Town reviews draft Unified Development Ordinance with changes to parking, ADUs and commercial uses

At a joint work session, staff presented the town’s draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), describing a multi‑year rewrite that would consolidate dozens of use categories, introduce form‑based standards for nonresidential areas and change several residential rules including parking and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) setbacks.

Staff said the rewrite “started prior to my arrival here, so it's been running for over 5 years now,” and framed the draft as a modernization effort to improve legibility, add graphics and align local rules with state code.

The draft keeps existing residential bulk standards but converts text into tables and graphics to improve clarity. For nonresidential and mixed‑use areas the draft introduces building types and form‑based standards that specify facades and permitted materials; staff said the tradeoff is increased design requirements in return for broader use flexibility in those zones.

Key proposed changes

- Parking: Staff proposed raising the single‑family parking requirement from two spaces per unit to three, and said at least two of those must be outside the structure (so a two‑car garage would count for only one credited parking space). The change is intended to address on‑street parking concerns raised in recent developments.

- Uses and consolidation: The draft consolidates the town’s many use categories (staff cited 94 land‑use classifications and 104 parking‑related categories in the current ordinance) into broader groupings to apply performance standards rather than highly prescriptive use lists. That consolidation would make some uses more widely permitted (for example, certain personal‑service uses would be allowed in several commercial and mixed‑use districts) while carving out artisanal manufacturing to be permitted in downtown or mixed‑use settings where scale is small.

- Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): The draft would permit ADUs by defining standards in the code (rather than requiring a conditional use permit for each) but would tighten dimensional standards: setbacks that were previously 2 feet for accessory structures would mirror the primary structure setback (for example, 10 feet) so ADUs would not sit directly on a property line.

- Short‑term rentals: The draft generally would prohibit whole‑house short‑term rentals in single‑family residential districts but would allow them in mixed‑use and RX (downtown‑proximate) districts. A bed‑and‑breakfast conditional use route would remain available in residential districts, and staff said tenancy of more than 30 days would be treated as a longer‑term rental (the draft reduces the prior 90‑day reference to 30 days).

- Recovery residences: The draft adds specific language to treat certified recovery residences with up to eight residents, if they meet the state certification, as single‑family dwellings in residential zones consistent with state guidance.

- Tobacco and vape stores: Using authority allowed by state law, the draft would require tobacco and vape stores to be at least 1,000 feet from schools and childcare centers; staff noted state law limits some local restrictions and that the draft does not define the floor‑space or revenue thresholds that determine store classification.

- Signs and temporary displays: The draft tightens rules on sandwich board signs, limiting them to one per business, requiring a 36‑inch clearance for pedestrian passage and establishing minimum spacing between establishments’ signs.

- Wireless facilities and utility standards: The wireless‑facility section was updated to reflect state changes for small‑cell regulation and the draft provides clearer procedures for review of wireless applications.

- Administrative changes and permitting: The draft proposes giving staff ministerial authority for final approval of major subdivisions and site plans in many routine cases (with discretion for the zoning administrator to refer controversial items to the planning commission). It also expands the zoning administrator’s ability to issue administrative modifications (where neighbors are notified and have 21 days to object; significant objections would route the proposal to a conditional‑use process).

Other topics covered include EV charging and solar facility classification, guidance for food trucks and donation receptacles, and clearer measurement diagrams for signs. Staff said watershed overlay language recommended by the Soil and Water Conservation District will be added to the next draft.

Questions and next steps

Councilors and planning commissioners asked for clarifications on several items: how vape/tobacco retail is defined and enforced, how artisanal food and craft uses would be treated in mixed‑use districts, whether short‑term rental thresholds align with state law, and whether noise for heavy industrial uses (including data centers, which the draft lists as a heavy industrial conditional‑use example) would be handled by zoning or the town’s noise ordinance. Staff replied that noise would be addressed case‑by‑case through conditional‑use conditions and that the UDO aims to provide tailored controls for particular proposals.

Staff asked the planning commission and council for consensus to pre‑advertise multiple public hearings (planning commission hearings in March and April and town council hearings in May and June) and explained the town prefers a single postcard mailing that lists all dates. The planning commission members present responded that they were comfortable with the schedule and staff said it would “take consensus” to advertise; the body did not record a formal roll‑call motion beyond that consensus.

The draft will move forward to formal public hearings; staff said additional work sessions and special meetings could be scheduled before the planning commission makes a recommendation to the council.