Council continues zoning review for 0 South Main Street after municipal planning split vote

Mount Vernon City Council on Jan. 27 gave a second reading to an ordinance proposing to rezone parcels at 0 South Main Street from R1A (core residential) to R3 (attached residential), but council did not make a final decision and asked the law director to continue researching the procedural record.

At municipal planning, officials said, only four commissioners were present and the vote split 2–2, which the law director said created no formal recommendation to council. The law director reported he had researched the statute and conferred with other zoning lawyers and concluded the municipal planning commission had reviewed the application but issued no recommendation; council therefore received the matter without a recommendation and has the authority to act.

The requested zoning change would move the property from R1A—“intended to encourage creation and preservation of higher density single family residential neighborhoods” with a 35-foot maximum height—to R3, an attached residential district that permits medium-density residential development, including multi‑family housing, with a higher maximum height (noted as 45 feet in materials), higher lot coverage (50% in R3 vs. 40% in R1A) and different minimum lot sizes for multi‑unit dwellings. Council members emphasized that the discussion so far has been conceptual; no site design or formal development plan had been submitted.

Council members raised two procedural options: (1) accept the transfer from municipal planning without a recommendation and proceed with public hearing and readings, or (2) remand the matter back to the Municipal Planning Commission for reconsideration with a fully staffed commission to produce a formal recommendation. The law director said he would query the Municipal Attorneys Association for precedent and continue legal research before council’s third reading. Public notice requirements were noted: a public hearing is scheduled for the second meeting in February to meet a 30‑day notice requirement.

Councilmember discussion included neighborhood context—commercial uses nearby (Pepe’s Pizza) versus surrounding R1 homes—and questions about conditional uses permitted in R3 (the law director explained that under the new zoning code conditional uses are decided by municipal planning and not by council). Council agreed to proceed with a second reading that night and to reassess after the law director’s further research; a third reading will be postponed to allow a public hearing and possible legal follow-up.

Votes at a glance: Ordinance 2025-01 — Received second reading; no final vote on rezoning. Council scheduled a public hearing for the second meeting in February and the law director will report back on procedural options and precedent.