Planning commission reviews broad PO‑zone rewrite; staff to seek public feedback

Highland City planning staff presented a proposed rewrite of the Professional Office (PO) zone and sought Planning Commission feedback on design standards, allowed uses and height limits. The commission did not make a final decision but directed staff to solicit public input.

The proposal would remove site‑specific exhibits tied to a single property and replace them with city‑wide PO‑zone design standards that could be applied to any property rezoned to PO. "We rejected that developer proposed amendments, and Planning Commission Council directed staff to prepare it for ourselves," Rob, a city staff member, told commissioners. "I just chose to write it into the code. That if you're on the East Side Of Highland Boulevard, you get 1 story and a basement as the plan has been since the PO zone was created."

Why it matters: the PO zone sits adjacent to neighborhoods and school property; changes to allowed uses, building heights and site design affect nearby residents' views, traffic and neighborhood character. Staff proposed adding lot‑size and site‑layout requirements, parking and loading standards, a list of generally prohibited uses (staff said many retail and food uses would be excluded to preserve a professional‑office character), xeriscaping preferences and updated fencing and facade standards.

Commission discussion focused on building heights on sloped lots, how to measure height where lots slope up or down from the curb, and whether the small set of remaining developable PO lots should retain a one‑story cap. Rob described a height‑measurement formula that measures from the lower of two standards — the lowest finished grade point or curb — with a minimum that requires at least 15 feet of building above grade so the structure reads as a building. "If you're on a lot that slopes up away from the street, you're limited to where the curb is," he said. Commissioners raised concerns that measuring from the lowest point could unduly limit floor area on steep parcels.

Staff also proposed design standards to avoid monolithic building massing: requirements for varying one‑ and two‑story elements, fenestration and entrance ornamentation, and limits on continuous flat facades. The presentation included options for retaining varied rooflines versus allowing flat roofs with articulated massing. Commissioners suggested including visual examples as guidance but not making images a binding exhibit in the code.

Two specific procedural items from the meeting: the Planning Commission continued an unrelated PO‑zone day‑care development agreement and public hearing to the July 22, 2025 meeting at the applicant's request. Staff said it will publish the PO‑zone draft, notify property owners and accept comments through July 14 to prepare a packet for the July meeting.

Ending: Staff will revise the draft per commission feedback, post materials for public review and return with a revised draft for the commission to consider and schedule the required legislative hearing.