Planner offers two options to rewrite Sheridan M1/M2 industrial zoning; council raises concerns about single‑family limits and costs

Sheridan — City Planner Kelly Schroeder presented two alternate approaches for rewriting Sheridan’s M1 industrial district and creating a new M2 industrial district during the Jan. 27 study session, and asked the council for guidance on which path staff should pursue.

Schroeder told council the city’s M1 language dates to 1948 and no longer reflects how areas such as Coffeen Avenue function; many M1‑zoned parcels along Coffeen are commercial rather than industrial. The planner said the rewrite is intended to clarify light and heavy industrial uses, update height and parking rules, and improve the rezoning pathway for properties that no longer fit M1.

Two options offered

- Option 1 (more prescriptive): Permit most light commercial and light industrial uses in M1 while restricting one‑family dwellings and heavy industrial uses to the new M2 district. Heavy industrial in M2 would be allowed only with a Board of Adjustment special‑exemption approval. Option 1 would include a city‑initiated rezone process that could optionally rezone about 15 qualifying M1 properties to M2 or to residential zones at the city’s expense.

- Option 2 (narrower change): Keep M1 largely intact but add heavy industrial uses to the M1 list of uses that require Board of Adjustment review; create M2 for industrial uses (light and heavy) allowed by right, with setback and buffering provisions where M2 abuts other zones. Option 2 would not include a city‑initiated rezone program.

Why it matters: The proposed options would change allowed future uses on a swath of properties—particularly along Coffeen Avenue—and affect owners’ rezoning options. The city‑initiated rezone under Option 1 would carry direct city costs and would change which properties remain nonconforming if owners decline to opt in.

Public involvement and Planning Commission action

Schroeder summarized engagement to date: an M1/M2 committee (two council members and two planning commissioners) and a consultant (Ayers Associates) produced draft recommendations; the city hosted public open houses; and Planning Commission held a public hearing in October. That hearing produced six public comments and a Planning Commission recommendation to table the ordinance at that time. The City Council previously voted at first reading to table the ordinance to allow additional outreach and review.

Costs and narrow fiscal detail

Schroeder said the city has identified roughly 15 properties that could qualify for a city‑initiated rezone; hiring a surveyor to prepare exhibits for each parcel could cost roughly $3,000 per property, which she estimated could total about $45,000 if the council elects the city‑funded rezone approach.

Council concerns and tentative direction

Council discussion focused on the proposed restriction of single‑family residences in M1, the city‑initiated rezone cost and timeline, and fears that certain commercial stretches could become heavy industrial under some approaches. Council members asked for more outreach to property owners and for staff to return with clearer timelines. Several councilors expressed preference for Option 2 as a narrower path that reduces upfront city cost and avoids removing residential options automatically.

Ending

Schroeder said she will email property owners and stakeholders about the council discussion and return with revised drafts and a recommended next step in advance of any public‑hearing schedule.