Oxford Village is proposing significant revisions to its zoning ordinance, including major changes to the zoning map, in an effort to simplify regulations and make them more user-friendly, while encouraging economic development and investment in the town.

But nothing is set in stone and before anything is approved, officials want to hear from the public.

“While the planning commission, the (village) economic development subcommittee and myself are confident that these are changes that will make the lives of our residents and businesses easier and promote investment, it’s a sweeping change,” said village Planner Chris Khorey, of the Northville-based McKenna Associates.

“It impacts, geographically, a big portion of the village. And we didn’t want to do it without getting as much input as we can.”

To that end, two public hearings are scheduled to take place before the village planning commission on Tuesday, April 4 and Tuesday, April 18. Both meetings will start at 7 p.m. and occur inside the village council chambers located in the municipal hall at 22 W. Burdick St.

“I anticipate, between the two public hearing, probably tweaking things,” Khorey noted. “We’re excited to hear from people and we would like to hear ideas. We want to hear the ways that you think this could be made better in order for our zoning to function as best it can for the village as a whole.”

“Our goal continues to be (to make things) simpler, easier (and) promote investment,” he added. “Whatever the final product ends up looking like, the intent will be that goal is maintained.”

The proposed zoning map (see Page 2) and ordinance text can be viewed at the village hall (22 W. Burdick St.) or on the municipality’s website www.thevillageofoxford.org.

Residential zoning changes

Under the current zoning ordinance, there are three single family residential zoning districts.

They are R-1 with its minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet and minimum lot width of 60 feet; R-2, where the minimum lot size is 9,600 square feet and minimum width is 80 feet; and R-3, which requires a 12,500-square-foot lot minimum with a width of at least 90 feet.

Officials are proposing to eliminate the R-2 and R-3 districts and rezone all those properties to R-1.

Khorey indicated most of the village’s single family properties are currently R-1.

“The majority of (the) Oxford Lakes (subdivision) is R-1. The historic core of the village is all R-1. The southern part of the village is all R-1,” he said. “So, I would say about 70 percent of homeowners aren’t seeing a change at all.”

The planner explained it was determined having three single family zoning districts is “unnecessarily complex” given the village is “small” and “built-out.”

“The number of lot splits and lot combinations that we have is very minimal,” Khorey said. “That’s why we’re kind of thinking there’s not really a purpose to any zoning district that requires larger lots. The larger lots are either already in place or there’s nonconforming lots that are too small.”

To Khorey, it makes sense to make everything R-1 because this district allows for the smallest lots.

“If we were to increase the minimum lot size, we’d be creating nonconforming lots, whereas if we consolidate everything down to what currently is the smallest minimum lot size, we’re eliminating nonconforming (lots),” Khorey continued. “The idea is we’re reducing the number of nonconforming lots by making (7,200 square feet) the across-the-board minimum for everybody,”

The proposed change from R-2 and R-3 to R-1 will have “very little” impact on the owners of single family properties, according to Khorey.

Under the proposed zoning ordinance revisions, changes are being considered with regard to the front, side and rear setbacks of residential structures, both principal and accessory buildings (see chart below).

It’s proposed to have a single list of setback requirements that applies to all R-1 zoning as opposed to the current system where R-1, R-2 and R-3 each have their own setback requirements.

“We’re at a point now where single family areas are single family areas and they can be treated more or less similarly, so that all of our homeowners are working under similar parameters,” Khorey said.

In all cases, the proposed setbacks for the new R-1 have either remained the same or been decreased. None of the proposed setbacks were increased.

Setbacks changes would primarily impact property owners seeking to construct garages and other accessory structures or build additions to their homes.

“If they do want to do that, what we’ve done is make it easier,” Khorey said.

Like everything else, these proposed setback changes are not set in stone.

“We want to be transparent. We want to have a real conversation about this,” Khorey said. “If it comes out that people in R-3 appreciate that extra space between them and their neighbor, we can obviously work with that. But the idea we’re going into this with is by making the setbacks consistent across the whole village and a little bit smaller than they are now, people (will) invest in their homes, expand, etc.”

Overall, Khorey views the proposed changes to single family zoning as beneficial to homeowners.

“I think the real positive impact that people will see is if they’re in a situation where their lot is too small or their existing setbacks are too small, hopefully, as we make this change, we’ll be able to pull some people in, so they are now conforming,” he said. “They won’t have that overarching label of ‘nonconforming’ that makes investing so hard (and) sometimes can make getting a mortgage hard, etc.”

Under the proposed revisions, the two multiple family zoning districts (RM-1 and RM-2) would be consolidated into a single RM district.

“The difference between the two is not substantial enough. We may as well just have one district,” Khorey said. “It’s not like we have two wildly different types of multi-family (zoning).”

Khorey noted right now, calculating the maximum density permitted in these multi-family districts is based on a “complicated formula” involving the number of bedrooms in each unit.

That was replaced with a simple 15 units-per-acre maximum, which applies everywhere except within the form-based boundary where there is no maximum if all other standards (building height, setbacks and unit sizes) are met.

Under the proposed RM zoning, the minimum unit size was changed from 1,300 square feet to 350 square feet for an efficiency, 500 square feet for a one-bedroom unit, 700 square feet for a two-bedroom unit and 200 square feet for each additional bedroom.

Khorey said those sizes are “consistent with Rochester and Lake Orion.”

No more Commercial Office (CO)

Officials are proposing to eliminate the Commercial Office (C-O) zoning district and rezone all those properties to Central Business District (C-1) Transition.

“The C-O district was created as a way to try to preserve the historic homes on North and South Washington (Street), north and south of the downtown,” Khorey explained. “Because it’s aimed at preservation, it’s very restrictive. It has a restrictive list of uses. It’s restrictive in terms of signage. It’s restrictive in terms of architectural standards.”

