Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate ADUs, drive‑throughs and mixed‑use allowances in zoning rewrite
Summary
During a detailed, hours‑long review commissioners weighed whether accessory dwelling units, showrooms and drive‑through facilities should be permitted by right or require special‑use review in various districts, raising cross‑reference, parking and walkability concerns.
The Bay City Planning Commission extensively debated where to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs), showrooms and drive‑throughs as it reviewed use‑table edits to its draft zoning ordinance.
A committee member recommended restricting ADUs in high‑density RM districts, arguing that RM is intended for higher‑rise residential development and permissive ADU allowances could unintentionally authorize ADUs for high‑rise projects. Other members countered that the ADU definition already references single‑family detached properties and recommended adding a cross‑reference to the ADU section in the use table to clarify limits.
On commercial uses, members discussed whether offices, showrooms and sales spaces should be permitted by‑right in Mixed‑Use (MU) zones. Some commissioners favored allowing small offices and showrooms by‑right to encourage mixed‑use activity, while others favored special‑use review for trade showrooms or uses that effectively include warehousing or large inventories. Commissioners stressed the need for clearer definitions in the ordinance’s definitions section and asked staff to add clarifying language.
Drive‑through facilities generated a sustained debate about downtown character and walkability. Commissioners generally supported prohibiting drive‑throughs in C3 (Uptown/downtown) to preserve pedestrian character while permitting limited special‑use review in C2A so the commission can assess site‑specific impacts. Examples from past developments—where drive‑throughs and large stacking lanes altered pedestrian spaces—were cited as reasons for retaining local oversight.
On related items, the commission asked staff to: prepare definitions (for example, a clear definition for 'media production studio'), consider special‑use versus permitted treatment for funeral homes in MU (parking and neighborhood impacts were central concerns), and preserve special‑use review for large‑scale museums or planetariums because of possible parking and scale consequences. The commission also discussed community gardens and chose to preserve special‑use pathways for some corridors while recognizing gardens’ potential as temporary activation tools for vacant lots.
Many of these clarifications and cross‑references will be incorporated by the consultant into the codified draft expected May 27 and shown at the June 17 public hearing.
