Planning commission urges council to adopt comprehensive plan, seek first chance on parish land and pause new development pending zoning rewrite

The North College Hill planning commission told city council at a special meeting that it wants the council to formally adopt the city'wide comprehensive master plan and to take immediate, discrete steps to protect the city'scale choices the plan is meant to guide.

The planning commission presented four prioritized recommendations, the group said: formal adoption of the comprehensive master plan; a request for a right of first refusal on several large parish-owned properties; a temporary moratorium on commencement of new construction or development while the zoning code is reviewed; and funding and legal review to rewrite the zoning code. The commission also described an outreach effort called Motion NCH to build neighborhood engagement and small local grants to spur citizen-led projects.

"We recommend adoption of the North College Hill comprehensive plan," Andrea Brooks, a member of the planning commission, told council. Brooks and other commissioners said the plan is a high-level "stick figure" intended to set a long-range direction rather than to prescribe immediate, detailed projects.

Why it matters: commissioners and council members said the city has lost potential private investment because it lacks an adopted plan. The planning commission reported hearing from local investors who are reluctant to commit to multi-million-dollar projects if the city has not adopted a master plan that signals long-term direction. The commission said adopting the plan would allow the city to prioritize actions, defend zoning decisions and communicate a clear vision to property owners and developers.

The request for right of first refusal singled out St. Margaret Mary parish and three other parcels that the commission said could materially affect the city's future if sold. The commission asked council to notify the diocesan process that the city wants an opportunity to discuss acquisition before any sale.

Commissioners urged a temporary moratorium on all new commencements of construction or changes of use that would start after a moratorium'effective date. The moratorium, they said, would not apply to projects already "in the pipeline" (projects for which applicants have already made contact with the building, planning or zoning departments or where approvals are already pending). Council members pressed the commission for clarity on the word "temporary" and on potential harm to small businesses; commission members said the intent is a pause to ensure new development conforms to the updated code and community priorities, not to block projects already underway.

The commission recommended hiring planning and legal professionals to rewrite the zoning code. Commissioners described several code tools, including form-based overlays and planned-unit development (PUD) districts, that could be used to shape future development. They also said Hamilton County's new-model zoning program could help: the program offers a "model zoning code" and technical support for communities with outdated zoning.

Motion NCH, the commission said, is a community engagement push that has held three meetings so far and has secured a $3,500 seed grant to support convening and small citizen initiatives. The commission described an early pilot grant pool of up to $300 per citizen-led initiative to help residents launch neighborhood projects tied to the plan's goals.

Council response and next steps: council members said the plan is detailed and can feel overwhelming. Several asked whether council should create a subcommittee to review and recommend a path to adoption. "Once that is approved overall, then we go back and say, okay, what about this piece?" the planning commission said, urging a layered approach: adopt the high-level plan first, then sequence code and funding decisions.

The commission referenced a letter to council dated March 13, 2024, and told members the planning commission will meet again with council or with a council subcommittee as requested. Commissioners noted that the plan is a living document and referenced a July date on the material as an internal timeline marker.

Proposed actions recorded at the meeting included acceptance of tonight's meeting agenda (motion passed 7-0) and an adjournment later in the session (motion passed 7-0). The planning commission stated its recommendations for council consideration; the council did not adopt the comprehensive plan at this meeting but discussed forming a subcommittee and scheduling follow-up meetings to consider formal adoption, moratorium language, and the zoning rewrite process.

Ending: Council did not take final action on the plan at the special meeting; commissioners left the meeting urging council to approve the plan as a starting framework and to authorize the technical and legal work needed to implement its zoning recommendations.