Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines progress on comprehensive zoning ordinance rewrite
Summary
Staff told the commission that the zoning‑ordinance rewrite has advanced through structural changes (articles, definitions, land‑use consolidation and district clarifications), highlighted contentious topics (definition of family, accessory dwelling units, downtown main‑floor residential), and set a target for committee work and additional work sessions toward a summer draft.
Planning staff provided a comprehensive status report on the multi‑article zoning ordinance rewrite, explaining structural edits, policy choices under consideration, and next steps for public review.
Staff said Article 1 (title, purpose, scope) now references the master plan and clarifies intent; Article 2 (definitions) has been restructured so each letter has its own numbered subsection; Articles 3 and 4 split district mapping from district regulations and the land‑use table is being consolidated to simplify and group similar retail and commercial uses. The committee consolidated many specific use listings into broader categories and introduced the idea of small‑ and large‑scale uses (likely by square footage) so downtown (C‑2) and other districts can be tuned by scale rather than enumerating dozens of distinct retail types.
Discussion focused on several high‑impact policy areas the committee is still debating: allowing limited main‑floor residential in the downtown C‑2 district (back‑of‑building residential, not storefronts), accessory dwelling unit rules and owner‑occupancy conditions in certain districts, and refinements to the RP (near‑downtown) and restricted residential districts to balance density and neighborhood character. Staff noted legal constraints such as fair housing law (standards for age‑restricted housing are one of the few occupant‑based regulatory tools) and said the committee’s attorney participates in meetings.
Commissioners discussed process options: whether to send the full draft to the planning commission at once or to adopt a chapter‑by‑chapter review with work sessions and redline/clean copies for public review. Staff suggested targeted work sessions and a likely timeline to produce a complete draft by late summer, with subsequent public hearings and plan commission and city commission adoption steps.
