Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kettering holds public hearing on zoning text amendment to clarify pattern-district reclassifications
Summary
City planner Ryan Holmes presented a zoning text amendment that would add criteria and definitions to guide reclassification of pattern districts; the planning commission recommended approval and no members of the public spoke. Council will take the matter under advisement and consider legislation at a future meeting.
Kettering City Council opened a public hearing Dec. 3 on Planning Commission case 24-012, a zoning text amendment intended to provide clearer staff and commission criteria for reclassifying pattern districts.
City planner Ryan Holmes told council the amendment modifies Chapter 1153 (pattern district reclassifications) and Chapter 1159 (definitions). He said the change “is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things” but would add specific criteria for when staff and the planning commission should recommend reclassifying areas such as town-center and neighborhood-center pattern districts and would add definitions for terms including “commercial node” and “walkability.” Holmes said the amendment is aimed at preventing redesignations that would lower architectural standards in established business districts.
Holmes used examples of Kettering’s town-center areas, noting concentrations of commercial activity at Town and Country and the Stroop and Marshall intersection, and reminded council that the pattern district map adopted in 2015 identified areas intended to promote walkable, well-connected development. He told council the amendment would not change the zoning standards that govern land use and lot standards, but would change how the city evaluates requests to change a property’s pattern-district designation, especially when converting commercial or industrial architecture toward residential pattern districts.
The planning commission held hearings on the item on Oct. 16 and Oct. 21 and recommended approval; Holmes said staff would make the planning commission’s certification packet part of the record. Council opened the meeting for public comment and asked for speakers in favor and opposed; none came forward. Mayor closed the public hearing and said council would take the matter under advisement and consider legislation at a future meeting.
Because the hearing produced no public testimony and no council action on the amendment tonight, the next procedural step is a future council meeting at which legislation to adopt or reject the amendment will be scheduled.