These restrictions have limited investment and redevelopment, “while also not being particularly effective at preserving those homes,” according to Khorey.

“Basically, it hasn’t really achieved what it set out to achieve when it was created,” he said. “It’s been an impediment more than it’s helped us.”

Rezoning C-O properties to C-1 Transition would expand the number of permitted uses.

“The C-1 Transition district allows a very broad mix of uses,” Khorey said. “We’ve actually broadened that in the zoning text. It allows retail. It allows apartments and condominiums. It allows mixed-use buildings where you combine those things. It allows office (space).”

“We’re hoping that by allowing that really broad mix, we can take an area that has a broad mix of building types . . . and allow the investment in that corridor to continue (to grow) because we have seen (some) investment,” he continued. “We’ve seen Genisys Credit Union. We’ve seen (Walton and) Becker (Eyecare). We’ve see investment at White House Village Shops. Making sure that investment continues and grows is really the goal here.”

But village officials aren’t planning to sacrifice local history for new investment.

In order to help protect historic homes and buildings along Washington St. from being torn down, as the C-O district originally intended, Khorey said “a special use protection” is among the proposed zoning ordinance changes.

“Basically, in order to do demolition, you have to have a special use permit, first,” he explained. “So, we do continue to have that goal of preserving those homes.”

The proposed revised ordinance contains a map depicting the “restricted demolition zone,” which encompasses “the village’s most treasured historic buildings.” Demolition of “any principal building” within this zone, requires special use approval.

“In determining whether to grant the special use, the planning commission must determine whether or not the proposed replacement . . . would contribute as much or more to the historic character, charm and walkability of the village as the building proposed to be demolished,” the ordinance states.

Say hello to Flex zoning

As part of the proposed zoning ordinance and map revisions, the village is seeking to create a new Flex (F) zoning district. It would consist entirely of the vacant land, currently zoned for multiple family residential use, located north of the Polly Ann Trail, in the northeast corner of the village, on the west and east sides of N. Glaspie St.

“Obviously, there’s been no development under (the current) zoning,” Khorey explained. “There was discussion of zoning it industrial, but we didn’t want to put industrial directly across the street from those single family homes (to the south).”

Instead of trying to figure out what the best use for the land could be, then making it part of a traditional zoning district, officials decided to let the free market help determine the property’s future, but still retain their veto power and the public’s right to comment and object.

Enter Flex zoning.

In this new district, almost any use permitted by the zoning ordinance would be allowed, but only after special use approval is granted by the planning commission. Special use approval requires a public hearing and the notification of all nearby residents.

The idea behind Flex zoning is to “open the door, while keeping control,” Khorey said. “It prohibits almost nothing, but it also does not permit anything by right, so everything is a special use.

“Anything that wants to come in there is going to be evaluated based on its impact on the surroundings. There would be a public hearing. The neighbors would be invited.”

Unlike traditional zoning, in Flex zoning, almost nothing is off the table when a developer first approaches the village with an idea.

“We would never start that conversation with, ‘no, you can’t’ because there is no ‘no, you can’t’ on that site,” Khorey said.

But what if other village properties want to become part of the Flex district?

Not to worry. Khorey said the revised zoning ordinance would specifically prohibit most of the village from being rezoned to Flex.

Other properties

At its March 21 meeting, planning commissioners voted 4-2 to include a few other properties among the potential rezonings.

These are individual pieces where the property owner and/or a developer is interested in altering the zoning, according to Khorey, and these changes “are all supported by the master plan.”

But again, that does not mean they’re a done deal.

“If neighbors, people who live near those properties, want additional conversations about them, I can’t speak for the planning commission, but I think there would be a willingness to pull them out (of this village-wide overhaul of the zoning map) and do them on their own,” Khorey said.

It’s proposed the Oxford Village municipal complex be rezoned from multiple family to C-1 Transition. Over the years, the village has been approached by developers about selling this property and voters did grant the municipal the authority to do so, if it chooses, in the November 2012 election.

“The C-1 Transition, because it allows a wider mix of uses, is thought to potentially increase the value (of the site),” Khorey said. “If there’s more interest from developers, that will hopefully make the property more valuable. Even the same developer may offer more for the property if it’s zoned C-1 Transition (rather) than just multiple family.”

It’s proposed the Oxford United Methodist Church, located at 21 E. Burdick St., be rezoned from single family residential (R-1) to C-1 Transition.

“That one’s pretty simple,” Khorey said. “They are completely surrounded by C-1 zoning or P-1 parking zoning . . . It’s really just a matter of making them consistent with their surroundings.”

The rear portions of 81 N. Washington St. (Oxford Farm & Garden) and 75 N. Washington St. (Dunlap Collision) are proposed to be rezoned from industrial (I-1) to C-1 Transition. The front portion of 81 N. Washington St. is currently zoned C-O, with a proposal to change it to C-1 Transition, while the front portion of 75 N. Washington St. is already C-1 Transition.

Khorey explained this proposed rezoning is once again a matter of consistency.

He noted Merge Studio & Gallery (33 Pleasant St.), which sits across the street from these industrial-zoned portions, is already zoned C-1 Transition. Plus, he doesn’t believe industrial zoning is compatible with the rest of Pleasant St., which is single family residential.

“I-1 zoning, by design, allows some pretty intense uses by right,” Khorey said. “I don’t think the neighbors would want heavy industrial there. Not that we have heavy industrial in the village, but even light manufacturing (would be) real intense with those type of family homes right there.”

Other proposed changes include rezoning 21-25 Dennison St. (two parcels) and 14-32 Davison St. (five parcels) from R-1 single family residential to C-1 Transition.