Planning commission backs updated M1/M2 zoning after revisions, offers time-limited exemptions for existing industrial users

The City Planning Commission recommended approval Monday of Ordinance 2287, a package of zoning-code changes that would update the long-standing M1 Industrial District and create a new M2 Heavy Industrial District, after commissioners amended the draft to remove a definition tied to "very heavy truck traffic" and to offer current M1 property owners a 180‑day window to apply for a recorded special exemption for existing heavy industrial uses.

Kelly (city planning staff) told commissioners the ordinance seeks to correct a decades-old mismatch between zoning and land use in Sheridan, noting that "our current M1 Industrial District was adopted in 1948" and that many M1 parcels no longer accommodate the kinds of industrial activity envisioned by that code. The draft would add a new M2 district for properties intended to allow light and heavy industrial uses by right and would add heavy industrial uses to the list of activities in M1 that require a Board of Adjustment special exemption.

The Planning Commission's change removes the draft language in Appendix A that would have defined heavy industrial to include uses associated with "very heavy truck traffic." Commissioners and several business owners argued that the phrase was vague and could unintentionally capture routine truck movements associated with warehousing, freight terminals or established local operations. Commissioner Ryan Franklin said the commission would offer protections to current businesses by arranging special exemptions for qualifying properties if the ordinance moves forward.

Why it matters: The proposal aims to align zoning with the city’s 2017 future land use plan, target more intensive industrial activity to appropriate locations (including areas east of the interstate), and reduce opportunities for heavy industrial uses to locate in commercially or residentially developed corridors such as Coffeen Avenue. The M2 district is intended for sites better suited to intensive industrial activity, including potential future annexations.

Major provisions and process details

- M1: Under the revised draft M1 would remain an inclusive district (allow many uses) but would list certain heavy industrial activities among uses that require a Board of Adjustment special exemption. A new line 14 would add heavy industrial to that special-exemption list.

- Board of Adjustment findings: The ordinance text specifies the three findings of fact the Board must make to grant a special exemption: (1) the use is listed as a special exemption, (2) the use is consistent with adopted goals, policies and the future land use plan, and (3) granting the exemption will be in harmony with the zoning code and not injurious to the neighborhood or public welfare.

- M2: The proposed M2 Heavy Industrial District would allow both light and heavy industrial uses by right (no Board of Adjustment special exemption required for listed heavy uses). M2 would generally prohibit retail and residential as primary uses and include setback, height and parking standards; staff noted some height allowances (examples in the packet add 25 feet to certain permitted features atop a 75-foot base).

Public comment and business concerns

Multiple local business owners urged clarity and protection for existing operations. James Schmidt, owner of County Trash on Industrial Drive, described a growing collection and dispatch operation that regularly uses several trucks and said: "If I buy the property next door, now I'm up against a wall where, you know, where do I house the additional trucks?" Schmidt asked the city to either rezone long-standing heavy users at public expense or provide a recorded exemption that would not burden them with the uncertainty of later Board review.

A nearby business owner who identified the property as CLO Storage raised similar concerns about truck activity tied to storage and livestock hauling and asked whether the proposal would curtail existing mixed uses on M1 parcels. Kelly said staff could work with property owners to document current uses for a special exemption recorded with the county clerk; that recorded exemption would "run with the land," meaning future owners could continue the covered use without repeating the exemption process.

Commission discussion and amendments

Commissioners debated options including a city‑initiated rezoning pathway that had been in an earlier draft. Several commissioners expressed reluctance to rezone numerous parcels now used for commercial or mixed uses. Commissioner Daniel Kerbs and others supported leaving room for a future, targeted Coffeen Avenue solution (for example an overlay district or design standards) while addressing broader code inconsistencies now.

After discussion, the commission voted to recommend City Council approve Ordinance 2287 with two conditions: (1) remove the Appendix A language that defined heavy industrial to include activities associated with "very heavy truck traffic," and (2) direct staff to offer existing M1 properties a 180‑day period to apply for and receive a recorded special exemption or special use permit for their current heavy industrial activities. Commissioners framed the 180‑day window as a way to protect long-established businesses without the city bearing the cost of mass rezoning.

Outcome and next steps

The commission approved its recommendation by voice vote; commissioners said the package will go to City Council for a public hearing and first reading. Kelly told the commission City Council had previously tabled the ordinance for more outreach and that council would consider first-reading and subsequent readings on tentative dates provided in the packet.

What was not decided

The commission did not create an immediate Coffeen Avenue overlay or otherwise rezone specific properties as M2. Commissioners noted those targeted solutions could be developed in a separate, community‑engagement process. The commission also removed previously proposed caretaker‑unit language from M2 after members questioned whether a caretaker unit would be an accessory use or a full residential use and asked that accessory caretaker housing (for security or property management) be clarified in code language.

Ending note

The commission’s recommendation amends the draft before sending it to City Council; the council will hold further public hearings and make the final decision on Ordinance 2287.