Reynoldsburg planners outline broad zoning-code revisions; staff to return with draft language in May

The Reynoldsburg Planning and Zoning Board on Feb. 6 received a detailed briefing from city planning staff about a multimonth effort to update the municipal zoning code and asked staff to return in May with draft ordinance language.

Staff framed the session as an inventory of recurring variance requests and code ambiguities rather than a presentation of final proposals. “The intent of this meeting is not to throw zoning code language at you,” planning staff member Phoenix told the board, “it’s to say, hey, these are the things we want to look at.” The board did not take formal action on code changes at the meeting.

Why it matters: The list of topics staff plan to review — and present as proposed zoning amendments in May — covers items that influence day-to-day development approvals and long-range projects, including building and sign permits, parking layouts, lighting, and how larger redevelopment sites in the Innovation District may be regulated. Changes could reduce the need for frequent variance requests and clarify compliance for small businesses and large developers alike.

Most important details

- Scope and schedule: Staff said they reviewed variance cases from 2023–24 and will research options and bring concrete draft language to the board in May, followed by additional meetings before any formal amendment process.

- Variance summary: Staff reported 29 variance applications that reached the board in 2023–24: 15 concerned wall signs, three involved taller or larger monument signs, and six were building-setback requests. That review guided the list of topics staff want to examine.

- Topics staff will research: signage rules (including wall, monument and temporary signs, and signage for rear entrances in Old Reynoldsburg), how to treat EV chargers in the zoning code (including whether large multifamily or commercial developments should be required to provide chargers), parking standards and aisle widths, parking reductions near transit, lighting requirements for parking lots, accessory-structure definitions and design standards (porches, decks, storage containers), commercial design standards, land uses to be separated out (for example vape/smoke shops and tarot/palm-reading businesses), rules for townhomes and condominiums, treatment of large or multi-parcel “big sites” (setbacks and phased development), and special conditions on East Main Street where city easements frequently force setback variances.

- Innovation District and large-site issues: Staff noted that some code provisions presume buildings are placed adjacent to sidewalks; that assumption is impractical on larger, multi‑acre sites commonly found in the Innovation District and on recently annexed/serviced areas. Staff said the code may need acreage or site‑type triggers to allow flexibility for very large sites while preserving the city’s walkability goals.

- Parking and transit: Staff suggested exploring tiered parking requirements by use and building size (for example, lower ratios for some large industrial or high‑tech uses) and revising parking rules for multi‑tenant centers and clubhouses. They also discussed potential parking reductions tied to transit access as the city coordinates with COTA on future bus rapid transit stops at Taylor & Main and Eastwood.

- Lighting and safety: The code currently lacks explicit parking‑lot lighting requirements; staff proposed adding standards that balance safety (including visibility for accessible parking) with shielding to limit impacts on nearby residences. Foot‑candle limits at residential edges would be preserved, staff said.

- East Main Street easements: Staff warned that extensive, inconsistent city easements (sprinkler lines, walls, drainage) along East Main Street often force applicants to request setback variances; staff plan to map and propose code changes or guidance to address that reality.

- Administrative clarifications: Staff also proposed clarifying procedures for zoning‑certificate application review periods, nonconforming lots and structures, subdivision landscaping bonding, and stray definitions in the code that currently cause ambiguity in use interpretation.

Board feedback and next steps

Board members generally supported the direction to convert frequent variance topics into clearer code language, while urging care to avoid removing important protections or creating overly broad exemptions. Members raised practical concerns: phased development and the risk that a multi‑phase project could stall; how to handle rebranding requests for existing signage without undermining the sign code; and whether some small commercial strips (for example, narrow Bryce Road frontage lots roughly 70 feet wide) should be treated with an overlay so owners are not repeatedly subject to variance requests.

Staff commitments

Planning staff said they will: - Research comparative language used in other jurisdictions (including the City of Columbus EV ordinance staff cited as an example) and bring recommended code text back to the board in May. - Provide a tracking list of past variances on request so board members can see the cases that motivated proposed changes. - Continue coordination with COTA and the city engineer on how transit investments and right‑of‑way designs may intersect with zoning reforms.

No formal zoning amendments or votes were taken at the Feb. 6 workshop; staff emphasized the presentation was an early step in a multi‑meeting process that will include additional public review once draft ordinance language is prepared.

Ending

Staff encouraged board members to send additional items for review by email before the May meeting. The Planning and Zoning Board opened the session for further discussion and then adjourned at 7:22 p.m.