MOUNT VERNON — In an effort to clean up, streamline, and modernize the city’s zoning code, administration officials asked Compass Point Planning to do a zoning audit. The catalyst behind the audit is developer interest and anticipated growth in the city.
Wendy Moeller, founder of the Cincinnati-based company, presented the audit results to Mount Vernon City Council in a special Planning and Zoning Committee meeting on Monday. The audit identifies four major themes:
•Reorganize and reformat the regulations to improve usability
•Streamline and clarify the procedures for development
•Restructure the district and use regulations
•Modernize the substantive standards of the regulations
The audit cost $4,500. Safety-service Director Richard Dzik is seeking grant money to fund the work of revising the code. If the city does not receive a grant, Dzik will consult with Auditor Terry Scott to see if there is money in the budget.
Council members voiced no objection to moving forward with the revision. As the city moves through the process, the community will have a chance to provide input through public hearings.
Reorganize and reformat the regulations to improve usability
Moeller recommends taking the information in three separate current sections — planning, subdivision regulations, and zoning — and consolidating them into one section titled Planning and Zoning Code. Individual functions — such as administration, zoning districts, and development standards — will become 14 chapters in the section.
Moeller also suggested eliminating submittal requirements and fees and making them checklists outside of the code. Removing these details makes it easier to handle future changes. Currently, if a requirement or fee changes, council has to formally amend the code.
Other recommendations include a detailed Table of Contents, page numbers, cross-referencing, the addition of illustrations, graphics, and flow charts.
Streamline and clarify the procedures for development
This section deals with the procedural process. Moeller noted that the city has some “pretty streamlined procedures” but said clear review criteria is missing. She said that including specifics as to what the respective board/commission is looking for, as well as incorporating complete application requirements, prevents “designing at the podium.” In other words, this lets individuals know exactly what is needed and ensures an application is complete before it ever comes before a board or commission.
Moeller suggested adding two new procedures: an administrative waiver and alternative equivalency.
The administrative review waiver allows staff to approve a minor variance, up to 10% or 20%, for a set of limited standards such as setbacks or building a deck or fence. This saves the property owner the time and expense of going before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
“You can’t use this to circumvent historical review,” she said. “[A waiver] is not granted simply by asking for it; there has to be extenuating circumstances.”
BZA member Michael Percy said he supports the waiver “with clear guidelines.”
“The problem is, past administrations used an administrative waiver when we didn’t even have them,” he said.
Moeller calls the alternative equivalency review a “positive variance” typically reserved for criteria relating to design principles. An example is using public art as a landscaping buffer around a parking lot rather than requiring a fence. Using modern materials that give the same look as wood, for example, would satisfy a historical equivalency requirement.
“You can exceed what you are trying to achieve with the standard using alternative methods or materials,” she said.
Modifying and clarifying subdivision review procedures is also in this section. Moeller recommends establishing a straightforward review procedure for minor subdivisions vs major subdivisions with administrative review of minor subdivisions.
Another change is holding a public meeting for a plat review rather than a public hearing. However, if an applicant wants to modify subdivision standards, that should go before a public hearing with appropriate notification to neighbors.
Restructure the district and use regulations
This section involves evaluating the existing zoning district structure (number and types of districts), where and how uses are allowed, and the specific standards that apply to those districts and uses.
“Part of it is adding new districts; part of it is looking at current uses for your districts,” Moeller said.
Recommendations include eliminating three districts:
•ER District (estate residential) as it does not appear on the zoning map and the RR District (rural residential) fulfills the same low-density goal
•Special Districts because that section merely references other districts
•TOC District (traffic-oriented commercial) incorporate this into the General Business District
Moeller said the city should consider establishing a new R1-A (R-1 is single-family residential) with a minimum lot size of 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. Owners of these smaller lots are typically the ones who have to apply to the BZA for variances for accessory buildings or setbacks.
“There are a lot of lots that do not meet the current code size,” she said. “I think [R1-A] encourages people who have those smaller lots to invest in their properties.”
The R1-A only applies to pre-existing lots. Once an updated code is approved, this designation is closed for new development.
She also recommended combining the PND (planned neighborhood) and PCDD (planned commercial development) districts into one Planned Development District with a specific development standards for each. This section also needs more specific definitions, review procedures and criteria, and standards.
Relating to PND and R-3 (multi-family), Moeller suggested the city consider adding “permitted uses” such as rowhouses, apartment houses, and apartment buildings. This still accommodates multi-family units while affording the opportunity for different design elements.
Similarly, with single-family units, a permitted use table allows for different housing styles such as cottage court developments, tiny homes, or clustered housing. The city could also allow this type of development as a conditional use or for a PND.
Other recommendations include the following:
•Rename OI (office institutional) to OB District (office business) to reflect that business is more the intended nature of the district
•Add a new R4 District (multi-family) that accommodates a higher density without exceeding limits such as three stories in height.
•Determine regulation of AirBnBs and other short-term rentals.
•Create standards for accessory such as solar panels and urban agriculture such as beekeeping, community gardens, and small livestock
•Update standards for accessory uses such as donation/blessing boxes, outdoor dining, and outdoor storage.
•Clearly identify conditional uses.
Modernize the substantive standards of the regulations
This section involves updating standards for areas such as signs, parking, green infrastructure, and infill compatibility. Recommendations include strengthening and expanding development standards in the following areas:
•Landscaping and buffering
•Eliminate or reduce floor area requirements to encourage housing
•Parking, including access
•Signage
•Adding new standards for infill compatibility, architecture, and green infrastructure
