: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (R-30, R-15, R-12, R-9, R-6 AND R-M)

 

A.   General Regulations

 

TO:

 

SECTION 32.3: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

 

A.   General Regulations for All Residential Districts

 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:A BY ELIMINATING 4, 5 AND 6

 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:B BY ADDING NO. 3:

 

3.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 50 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 25 feet

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-30, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:C.2:

 

FROM:

 

2.   Minimum Lot Area and Width: No building shall be erected, altered, enlarged or used on a lot having less than 15,000 square feet of area and a width of less than 90 feet.

 

TO:

 

2.    Minimum Lot Area and Width: No building shall be erected, altered, enlarged or used on a lot having less than 15,000 square feet of area and a width of less than 90 feet. Duplexes are required to have 30,000 square feet of area and a minimum lot width of 95 feet. 

 


AMEND SECTION 32.3:C BY ADDING NO. 4:

 

4.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 20 feet

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-15, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.       

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:D.2:

 

FROM:

 

2.   Minimum Lot Area and Width: No building shall be erected, altered, enlarged or used on a lot having less than 12,000 square feet of area and a width of less than 80 feet.

 

TO:

 

2.    Minimum Lot Area and Width: No building shall be erected, altered, enlarged or used on a lot having less than 12,000 square feet of area and a width of less than 80 feet.  Duplexes are required to have 24,000 square feet of area and a minimum lot width of 85 feet.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:D BY ADDING NO. 4:

 

4.    Minimum Setbacks:

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 20 feet

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-12, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.       

 


AMEND SECTION 32.3:E.3.b. AND c:

 

FROM:

 

b)   For lots with more than one dwelling unit: 80 feet for two dwelling units plus five feet for each additional dwelling unit

 

c)   For other permitted uses: 75 feet

 

TO:

 

b.    For lots with duplexes:  80 feet for two dwelling units

 

c.     (Eliminated by amendment adopted ________________)

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.2:E BY ADDING NO. 5:

 

5.  Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 30 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 15 feet

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-9, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks. 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:F.3.b AND c:

 

FROM:

 

b)   For lots with more than one dwelling unit: 55 feet for two dwelling units plus five feet for each additional dwelling unit.

 

c)   For other permitted uses: 50 feet

 

TO:

 

b.    For lots with duplexes:  55 feet for two dwelling units

 

c.     (Eliminated by amendment adopted _________________)

 

 


AMEND SECTION 32.3:F. BY ADDING NO. 5:

 

5.  Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 25 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 12 feet and 6 inches

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-6, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks. 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.3:G.6 AND 7:

 

FROM:

 

6.   Other front yard (setback) provisions of this ordinance, notwithstanding, in no case shall a mobile home be located less than 25 feet from the street right-of-way on which a lot fronts.

 

7.   Mobile home parks in R-M, Residential-Mobile Home Districts, shall be governed by the provisions of Section 32.13:I.

 

TO:

 

6.    Mobile home parks in R-M, Residential-Mobile Home Districts, shall be governed by the provisions of Section 32.13:I. 

 

7.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 30 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 20 feet

       Rear yard setback - 25 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-M, Residential Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks. 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.4:A BY ELIMINATING 4, 5 AND 6

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.4:B BY ADDING NO. 5:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks:

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Setback from private road - 25 feet

       Side setback - 25 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 30 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet or two times the height of the building (maximum of 75 feet)

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for MF-A Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.      

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.4:C BY ADDING NO. 5:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Setback from private road - 25 feet

       Side setback - 25 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 30 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet or two times the height of the building (maximum of 75 feet)

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for MF-B, Multifamily Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.       

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:A.5:

 

FROM:

 

5.   Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC): Continuing Care Retirement Communities shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 32.13:V that modify the requirements of this section.

 


TO:

 

5.   Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC): Continuing Care Retirement Communities shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 32.10:SS that modify the requirements of this section.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:B.5:

 

FROM:

 

5.   Front Yard Required (Front Setback): No building shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or moved nearer to the street line on which it faces than the average setback observed by the residential and commercial buildings on the same side of the street and fronting thereon within the same side of the street and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, subject to the further rules set forth below:

 

      a.       Minimum Setback: In no case shall a building setback line be nearer than 40 feet from the centerline of the street on which such building faces.  Where the required setback is in excess of 40 feet from the street centerlines, no building shall be required to set back from the street a greater distance than the setback line observed by the one of two existing buildings on the immediately adjoining lots on each side that is further removed from the street line.

