City planner Kelly Schroeder briefed Sheridan City Council on Jan. 27, 2025, on the M1/M2 zoning code update process and two draft approaches developed after more than a year of public outreach and consultant work with Ayers Associates.

Schroeder said the existing M1 district dates to 1948 and currently allows most uses by right while listing about 13 special-review uses. The planning process included an open house, property-owner mailings and a jointly held study session with the Planning Commission; Planning Commission recommended tabling the ordinance and suggested several amendments before council action.

Schroeder presented two options for council direction. Option 1 would create a clearer distinction by restricting single-family residential development in M1, moving outdoor storage to M1 as a permitted use, and establishing an M2 district where light industrial uses would be permitted by right and heavy industrial uses would require Board of Adjustment (BOA) approval. Option 1 also includes a city-initiated rezone program to offer qualified M1 property owners an opportunity, at city expense, to rezone to M2 or to a residential district.

Option 2 is narrower: it would leave single-family residential in M1 intact, add heavy industrial uses to the M1 special-exemption list (so heavy industrial uses would need BOA approval in M1), and create an M2 district that allows both light and heavy industrial uses by right. Under Option 2 the city would not offer a city-initiated rezone process because it makes fewer changes to existing M1 property rights.

Council discussion focused on the disputed single-family restriction, public notice and the mechanics and cost of a city-initiated rezone. Schroeder estimated roughly 15 M1 properties might qualify for a city-initiated rezone and said hiring a surveyor to prepare exhibits could cost about $3,000 per property — roughly $45,000 total — to be paid from professional services budgets if the council approved that path.

Several council members said the single-family restriction was the main public concern; multiple councilors expressed preference for Option 2 or for a variant of Option 1 that does not prohibit single-family homes. Council members asked whether certain undesirable uses (for example, adult-oriented businesses) could be prohibited outright; staff replied those uses are governed by other sections of the city code and could be addressed separately.

Schroeder described an optimistic timeline for ordinance adoption under either option, with Planning Commission public hearing as early as Feb. 10 and final council readings by mid-March if the council expedited review; she cautioned the schedule is optimistic and could be extended.

Council did not take a final vote on a zoning ordinance at the study session. Several council members indicated informal support for Option 2 and directed staff to continue outreach and to return with revised drafts and public-notice materials. Planning staff will notify affected property owners and examine next steps to reconcile feedback before formal readings.