Planning commission gets chapter‑by‑chapter preview of proposed zoning code overhaul

Planning staff gave commissioners an overview of a major proposed rewrite of the city's zoning code, outlining intentions to consolidate several zoning districts, add new district types for public/institutional uses and planned developments, and reduce some minimum lot sizes to reduce nonconforming lots.

Staff said the steering committee has produced multiple draft chapters and will hold public steering‑committee meetings (staff mentioned one on May 7) that are open to the public. Planning staff asked commissioners whether they preferred chapter‑by‑chapter walk‑throughs or higher‑level summaries; commissioners asked for chapter‑by‑chapter presentations so they can review changes in detail.

Key items discussed included: - Consolidating the existing eight commercial districts into three new categories: C1 (neighborhood commercial), C2 (community commercial) and C3 (regional commercial). Staff said C3 would cover higher‑intensity corridors such as Kent and Fish Creek. - Consolidating multiple industrial districts into a single I district and raising allowable building heights to about 60 feet to better accommodate modern warehouse needs. - Creating two new districts: PI (Public & Institutional) to better fit large public and institutional sites (schools, government campuses), and PD (Planned Development) to allow tailor‑made development texts for major infill projects (the Sheetz/Chick‑fil‑A site was given as an example). - Recommending reduced lot‑area minimums for single‑family districts (R1, R2, R3) to cut the number of nonconforming lots in half or better; staff noted the consultant recommended aiming for a 10% nonconformity rate but said the working proposal would reduce nonconformity substantially without an abrupt policy change. - Proposed adjustments to setbacks, building heights, lot‑width definitions, and new visual‑transition standards to reduce abrupt scale changes between adjacent properties.

“ I can work on a table that points out all the revisions, whether it’s a substantial one or just a housekeeping change,” staff told commissioners and offered to present chapters in smaller segments so commissioners can follow the proposed changes.

Commissioners asked for clearer redline documents and tables summarizing what is new versus what is rearranged, and requested that staff continue presenting chapters in digestible increments. Staff said the full clean drafts and redlines are available online and that staff will return with the next chapter(s) at a future meeting.

No formal action or vote was taken on the code rewrite at the meeting; staff emphasized the project remains in the review and public‑engagement phase.