 

      b.       Maximum Required Setback:  In no case shall a building setback line be required to be more than 50 feet from the street line.

 

      c.       Setback When Only One Building on Block: When only one building exists in a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, the setback line for the unoccupied side shall be the same as that established on the occupied side.

 

      d.       Setback When No Building on Block But Opposite Side Developed: Where there is no building on either side of the street within a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line in areas that are not divided into blocks, the setback line for the unoccupied side shall be the same as that established on the occupied side.

 

      e.       Setback When No Building on Either Side: Where there is no building on either side of the street within a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions measured along the street in areas that are not divided into blocks, the depth of the front yard shall not be less than one foot for each foot of building height or 25 feet, whichever is greater.

 

TO:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 50 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 25 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined O-I Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.      

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:B BY ELIMINATING 6 AND 7

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:C.5:

 

FROM:

 

5.   Front Yard Required (Front Setback): No building shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or moved nearer to the street line on which it faces than the average setback observed by the residential and commercial buildings on the same side of the street and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, subject to the further rules set forth below:

 

      a.       Minimum Setback: In no case shall a building setback line be nearer than 40 feet from the centerline of the street on which such building faces.  Where the required setback is in excess of 40 feet from the street centerline, no building shall be required to set back from the street a greater distance than the setback line observed by the one or two existing buildings on the immediately adjoining lots on each side that is further removed from the street line.

 

      b.       Maximum Required Setback: In no case shall a building setback line be required to be more than 50 feet from the street line.

 

      c.       Setback When Only One Building on Block: When only one building exists in a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, the setback line for the unoccupied side shall be the same as that established on the occupied side.

 

      d.       Setback When No Building on Block But Opposite Side Developed: Where there is no building on either side of the street within a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, the setback line for the unoccupied side shall be the same as that established on the occupied side.

 

      e.       Setback When No Building on Either Side: Where there is no building on either side of the street within a block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions, measured along the street line, in areas that are not divided into blocks, the depth of the front yard shall not be less than one foot for each foot of building height or 25 feet, whichever is greater.

 

TO:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 50 feet

       Side setback - 10 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 25 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet

 

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined for R-OI Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.      

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:C BY ELIMINATING 6 AND 7

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.5:C.9:

 

FROM:

 

9.    Signs Permitted: Signs permitted in Restricted Office-Institutional Districts shall be in accord with the regulations for Office-Institutional Districts set out in Section 32.12 of this ordinance, except that wall signs only shall be permitted. 

 

TO:

 

9.    Signs Permitted: Signs permitted in Restricted Office-Institutional Districts shall be in accord with the regulations for Office-Institutional Districts set out in Section 32.12 of this ordinance, except that ground and wall signs only shall be permitted. 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.6:B.5:

 

FROM:

 

5.   Average Front Setbacks in B-2 Districts:  No building shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or moved nearer to the street line on which it faces than the average setback observed by the commercial buildings on the same side of the street and fronting thereon within the same block, subject to the further rules set forth below:

 

      a.       Minimum Setback: In no case shall a building setback line be nearer than 40 feet from the centerline of the street on which such building faces.  Where the required setback is in excess of 40 feet from the street centerline, no building shall be required to set back from the street a greater distance than the setback line observed by the one of two existing buildings on the immediately adjoining lots on each side which is further removed from the street line.

 

      b.       Maximum Required Setback: In no case shall a building setback line be required to be more than 50 feet from the street line.

 

      c.       Setback When Only One Building On Block: When only one building exists in a block, its setback shall be used as the average setback for the purpose of establishing the building line for new buildings.

 

      d.       Setback When No Buildings On Block But Opposite Side Developed: Where there are buildings on only one side of a street within the block, the setback line for the unoccupied side shall be the same as that established on the occupied side.

