Zoning ordinance
Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
At a glance
- Public comments
- 2
- Last 30 days
- 0
Discussed at 2 meetings in the last 60 days; most recently Sep 22, 2026.
Public comments (7)
Urged delay of the zoning ordinance, citing no buffers, no design review, and no reference to historic resources for buildings up to 75-100 feet next to historic districts.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 22, 2026 · 31:39 →Asked the council to slow down on removing FAR maximums in R6/R7, saying the public hasn't been given enough information to understand the change.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 22, 2026 · 36:16 →Said he was confused by the public works presentation on the zoning changes and asked the council to delay so the public can learn more.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 22, 2026 · 38:10 →Asked the council to keep the 3.5/4.0 FAR limits and add objective historic-resource buffers to the interim ordinance.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 22, 2026 · 39:20 →Representing Saris Regis, asked the council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to exclude residential floor area from FAR calculations and study the impacts first.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 8, 2026 · 2:38:15 →Former councilmember urged more time and community input, backed the Planning Commission's FAR position, and cleared up a rumor about his office-height proposal.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 8, 2026 · 2:40:32 →Called the update a mixed bag — praised district consolidation but urged higher height limits, keeping FAR off residential, and more work on older residential districts.
City Council Regular Meeting - Sep 8, 2026 · 2:46:02 →