Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews draft edits and process for Title 17 Part 3 study session
Summary
Staff compiled commissioner comments on the Part 3 zoning code study session and outlined a plan to present consolidated edits and a public‑review draft; commissioners asked for a clear way to show which suggested changes were incorporated or rejected and for an executive summary explaining unresolved issues.
At the Oct. 23 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed staff's compilation of comments from earlier study sessions on Part 3 of the Title 17 zoning code and discussed next steps for public review and final assembly of the code update.
Associate Planner Alex Banaskevich told commissioners he had compiled notes of community feedback and the commission's prior comments and offered to go through the list line by line. Commissioners generally asked staff to highlight discrepancies and to call out which commission requests could not be incorporated (for example, where state law prevents a local change) rather than rehash every line in public.
Commissioners requested a marked or compiled version that shows: which specific changes requested by the commission were added, which were not added (with a short reason such as "state law"), and where staff proposes new language for broader topics such as landscaping or fire‑safe measures. Several commissioners said they preferred receiving a clean public‑review draft for community comment, accompanied by a staff summary or color‑coded list showing commission requests and the disposition of each item.
Staff said Mentor Harnish and county planners are still assembling the full consolidated draft and that the complete package is likely months away; a final consolidated draft and summary will be returned for another study session and then to the formal public‑review process in advance of adoption hearings planned in 2026. Commissioners suggested using an executive summary and a separate, clearly labeled list of commissioner requests to aid review.
No formal action was taken; staff was given direction on preferred formats and asked to produce a consolidated draft and a clear disposition of commissioner comments for the next review.
