Bay City Planning Commission reviews draft zoning ordinance; debates staff approval powers and mixed‑use table inconsistencies

The Bay City Planning Commission on March 18 reviewed a near‑final draft of the city’s zoning ordinance that staff said is intended to meet Redevelopment Ready Communities (RRC) certification and streamline permitting.

The draft, prepared with consultant input from Giffels and Webster, updates hundreds of definitions, consolidates the permitted‑uses table, introduces a mixed‑use district and a residential mixed‑density overlay, and adds new rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), wireless facilities, and outdoor storage. Chair Doug Ries said the goal is “to get the ordinance completed and ready for city commission action,” and staff emphasized a July 2026 reporting timeline tied to the city’s fiscal year close.

Why it matters: the ordinance shapes what kinds of housing, businesses and reuse of vacant institutional buildings are allowed across Bay City neighborhoods. Commissioners said small wording choices in definitions and several apparent mismatches between the descriptive text and the permitted‑uses table could materially change whether projects are allowed as a right, require a special land use hearing, or must seek a use variance.

A central dispute at the meeting was a procedural change in which staff would have authority to decide whether a proposed use that isn’t specifically listed in the table is “similar and compatible” with permitted uses. Staff and the consultant said the administrative route can speed approvals and help the city meet RRC objectives. Several commissioners pushed back, warning that an administrative determination “gives that one person a lot of power” and that ambiguous or novel proposals should come before the full commission for a public hearing. Commissioners asked staff to add clearer guardrails if any such delegation remains in the draft.

Other key points:
• Mixed‑use table discrepancies: Commissioners repeatedly flagged cases where the MU district text promotes retail, offices and small‑scale community uses, but those same uses were marked “not permitted” in the consolidated uses table. The commission asked members to mark up the table and return suggested fixes to staff and the consultant before the next meeting.

• Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): The rewrite would allow new attached and detached ADUs and adjusts lot‑coverage limits to accommodate them. Staff said ADUs could not be used as short‑term rentals under the draft. Commissioners raised technical questions about building‑code requirements (for example, that a dwelling unit requires kitchen and bathroom facilities) and whether the city should allow smaller guest structures that lack full kitchens.

• Reuse of institutional buildings: Commissioners urged the draft to use the term “institutional” (churches, schools, fraternal halls) rather than only “public” so that adaptive reuse options—small galleries, offices or community uses—are clearly allowed through the appropriate process. Staff said vacant public buildings and institutional reuse already can proceed under the ordinance via special land use or O‑1/O‑1 equivalents, but agreed to clarify the language.

• Outdoor storage and salvage yards: Commissioners wanted explicit cross‑references to outdoor storage standards (screening, green belts, set‑backs) to ensure salvage yards and vehicle dismantlers must meet fencing, surfacing and environmental controls; staff agreed to insert the references and confirm relevant state environmental compliance obligations.

• Wireless facilities and shot clocks: The draft incorporates recent state and federal limits on review timelines and establishes administrative approval paths for routine collocations while reserving fuller reviews for larger or nonconforming proposals.

What’s next: Commissioners were assigned a homework task to review Article 13 and the permitted‑uses table, submit markups to staff before the next packet, and consider meeting with staff to walk through problem columns. Staff and the consultant will revise the draft to: reconcile the mixed‑use text and table, add clearer guardrails for administrative determinations or default to special land use for ambiguous cases, and add cross‑references for outdoor storage and other clarified standards. The commission will revisit the revised draft at a future meeting.

Quotes:
“As part of the RRC program, we do have direction to change obsolete zoning regulations,” staff member Terry said, summarizing why the city is rewriting definitions and tables.

“‘It gives that one person a lot of power,’” a committee member said of the proposed staff discretion to decide whether an unlisted use is sufficiently similar to a permitted use; several commissioners asked for more formal guardrails.

“The definitions, the chart—that table is probably the most important piece,” a member said, urging the group to spend time aligning the district text with the permitted‑uses table.

The commission took no final ordinance vote; only procedural motions were recorded (the motion to approve prior minutes failed; recess and adjournment motions passed). The commission expects revised drafts and a marked up permitted‑uses table in the next meeting packet.