Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission to review B‑1/B‑2/B‑3 ordinance language as state housing proposals loom
Summary
City staff flagged inconsistencies and enforcement gaps in the B‑3 Auto‑Oriented Business District (permitted vs conditional uses, car washes, drive‑through stacking, and mixed‑use/multifamily language) and the commission agreed to start a broader review of B‑1 through B‑3 districts; staff also briefed commissioners on proposed state legislation that could mandate ADUs and higher densities.
City planning staff asked the Planning Commission to authorize a broader review of the B‑3 Auto‑Oriented Business District and related business districts after identifying inconsistent language and enforcement gaps in the ordinance.
Kelsey told the commission the B‑3 section contains conflicting provisions about whether open/outdoor storage and outdoor sales are permitted accessory uses or conditional uses, and that the language around car washes, drive‑through stacking and small multifamily references (allowing multifamily structures of no more than four units as a conditional use) appears inconsistent with recently updated mixed‑use permissions. "We have some inconsistencies here," Kelsey said, urging the commission to consider a coordinated review of B‑1, B‑2 and B‑3 districts to harmonize terminology and policy.
Commissioners discussed food trucks versus permanent structures (one member likened a permanent coffee car or caboose to a non‑temporary use that might warrant a CUP), the practical difficulty of enforcing conditional‑use language across many commercial properties, and examples where licensing replaced CUP requirements. Several commissioners volunteered to work with staff on drafting amendments; staff said it would do most of the initial drafting and bring options back for review.
Kelsey also briefed commissioners on a proposed state legislative package aimed at promoting higher density and limiting some local zoning controls, including potential mandates for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and a points‑based approach that could pressure cities to allow fourplexes. Staff warned of unintended consequences—covenant/HOA impacts, changes to setback and impervious‑surface calculations, and administrative burdens to implement ADU permitting—and suggested commissioners consider contacting legislators to express local perspectives.
The commission agreed to start the ordinance review work and to reconvene with staff‑generated draft language in coming months.
