Willows planning commission continues decision on variance request to convert 510 Westwood from commercial to residential

The Willows Planning Commission continued action on a request to change the use of 510 Westwood Street from commercial to single‑family residential after extensive public comment and a split commission discussion.

City planner Delaney Garlic told the commission the application — variance 25‑01 — sought permission to convert an existing commercial office building constructed in 1978 to residential use in the city’s Entryway zoning district. Garlic explained staff reviewed the request under the municipal code, concluded the property does not qualify for the code’s existing nonconforming use exemptions, and recommended denial. "Staff recommends that the planning commission deny the request for the variance based on us not being able to make the findings," Garlic said.

The staff analysis cited two separate sets of findings applicants must meet for a use‑change variance: (1) legal findings for a change of use (including that the change will not alter the character of the area and that the hardship is not self‑created) and (2) the standard variance findings in the zoning code (exceptional circumstances, unnecessary hardship from strict enforcement, no special privilege, and no detriment to public health, safety or welfare). Garlic told the commission staff was unable to make all required findings.

Members of the public and the applicant urged the commission to allow conversion. The property owner, who spoke through a translated statement, said she has owned 510 Westwood Street for nine years and had tenants for only four of those years. She described at least $6,000 a year in carrying costs and said the building has been vacant for extended periods. "The ongoing vacancy poses both the risk of deterioration and potential security concerns," the owner said, asking the commission to allow residential use to reduce vacancy and help meet local housing needs.

Supporters described the structure as house‑like and urged flexibility. Builder and longtime local resident Bill (Bo) Shaw said the conversion cost would be modest and that the building already contains bathrooms and plumbing. Other commenters raised infrastructure questions (notably sewer capacity), asked whether the applicant had tried to list or rent the property and for how long, and reported neighborhood support in the form of a petition.

Commission discussion focused on three areas: (1) the geographic extent and purpose of the Entryway district and whether existing mix of homes and businesses in the corridor undercuts staff’s view that the change would alter the entryway character; (2) the sufficiency of the applicant’s evidence for economic hardship and attempts to market the site as commercial; and (3) whether the commission should continue the item to give the applicant time to provide requested documentation and to wait for an upcoming citywide zoning code review.

Several commissioners said they wanted more documentation from the applicant about rental or listing history and about the scope and cost of any conversion work; others emphasized that the Entryway overlay and recent General Plan mapping favor commercial uses along Wood Street and that code exemptions for returning commercial buildings to residential use are narrowly drawn. Staff said the conditional‑use pathway available in the Entryway district applies only to undeveloped parcels or structures that were residential before the current code; it does not apply to a commercial building constructed as such in 1978.

After discussion the commission voted to continue the matter so the applicant can submit clarified documentation and to allow commissioners time to consider the item in light of forthcoming zoning code updates. The commission directed staff to specify what documentation is needed (evidence of marketing/listing, any permit or building scope for conversion, and feasibility information) and noted that a later zoning code update could alter available options in the future.

The commission did not adopt a variance and made no substantive code changes at the meeting. The continuation preserves the applicant’s opportunity to return with supplemental materials and allows the commission to consider the request after code‑update work or at a subsequent hearing.

Planning staff noted they had contacted the applicant and that some additional information had been requested in advance of the hearing; commissioners said staff should follow up directly if items remain outstanding.

Votes at the meeting included the motion to continue; the minute motion language and the roll call are captured in the official minutes and were recorded by the commission clerk.