TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Jodi Phelps - Assistant City Manager
Gerald Newton - Development Services Director
FROM: Craig Harmon, Senior Planner
Scott Walters, Senior Planner
Chester Green, Senior Planner
DATE: June 1, 2026
RE:Title
Proposed Text Amendments to Multiple Sections of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Regarding Fences and Walls, Zoning Districts, Use Table, Zero Lot Line Applicability, and Subdivision Design StandardsTitle
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Goal II: Responsible City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
Executive Summary:
The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation and forward the item to the City Council.
The Development Services staff has identified several minor updates and amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). These revisions are intended to clarify existing provisions and eliminate unnecessary development requirements.
On April 21, 2026, the Planning Commission held a legislative public hearing regarding these amendments. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval.
Background:
Listed below are the ordinance sections related to the proposed changes.
1. 30-5.D.4.b Exemption for Safety (Fences and Walls): Under the current development standards, chain-link fences located in required front and corner side yard setbacks may not exceed (4) feet in height. This standard is applied equally regardless of the zoning district and regardless of the use of the property. Thus, industrially zoned properties are unable to erect chain link fences above the allowed four (4) feet height. Industrial and heavy commercial uses have an increased need to secure property and ensure public safety.
Currently, only “major utilities, wireless communication towers, government facilities, and other public safety uses” are allowed by development standards to have an exemption to the fence height and have an increased fence height of (8) feet within all required yard setbacks. Redlined proposed changes are attached.
2. 30-3.E.2 Office and Institutional (OI) District: Changes in dimensional standards including, lowering minimum lot area for some uses, and increasing gross density for certain uses. See attached redlined chart titled OI District 30-3.E.2.
3. 30-3.E.3 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District: Changes in dimensional standards including, lowering minimum lot area for some uses, and increasing gross density for certain uses. See attached redlined chart titled NC District 30-3.E.3.
4. 30-3.E.11 Downtown 2 (DT-2) District: Changes in dimensional standards including, lowering minimum lot area for some uses, and a text correction. See attached redlined chart titled DT-2 District 30-3.E.11.
5. 30-3.D.5 Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) District: Text change to clarify standards. See attached redlined chart titled MR-5 District 30-3.D.5.
6. 30-4.A.2 Use Table: Remove Single-Family Detached from OI and NC districts. See attached redlined chart.
7. 30-3.B.2. Zero Lot Line Applicability: Removing the requirement for a Special Use Permit when a zero lot line development is proposed on a tract smaller than three acres.
8. 30-6.A.4. Subdivisions Design Standards: Removing the requirement for a Special Use Permit when a zero lot line development is proposed on a tract smaller than three acres.
Issues/Analysis:
The Development Services Department has identified several areas within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) where minor amendments would improve clarity, consistency, and overall functionality of the regulations while reducing unnecessary procedural requirements.
One identified issue relates to Section 30-5.D (Fences and Walls). Under the current standards, chain-link fences located within required front and corner side yard setbacks are limited to a maximum height of four (4) feet, regardless of zoning district or land use. This uniform application does not account for the operational needs of industrial and heavy commercial properties, which often require enhanced security measures to protect equipment, materials, and public safety. While certain uses-such as major utilities, wireless communication towers, and government facilities-are permitted increased fence heights of up to eight (8) feet, similar allowances are not extended to industrial zoning districts, creating an inconsistency in how security needs are addressed across comparable uses.
Additional issues have been identified within several zoning districts related to dimensional standards. In the Office and Institutional (OI), Neighborhood Commercial (NC), and Downtown 2 (DT-2) districts, current minimum lot area requirements and density limitations may restrict reasonable development patterns or do not reflect current development trends. Proposed amendments would reduce minimum lot sizes for certain uses and increase allowable gross density where appropriate, thereby providing greater flexibility while maintaining compatibility with surrounding development. In the DT-2 district, a minor text correction is also proposed to improve clarity and consistency within the ordinance.
In the Mixed Residential 5 (MR-5) District, a text amendment is proposed to clarify existing standards, reducing ambiguity and improving the administration and interpretation of the ordinance.
The Use Table (Section 30-4.A.2) currently permits single-family detached dwellings within the OI and NC districts. This allowance is inconsistent with the intended purpose and character of these districts, which are primarily designed to accommodate office, institutional, and neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Removing this use will better align the Use Table with the intent of these districts and reduce potential land use conflicts.
Finally, procedural inefficiencies have been identified in relation to zero lot line developments. Under current standards in Sections 30-3.B.2 and 30-6.A.4, developments on tracts smaller than three acres require a Special Use Permit (SUP). This requirement adds an additional layer of review that may not be necessary for smaller-scale projects and can create delays in the development process. Removing the SUP requirement for these developments will streamline approvals while maintaining appropriate design and development standards through existing administrative review processes.
Collectively, these amendments are intended to modernize the UDO, address inconsistencies, and improve the balance between regulatory oversight and development flexibility, while continuing to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
Budget Impact:
None at this time
Options:
1. Move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments (recommended);
2. Move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments with specific changes;
3. Move to recommend denial of some or all of the proposed text amendments.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
The Planning Commission and Professional Planning Staff recommends that the City Council move for Option (1) and approve the proposed text amendments.
end
Attachments:
1. 30-5.D.4.b Exemption for Safety (Fences & Walls)
2. OI District 30-3.E.2
3. NC District 30-3.E.3
4. DT-2 District 30-3.E.11
5. MR-5 District 30-3.D.5
6. Use Table
7. Zero Lot Line Applicability
8. Zero Lot Line Development
9. PowerPoint