MOUNT VERNON — Variances for porch additions, fence height, and accessory buildings are a few of the zoning issues the city routinely faces.
Now, with several developers interested in building multi-family housing units, planners and zoning officials are examining the city’s zoning code.
To address these issues and create a vision for growth, the city asked Compass Point Planning to do a zoning audit. Wendy Moeller, founder of the Cincinnati-based company, will lead the audit.
“[Wendy] has been doing similar work on behalf of the Area Development Foundation for the villages around the county. It seemed logical, since we all know we need some updates, for her to do an audit for us,” Safety-service Director Richard Dzik explained to council members at a special meeting on March 7.
Moeller met with the city administration earlier for a preliminary discussion. Monday’s meeting was to get city council and zoning officials’ input.
Councilman Mike Hillier’s concerns included Airbnbs, transition housing, and outbuildings and setbacks. Councilman John Francis noted spot zoning as an issue.
“Do we want to look at that and try to clean that up to remove some of the commercial islands out of larger portions of residential?” he asked.
Michael Percy, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals, cited older neighborhoods vs. newer neighborhoods.
“Ninety percent of what we do at BZA is older neighborhoods,” he said. “Have other communities looked at this and said this is the code for these [neighborhoods], and this is the code for the rest of the city?”
Acknowledging that R1 and R2 zoning does not necessarily reflect what exists, Moeller said the city could look at existing zoning districts and tailor the code to fit the smaller lots of older neighborhoods.
“The concerns I hear … it’s more about appearance,” said BZA member Don Carr. “What is our vision for what Mount Vernon is going to look like in 20 years? What we look like today is what they started back in 1973 with our code.
“I don’t necessarily feel that we should water down the code,” he continued. “Maybe having two codes for different parts of the city would be fine, but I think we have to have a development standard for what an R1 lot looks like, whether it comes today or 10 years from now.”
Noting that accessory buildings should be subordinate in size to the house, Carr said city code seems to favor larger buildings than what people want to see. He also said many residents prefer a privacy fence in the back yard with side yards unencumbered.
“The front yards and side yards are what Mount Vernon will look like,” he said.
Moeller agreed that accessory buildings and fencing are frequent concerns. She also added home occupations and vehicle parking as issues.
Several people noted that newer code is not compatible with building on empty lots, tearing down a structure and rebuilding, or rebuilding in the event of a disaster such as a fire. In addition, Lacie Blankenhorn, development services manager for the city, mentioned historic homes.
“We have no development standards for the Historical Review Commission,” she said. “It just depends on who’s on the commission at the time and what they want to push. So we have people who want to do something, and I say drive around and look because we have no regulations.”
Moeller said the code could include infill compatibility standards. Compatibility standards mean the structure has to fit in with 90% of surrounding structures, thus keeping the streetscape consistent with nearby homes.
“I think a standard like that would really help us target lots that we have in the city. Infill standards will help us match what’s there,” Law Director Rob Broeren said.
Moeller said the caveat about zoning is enforcement.
“Everybody says we want to make sure we have an enforceable code, but nobody has the perfect amount of resources to actively go out and enforce, even the folks I know who have full-time zoning inspectors,” she said. “But you always want to have some teeth if someone goes across some line.”
Moeller cautioned that updating the code will not solve 100% of the problems. Citing dog houses, outdoor kitchens, and lending/free libraries as examples of nontraditional accessory buildings that have evolved, she said, “You have to draw a line at some point as to what you will regulate.”
Family members living in accessory units, attached or detached, is another consideration. These units increase density without an increase in structures.
However, the code has to define what constitutes a family member. Councilman Hillier noted that the number of people and cars — and the affect they have on the neighborhood — also needs consideration.
“Make sure your updated code deals with the important things, recognizing evolution,” Moeller said.
Regarding writing code to control future development, Moeller said it goes back to the city’s vision. Signs, appearance, architectural elements but not color, and landscaping are a few topics the city could address. She cautioned against having too many regulations because then everything would look identical.
The city’s original code was written in the mid-1970s. The current code, written in 1989, had a significant rewrite in 1996.
Moeller will take the comments from Monday’s meeting and create a draft audit. The audit, which will cost the city $4,500, will include an analysis of what is good in the code, recommendations, and an outline of how to proceed. She anticipates getting it to city officials by March 25.
