Planning Commission opens multi‑meeting review of zoning code Article 1; staff outlines definitions, shoreland and temporary dwelling issues

The City of Victoria Planning Commission opened a series of meetings to review Article 1 of the city’s zoning code, with Associate Planner Travis Bierley presenting the scope, schedule and specific items staff proposes to consolidate or amend.

"Tonight is the first night of going through the zoning code and a full review," Bierley told the commission, describing the process as iterative and community‑facing. He said staff has consolidated about 250 definitions into one section and aims to complete the overall recodification in early 2026, while acknowledging that the full schedule could extend if issues arise.

Bierley said staff’s goals include uniting the municipal code and zoning code in a single, consistent City code, improving clarity for residents and aligning some language with neighboring communities. Staff proposes a roughly 12‑meeting sequence to review the code article‑by‑article, prepare redline drafts, gather community input and hold public hearings later in the process.

Key proposals and discussion points included:

- Definitions and consolidation: Staff consolidated about 250 terms into a single definitions section. Bierley said the definitions were intentionally stripped of performance standards so the rules for activities such as carports, signs or parking can be regulated under dedicated performance‑standards sections rather than embedded in definitions.

- Setbacks, yards and impervious surface: Proposed changes include clarified yard‑setback definitions and proposed impervious‑surface language for the R‑1 district. Bierley said the impervious updates are intended to better align with shoreland rules and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards.

- Building height and shoreland alignment: Staff proposes to align the general building‑height definition with the shoreland section so the two parts of the code do not conflict.

- Schools and other statutory definitions: Staff noted school definitions follow state statute language and are limited to institutional uses (pre‑K, public institutions), not commercial amusements.

- Substantially similar use process: Staff proposed a new administrative path for uses that do not clearly fit an existing category. Under that process staff would evaluate the use, bring a recommendation to the Planning Commission and, if recommended, the City Council would record the determination so the use can be regulated under the chosen category. Bierley used a take‑and‑bake pizza shop (Papa Murphy’s) as an example of a business that could fall into a gray area between restaurant, retail or commissary and benefit from the substantially similar use review.

- Accessory structures and size limits: Commissioners raised recent local examples of accessory structures that approached or exceeded the size of primary buildings; staff said accessory‑structure size and related clarifications will be brought back for more detailed review at an upcoming meeting (staff noted accessory structures are on the schedule to return in early March).

- Junkyard definition: Commissioners asked whether a broad junkyard definition could cause confusion with salvage yards or landfills. Staff responded that the junkyard definition will be removed from the zoning code and handled in municipal nuisance code if needed.

- Nonconformities: Wordsmithing and operational rules for nonconforming structures and uses will be placed in Article 2 (division 3) for the commission’s next review; Article 1 sets foundational terms only.

- Water‑oriented accessory structures and DNR shoreland rules: The draft defines "water‑oriented accessory structures" consistent with shoreland overlay terminology. Commissioners questioned phrasing such as "reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters." Staff agreed to consult the DNR for clarification and to consider replacing "reasonably needs" with language such as "may be located closer" or equivalent permitted phrasing.

- Temporary family health care dwellings: Bierley summarized the 2016 state law that allows small, transportable dwellings (roughly 300 square feet, non‑permanent foundation, transportable by pickup and connected to utilities) for family caretakers. Staff noted most jurisdictions opted out of the law; commissioners generally recommended the City continue to opt out at this time, citing enforcement, HOA impacts and uncertainty about when a unit would be considered "temporary." Bierley clarified that any formal change would follow the city’s amendment and public‑hearing process.

- Other clarifications and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to standardize abbreviations (for example, "Central Business District" versus "CBD"), add or clarify definitions for decks, porches and pergolas, align recreational vehicle and special‑vehicle language with municipal code, and address alternative‑energy definitions (solar collectors and wind turbines will be addressed later in Article 9). Staff said signs, ground grade references and sign alteration language will be reviewed for consistency. Commissioners and staff also discussed how food trucks might be handled (by zoning or municipal license) and whether to create a formal path for repeat new uses to be added by zoning text amendment if they become common.

Bierley said staff will maintain a master change log and produce redline drafts as the review proceeds; the commission will get a complete redline to review and will be given time outside meetings to comment before any public hearing and formal adoption steps. The commission set its next meeting to continue Article 2 and to take up the West Creek Village preliminary plat and several other items.