Planning commission recommends rezoning on South Main to allow multiunit apartments

The Mount Vernon Municipal Planning Commission voted 5-0 on March 13 to recommend that City Council rezone four parcels along South Main Street between Parrot and Adamson streets from R‑1A to R‑3, a change that the applicant said would allow multiunit apartment buildings of up to eight units on the roughly three‑quarter‑acre site.

Applicant Joe Updike, who said he plans to transfer the property to a management entity before development, told the commission the site “is roughly about 3 quarters of an acre” and that “8 units are the max that will possibly fit on that property.” He said the parcels are served by sewer, water and electric and that, while R‑3 permits a 45‑foot height limit, the layout and parking requirements would keep any building closer to 20–25 feet tall.

The rezoning drew questions from commissioners and the public about driveway access, the effect of a future sale, and whether R‑3 would allow uses beyond the applicant’s plan. City engineer Mr. Ball said the site “has sewer, water, storm water access” and added that the city does not want new driveways onto South Main Street. City legal counsel Mr. Bridal noted a distinction staff had raised earlier: “R‑4 specifically talks about being a buffer area between different types of zoning. R‑3 does not contain that same language.”

First Ward councilman Shay Mahan, speaking in the public‑comment period, asked commissioners to explain their rationale for votes when the rezoning goes to City Council: “as you vote, it would be very helpful to members of council to articulate, why you were voting yes or no.” Resident Mel Severns asked why a site plan is not required for R‑3; a planning staff member replied that R‑3 zoning triggers zoning review and a site plan is submitted at the time of a zoning permit rather than as part of Municipal Planning Commission review.

Commissioners debated the tradeoffs of R‑3 versus keeping R‑1A. Supporters said R‑3 would likely limit density in practice because parking requirements constrain how many units can fit on the irregularly shaped lot; one commissioner noted that converting the parcels to R‑3 could be preferable to allowing multiple single‑family lots with separate driveways onto South Main. Others cited the applicant’s limited development experience, the lack of a site plan and uncertainty about future owners as reasons for caution.

After discussion the commission took a motion to recommend approval to City Council. The roll call recorded affirmative votes from Mayor Starr, Mr. Sawyers, Missus Elsberg, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Swallow. The commission recorded no votes against and no abstentions.

The commission’s action is advisory; the rezoning will next appear on a City Council agenda. If City Council approves the change, the property would carry R‑3 zoning and future development would proceed under R‑3 standards and any applicable permitting rules, including parking and setback requirements in the city zoning code.