 

      e.       Setback When No Building On Either Side:  Where there is no building on either side of the street within a block, the setback lines shall not be less than 50 feet measured from the centerline of the street when fronting upon a street less than 50 feet in width and not less than 25 feet measured from the street line when fronting upon a street of 50 feet or more in width.

 

      f.        Use of Corner Yard in Calculating Setback: The sideline of a building on a corner lot shall not be a factor in establishing the setback line on the side street.

 

TO:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks:  

 

       Front setback - 50 feet

                

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined B-2 Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.      

 

AMEND SECTION 32.6:C.5:

 

FROM:

 

5.       Setbacks in the B-3 Districts: No building shall be erected, reconstructed, altered or moved nearer to the street line on which it abuts than the average setback observed by the commercial buildings on the same side of the street and fronting thereon within the same block, except that in no case shall a building setback line be nearer than 30 feet from the centerline of an abutting street.  Where the required setback is in excess of 30 feet from the street centerline, no building shall be required to set back from the street a greater distance than the setback line observed by the one of two existing buildings on the immediately adjoining lots on each side which is further removed from the street line.

 


TO:

 

5.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 0 feet

                

       a.       No building shall be required to set back a greater distance than the minimum setback as determined B-3 Districts.  Within subdivisions created prior to the enactment of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, no structure shall be required to set back a greater distance than the average setback of the existing residential structures on the same side of the block and fronting thereon within the same block or within a horizontal distance of 500 feet in both directions for areas not divided into blocks.      

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.7:A.7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11:

 

FROM:

 

7.   Front Yard Required: Each lot shall have a front yard of 40 feet in depth measured from the street right-of-way line.  Interior circulation roads and/or drives and parking may be permitted within required front yards subject to the following: 

 

      a.       Parking spaces shall be limited to no more than 15 percent of the required minimum spaces required for the development.  Required handicap spaces shall not be included in this calculation and are permitted within the required front yard area.

 

      b.      In all instances when parking and/or circulation roads or drives are placed within a required front yard, a landscaped strip of at least 20 feet in width measured from the right-of-way line shall be provided.

 

8.   Side Yards Required: There shall be a side yard on each side of every lot, and all side yards shall be landscaped and planted.  The minimum width of each side yard shall be 50 feet.

 

9.   Rear Yard Required: Every lot shall have a rear yard not less than 50 feet in width.

 

10. Parking, Loading and Vehicular Storage Required: Off-street parking, loading and storage space for vehicles shall be provided as required by Section 32.11.  No service areas or vehicular storage space shall be within ten feet of the principal building or within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district.  No parking shall be within ten feet of the principal building(s) or within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district. Parking areas located in a side yard adjacent to a street shall be no closer than ten feet from the property line, and all parking and vehicular maneuvering areas shall be no closer than five feet from any interior property line.  All such areas shall be paved with all-weather, dust-free surface and shall be properly drained and landscaped. 

 

11. Signs:  Signs permitted I-1 Districts shall be in accord with Section 32.12.

 


TO:

 

7.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 50 feet

       Rear yard setback - 50 feet

 

8.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

9.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

10.  Parking, Loading and Vehicular Storage Required: Off-street parking, loading and storage space for vehicles shall be provided as required by Section 32.11.  No service areas and/or vehicular storage space (not parking) shall be within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district.  Parking areas located adjacent to a street shall be no closer than ten feet from the property line, and all parking and vehicular maneuvering areas shall be no closer than five feet from any interior property line.  All such areas shall be paved with all-weather, dust-free surface and shall be properly drained and landscaped. 

 

11.  Signs:  Signs permitted I-1 Districts shall be in accord with Section 32.12.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.7:B. 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11:

 

FROM:

 

7.   Front Yard Required: Each lot shall have a front yard of 40 feet in depth measured from the street right-of-way line.  Interior circulation roads and/or drives and parking may be permitted within required front yards subject to the following: 

 

      a.       Parking spaces shall be limited to no more than 15 percent of the required minimum spaces required for the development.  Required handicap spaces shall not be included in this calculation and are permitted within the required front yard area.

