Oroville planning commission approves zoning code updates for tattoos, short‑term rentals, grooming and solar; forwards package to City Council

The Oroville Planning Commission voted to approve a set of zoning code amendments recommended by an ad hoc citizens advisory committee and forwarded the package to the Oroville City Council under Resolution P2025‑27. The motion excluded an "entrepreneur‑friendly fees" item, which staff said will be handled separately through the city's annual master fee schedule.

Staff presented the package of 10 zoning items, saying they were intended to modernize code language to make permitting simpler for small businesses and to clarify use categories. "The ad hoc citizens advisory committee on streamlining finished its recommended code changes several months ago," Planning staff member Wes said during his presentation, listing topics that included tattooing and micropigmentation, short‑term rentals, pet stores, animal grooming, alfresco dining, solar, smoke shops, child care, and libraries and museums.

Why it matters: The changes adjust what kinds of uses are permitted or require permits in specific zones and clarify when uses such as short‑term rentals trigger different rules. By forwarding the package to the City Council, the Planning Commission advances the proposed zoning text to the next approval step; fee changes are being routed separately to council through the master fee schedule.

Major items and key details

Tattooing and micropigmentation: Commissioners agreed to classify tattooing and micropigmentation under "personal services, low impact," a change staff said the City Council has already concurred with for the tattoo portion.

Short‑term rentals and tax obligations: The redline ordinance clarifies that short‑term rentals remain subject to the City's transient occupancy tax (TOT) regardless of room count. The draft also treats short‑term rentals with more than five guest rooms as hotels/motels, which would trigger a municipal code use permit in those cases.

Pet stores: The commission favored handling pet stores through administrative permits to reduce fees and allow staff to impose conditions intended to protect animal welfare and public safety. Staff noted draft operational standards were modeled on Chico's ordinance.

Animal grooming and home occupations: Commissioners debated whether animal grooming in residential areas should be allowed as a home occupation (to accommodate small operators, including young entrepreneurs) or require a use permit. Staff explained home occupation limits (for example, keeping a house'like appearance and limiting frequent customer trips) and proposed treating grooming as a home occupation unless daily customer counts exceed a threshold, at which point a use permit would be required. "The typical home occupation permits that I give out are for website designing or little Etsy shipping things. They aren't having a lot of people come to their actual place," Kylie, a planning staff member, said in explanation of the home occupation standard.

Solar siting and lot‑coverage language: Commissioners discussed tiered solar rules. The draft treats rooftop systems as lower‑tier (permitted or administrative) installations, while larger ground‑mounted or parking‑cover systems that sell power off site are treated as "tier three" and subject to use permits and additional review. Commissioners asked staff to clarify a sentence tying maximum solar coverage on a parcel with no other on‑site use to the lot coverage limits of the applicable zone; staff said they would revise the wording so that the allowable coverage aligns with the applicable zone's development standards when solar is the primary or only on‑site use.

Vote and next steps: A commissioner moved to approve items two through thirteen as discussed (removing item one, the fee proposal) and to include Resolution P2025‑27 formalizing the commission's recommendation to City Council. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote; commissioners voting yes included Zilich, Densen, Hamilton, Rossi and Vice Chair Sheer. The record shows the commission forwarded the ordinance text and the resolution to the City Council for action; staff also noted the fee recommendations would go to council separately through the annual fee schedule process.

Staff reports and adjournment: Staff previewed upcoming downtown zone cleanup items for March and April, reminded commissioners about Form 700 filings and award nomination deadlines, and the commission adjourned. The commission's next meeting date was announced at the close of the session.

What remains unresolved: The entrepreneur‑friendly fee changes (item one) were intentionally removed from tonight's action and will be incorporated into the citywide master fee schedule for council consideration; the record shows staff will follow up with stakeholders about that separate process. The commission asked staff to tighten solar coverage language and to reflect the agreed change making animal grooming eligible as a home occupation up to the specified customer threshold.

The commission forwarded its recommendation to the Oroville City Council under Resolution P2025‑27; the council will consider the zoning text and any fee proposals at future meetings.