Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commissioners debate Ag Innovation Park zoning; decision tabled for more detail
Summary
Commissioners debated whether to preserve the Ag Innovation Park under public/semi-public zoning with an agricultural overlay or change the underlying zoning to light industrial plus an ag overlay; concerns included allowable uses (meat processing, cold storage, retail), potential city divestiture and the need for covenants. The commission voted to table the decision pending detailed comparisons.
The Tenino Planning Commission spent substantial time on July 9 debating zoning options for the proposed Agricultural Innovation Park. Planner (Speaker 8) presented options: keep the land as public/semi-public and apply an agricultural overlay that spells out allowed ag-oriented uses, or change the underlying zone to light industrial and add an ag overlay to leverage existing light-industrial development standards.
Commissioners raised several concerns. Speaker 5 argued an ag overlay on public/semi-public could specifically list the agricultural uses the commission wants to encourage — "we are looking for agricultural small businesses" — while Speaker 1 and others worried that changing the underlying zone to light industrial could make future divestiture or sale easier and confuse the public about city ownership responsibilities. Questions focused on what uses would be allowed by right in each approach: examples discussed included mushroom farms, cold-storage facilities, co-packing and meat-processing operations. Speaker 8 noted covenants and conditional use permits would provide additional vetting capacity.
Commissioner (Speaker 1) moved to table the zoning change until the next meeting and asked staff and the planner to provide a clear comparison chart showing what would be allowed or disallowed under an agricultural overlay on public/semi-public versus light industrial with an ag overlay, and to define which light-industrial standards the city might inherit. The motion to table was adopted; no zoning map or code change was approved at this meeting.
Commissioners emphasized they want specificity: a list of allowed agricultural-business types the city would actively encourage, the development standards that would apply (setbacks, build standards) and any covenants or grant requirements that might restrict future ownership. Planner (Speaker 8) agreed to prepare a chart comparing options, draft overlay language and to return the item to the commission at the next meeting.