 

      b.       In all instances when parking and/or circulation roads or drives are placed within a required front yard, a landscaped strip of at least 20 feet in width measured from the right-of-way shall be provided.

 

8.   Side Yards Required: There shall be a side yard on each side of every lot, and all side yards shall be landscaped and planted.  The minimum width of each side yard shall be 50 feet.

 

9.   Rear Yard Required: Every lot shall have a rear yard not less than 50 feet in width.

 

10. Parking, Loading and Vehicular Storage Required: Off-street parking, loading and storage space for vehicles shall be provided as required by Section 32.11.  No service areas or vehicular storage space shall be within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district.  No parking shall be within ten feet of the principal building(s) or within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district.  Parking areas located in a side yard adjacent to a street shall be no closer than ten feet from the property line, and all parking and vehicular maneuvering areas shall be no closer than five feet from any interior property line.  All such areas shall be paved with all-weather, dust-free surface and shall be properly drained and landscaped. 

 

11. Signs:  Signs permitted in I-1A Districts shall be in accord with Section 32.12.

 

TO:

 

7.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 50 feet

       Rear yard setback - 50 feet

 

8.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

9.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

10.  Parking, Loading and Vehicular Storage Required: Off-street parking, loading and storage space for vehicles shall be provided as required by Section 32.11.  No service areas or vehicular storage space (not parking) shall be within any required side or rear yard that abuts a residential or multifamily district. Parking areas located adjacent to a street shall be no closer than ten feet from the property line, and all parking and vehicular maneuvering areas shall be no closer than five feet from any interior property line.  All such areas shall be paved with all-weather, dust-free surface and shall be properly drained and landscaped. 

 

11.  Signs:  Signs permitted in I-1A Districts shall be in accord with Section 32.12.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.7:C.7, 8 AND 9

 

FROM:

 

7.   Front Yard Required: There shall be a front yard of no less than 25 feet in depth measured from the nearest street right-of-way line.

 

8.   Side Yards Required:  There shall be a side yard on each side of every lot with the minimum width of such yard being as follows:

 

      a.        Adjacent to a Street: Any side yard that abuts a street shall be at least 25 feet in width.

 

      b.        Adjacent to an Interior Lot Line: A side yard that abuts an interior lot line shall be at least 15 feet in width.

 

9.   Rear Yard Required: All lots shall have a rear yard at least 30 feet in depth.

 


TO:

 

7.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 5 feet

       Side setback abutting Residential, O-I or Multifamily - 15 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 40 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet

 

8.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

9.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

      

 

AMEND SECTION 32.7:D.6, 7 AND 8:

 

FROM:

 

6.   Front Yard Required: Each lot shall have a front yard 40 feet in depth measured from the centerline of the street on which it fronts, except when such lot is within 200 feet of a Residential, Multifamily, O-I, B-1 or I-1 District, the front yard shall be 50 feet deep measured from the centerline of the street upon which lot abuts if said street is 50 feet wide or less.  Or such front yard shall be 25 feet deep measured from the edge of the street right-of-way nearest the lot if said street is more than 50 feet wide. 

 

      See Section 32.8 for exceptions.

 

7.   Side Yard Required:  No side yard shall be required except under the following conditions:

 

      a.        When an Interior Side Lot Line Abuts a Residential, Multifamily or O-I District: Under this condition, the side yard shall be at least 15 feet wide.

 

      b.        When Buildings Set Back From an Interior Side Lot Line or an Opening Occurs in the Wall of a Building Adjacent to Such Lot Lines: Under this condition, the minimum side yard width shall be five feet.

 

      c.         When a Side Yard Abuts a Street: The minimum side yard width under this condition shall be 40 feet measured from the centerline of said street.

 

8.   Rear Yard: All lots shall have a rear yard at least 30 feet in depth.

 

TO:

 

6.    Minimum Setbacks: 

 

       Front setback - 40 feet

       Side setback - 5 feet

       Side setback abutting Residential, O-I or Multifamily - 15 feet

       Side setback abutting a street - 40 feet

       Rear yard setback - 30 feet

 

7.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

8.    (Eliminated by amendment adopted _______________________)

 

 

UNDER SECTION 32.9, TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:

 

·         In the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS column of "AGENCIES including but not limited to travel, brokers, insurance, loan, real estate, employment," change to See 32.13:C in O-I; see 32.10:LL  in B-1L.

