Fairview Planning Commission weighs streamlined Village Mixed‑Use code and limits on adult entertainment

Planning staff presented proposed code amendments on Sept. 10 to streamline Fairview’s Village Mixed Use (VMU) and Village Commercial permitted‑use tables and fold conditional uses into a single, clearer table.

The amendments would consolidate a long, fine‑grained list of uses into broader categories and add examples for clarity, staff said. “The purpose of these amendments was really to streamline and modernize a very fine grain list of uses here in Fairview Village,” planning staff told the commission.

Staff walked the commission through proposed categories — including office, retail, personal and professional services, repair/service, and separate entries for eating and drinking establishments — and asked for feedback on example lists and formatting. Commissioners generally supported shortening example lists to a few representative uses to keep the code concise and readable.

Commissioners discussed repair and service examples (electronics, bicycle repair, apparel and locksmiths) and recommended consolidating detailed enumerations into broader labels such as “apparel” rather than listing multiple subtypes. On office uses, members suggested limiting examples to three representative types so the code table would not overflow to the next page.

A central point of debate focused on drinking establishments and two proposed prohibitions (subsections g and h) that would bar off‑track betting, video lottery machines and adult entertainment in the VMU and Village Commercial zones. Staff explained the prohibitions would be listed as "not permitted" and noted the language was borrowed in part from other communities’ codes. “If the commission wishes to keep this in as a prohibition, it seems like this definition could be helpful,” staff said.

Commissioners asked whether the prohibition should apply only to drinking establishments, or more broadly across eating and retail uses, and whether the code should distinguish primary uses from incidental activities. Commissioners raised enforcement and legal concerns about defining a threshold for a "primary" use (by floor area or revenue). Staff said an across‑the‑board prohibition is simpler to apply, while a percentage or primary‑use test would be more difficult to interpret and subject to challenge.

On legal risk, staff said other cities restrict similar uses and that the planning staff will consult the city attorney. Staff recommended checking with the City Council before releasing the amendments for public feedback and a hearing.

Next steps: the commission directed staff to bring the matter to a joint Planning Commission–City Council work session on Oct. 16 for council direction before the amendments proceed to public notice and a hearing. If finalized, notification to property owners would follow state requirements informing owners that use limitations could affect property value.