 

·         Under "BOARDING and rooming house," delete the "X" in the R-6 and R-9 columns.  In the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS column, add See Boarding/Rooming House definition, 32.22.

 

·         In the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS column of "CHILD care facilities," change to See 32.13:W; in B-1, see 32.10:LL.

 

·         Delete "GIFT shops, hardware stores, pharmacies, pet shops and supplies and pet grooming services."

 

·         Delete "RETAIL sales."

 

·         Change "Retail businesses not otherwise listed herein" to "Retail businesses."

 

·         Under "RETAIL businesses," add an "X" in the I-1 and I-1A columns.  In the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS column, add See 32.10:KK.

 

·         In the SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS column of "SERVICE establishments, including but not limited to barber shops, small item repair shops, rental shops, custom fabrication, tailor shops, beauty parlors," change to In O-I, see 32.13:C; in B-1, see 32.10:LL.

 

AMEND SECTIONS 32.10:D AND 32.13:

 

In Section 32.10, move subsection D, Child Care Facility, to Section 32.13 by adding a new subsection "W."

 

Change the Table of Contents to reflect this change.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.10:HH.b AND 32.10:HH.b(1):

 

FROM:

 

b.    For all commercial, industrial, and office-institutional zoning classifications, permitted as follows:

 

       (1)     Freestanding Towers: Freestanding telecommunications towers are permitted in all commercial, industrial, and office-institutional zones.  Such towers shall conform to the Special Use Permit provisions of Section 32.13:R.

 

TO:

 

b.    For all Conditional Business and Conditional Industrial Districts in which the City Council has approved a Conditional rezoning allowing telecommunications towers as a permitted use:

 

       (1)     Freestanding telecommunications towers are permitted in all Conditional Business and Conditional Industrial zones.  Such towers shall conform to the Supplemental Use provisions of Section 32.10:RR.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.11:C OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE:

 

Add a new use:

 

     Private Pools, Clubhouses, Tennis Courts as Part of Residential Developments

 

Under the column MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, add the following:

 

     one space for each 10 lots within the Homeowners' Association or one space for each four users in designed capacity, whichever is less

 

 

AMEND REVISED SECTION 32.11A.1.a:

 

FROM:

 

a.    Application. Single-family dwelling units on individual lots are exempt from landscaping.  The landscape provision shall apply to all new parking lots, parking lot expansions, new construction of principal buildings or open land use (i.e., junk yard, outside storage), changes in Land Use Classification number (LUC), expansion and reconstruction of land use.  For expansions, the landscaping shall apply only to the portion of the building or land use expansion.

 

TO:

 

a.    Exceptions. The landscape provisions of this section shall specifically not apply to: 

 

       (1)     Single-family detached dwellings or two-family dwellings on individual lots.

 

       (2)     Properties within the Central Business District (B-3).

 

       (3)     Property lines abutting railroad rights-of-way and utility easements in excess of 50 feet in width.

 

       (4)     Property lines abutting dedicated street rights-of-way that have remained unopened for a period of at least 15 years.

 

       (5)     Developments in existence on the date of the adoption of this ordinance provided, however, in the event such developments or uses are expanded by more than 25 percent or the expansion/construction results in a land use classification change of two or more, then and in that event, such developments shall be brought into compliance with the requirements of this section, 32.11A.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.11A.1.f.(1) AND (2):

 

FROM:

 

(1)  Canopy tree.  A tree that has a mature height of at least 40 feet in height and a crown width of 30 feet or greater.  The minimum planting size shall be eight feet high and two inches in caliper measured six inches above grade.

 

(2)  Understory tree.  A tree or large shrub that has a mature height of at least 15 feet.  The minimum planting size is four feet high and one inch caliper measured six inches above grade.

 

TO:

 

(1) Canopy tree.  A tree that has a mature height of at least 40 feet in height and a crown width of 30 feet or greater.  The caliper of the trunk shall be taken six inches above the ground up to and including four-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.

 

(2)  Understory tree.  A tree or large shrub that has a mature height of at least 15 feet. 

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.12:C.3 AS FOLLOWS:

 

FROM:

 

3.    Pole Sign: A sign, the bottom of which is not less than ten feet above the ground and which is attached to the ground by one or more poles or other upright supports.  The sum of the largest cross-sectional dimension of all such supports shall not exceed ten percent of the total distance from the top of the sign to the ground or three feet, whichever is less.

 

TO:

 

3.    Pole Sign: A sign, the bottom of which is not less than ten feet above the ground and which is attached to the ground by one or more poles or other upright supports.  No sign language, copy, insignia, emblem, etc., may be placed within the space between the ground and 10 feet in height.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.12:D. BY ADDING NO. 9:

 

ADD:

 

9.    Sign Setbacks: All ground signs and pole signs in all zoning districts where permitted shall be set back a minimum of five feet from any right-of-way.

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.12:M AS FOLLOWS:

 

FROM:

 

1.    No ground sign shall exceed 28 feet in height above the ground level at the base of such sign or street grade level, whichever may be the higher.

 

2.    No ground sign shall be located in a required front yard or in a required side yard adjoining a public street, except that incidental ground signs and identification ground signs not exceeding 32 square feet in surface area per face nor more than four feet in height above the ground may be located in such required front yards or side yards provided they do not obstruct the view of traffic and are located at least 15 feet from any street right-of-way line.  Where the building line of the principal structure on a lot is less than 30 feet from the street right-of-way line, ground signs shall be required to be set back one-half the distance between said building line and the street right-of-way line provided, however, that in no case shall a ground sign be placed closer than five feet to the street right-of-way line.

 

Also:

 

6.    Pole signs may be erected in required front yards or required side yards adjoining a public street, provided that they do not exceed the following limitations:

 

TO:

 

1.    No ground sign shall exceed 20 feet in height above the ground level at the base of such sign or street grade level, whichever may be the higher.

 

2.    No ground sign shall be located closer than five feet from any street right-of-way provided they do not obstruct the view of traffic.  The maximum square footage of a ground sign shall be 100 square feet.

 

Also:

 

6.    Pole signs may be erected in required front yards or required side yards adjoining a public street, provided that they are at least five feet from any public right-of-way; do not obstruct the view of traffic; and, do not exceed the following limitations:

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.13:M:

 

In the chart under number 2 (Dimensional Requirements), change the following:

 

FROM:

 

Minimum front, side or rear yard abutting a street or the external boundary of townhouse development (feet)


TO:

 

Minimum front, side or rear yard abutting a street, a private road or the external boundary of townhouse development (feet)

 

ALSO IN 32.13:M:

 

FROM:

 

Maximum lot coverage of individual townhouse

 

TO:

 

Maximum lot coverage of townhouse development

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.13:O

 

Delete all language in O. and add:

 

O.    (Deleted by amendment adopted _________________)

 

 

AMEND SECTION 32.22 -- DEFINITIONS -- AS FOLLOWS:

 

·         Delete the BOARDING HOUSE definition.

 

·         Add the following definition:

 

BOARDING/ROOMING HOUSE: A facility containing five or less guest rooms that are separately rented to occupants that meet the following requirements:

 

     1.       The property owner or lessee must reside on the same premise as the boarding house with the structure clearly serving as that person's permanent residence.  

 

     2.       Separate structures, accessory buildings and garages are not permitted to be used as boarding rooms.

 

     3.       No separate exterior doorways for individual boarding rooms shall be permitted.

 

     4.       Parking shall be provided and comply with the standards established for single-family detached dwellings except any additional parking beyond what can be accommodated in a driveway no wider than to sufficiently park two cars must be out of the required setback and yards established in that zoning district.

 

     5.       Parking for boarders shall not be served by a separate driveway from the driveway serving the principal residential structure.

 

     6.       Prompt disposal of all garbage in a sanitary condition is required.

 

     7.       Meets all requirements of Section 23.41 of the City's Code of Ordinances.

 

 

 

 

 

       There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                   ______________________________

                                                                   George A. Byrd, Jr., Acting Chairman