Council seeks clearer, more transparent zoning framework after years of debate over large-scale proposals
Would alter path of future Sucette-like proposals if adopted
MANDEVILLE — Two interrelated zoning ordinances set for introduction by the City Council on January 8th would fundamentally change how major development proposals are brought before the public, requiring earlier council introduction, clearer limits on density calculations, and a single ordinance-driven review process from start to finish.
If enacted into law, the proposed ordinances would dramatically reshape how rezoning, conditional use permits, planned districts and mixed-use marina developments are evaluated, a shift that — had it been in place in 2023 — would likely have altered the timing, structure and public visibility of the Sucette Harbor application process.
The ordinances — 26-02 and 26-03 — are authored by Councilman-at-Large Jason Zuckerman and co-sponsored by District II Councilman Kevin Vogeltanz and are designed to work together. One focuses on how applications move through the city’s review process, while the other clarifies what land area may be counted when calculating density, units and parking in mixed-use developments.
Introduction is a procedural step required by law to notify the public that proposed ordinances are under consideration. No vote or discussion occurs at introduction; instead, the measures are published and will be scheduled for consideration and possible adoption at a later meeting.
Proposed Ordinance 26-02: Conditional use and planned district procedures
Ordinance 26-02 would amend the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance (CLURO) to restructure the procedural steps for rezoning, conditional use permits and planned district zoning. The changes are aimed at transparency and consistency rather than altering permitted uses.
Key elements include:
- Council-first introduction of applications. Requests for rezoning, conditional use permits and planned district zoning would begin with the formal introduction of a proposed ordinance at the City Council, rather than originating solely as an application before the Planning Commission.
- Applications framed as proposed ordinances. Each application reviewed by the Planning Commission would be required to include a draft ordinance detailing any rezoning requests, requested variances and development specifics, ensuring both bodies are reviewing the same document throughout the process.
- Clarified public notice requirements. Public notice for conditional use permits and planned district developments would explicitly follow the same standards used for zoning amendments.
- Limits on mid-process changes. Amendments or conditions proposed during Planning Commission review would not require restarting the process unless the original purpose of the proposed ordinance is fundamentally changed. Nothing in the proposal changes the fact that the Council may either agree or disagree with the Commission’s recommendations and may amend the ordinance as it sees fit without the need to restart the review process with the Planning Commission. The Council retains the authority to reject the proposed ordinance entirely, even if approval is recommended by the Planning Commission. Only if the actual purpose of the ordinance that was introduced, after amendments, no longer reflects the original intent of the ordinance that was advertised, would the process need to restart.
- Clarified role of Planning Commission recommendations. The ordinance would require the Planning Commission to transmit clear recommendations to the City Council, including any conditions it supports, but would not require the commission to draft or propose specific ordinance amendments. The commission may suggest modified language if it chooses, but final ordinance drafting would remain the responsibility of the City Council.
- Expanded application of supermajority voting rules. The ordinance would broaden existing four-fifths voting requirements to apply when proposed conditional uses or planned districts are adjacent to any residentially zoned property, rather than limiting the provision to single-family (R-1) neighborhoods, extending those protections to multifamily residential neighbors as well.
Proposed Ordinance 26-03: Mixed-use marina and planned district calculations
Ordinance 26-03 would amend definitions and development standards within marina and planned district zoning to clarify how site area, density and related calculations are performed for mixed-use projects.
Key elements include:
- Revised definition of ‘lot area.’ For properties with more than one proposed or permitted use, only the portion of the site designated for each specific use could be used when calculating density, building area and parking.
- Limits on density in marina districts. In both PM-1 (waterfront) and PM-2 (non-waterfront) Marina Districts, allowable units and building area would be calculated using only the land area assigned to each use, rather than the total acreage of a mixed-use site.
- Exclusion of water and flood-prone areas. Areas extending into Lake Pontchartrain or other water bodies, wetlands and land subject to periodic inundation would be excluded from lot-area and density calculations.
- Residential standards preserved. Residential portions of marina developments would continue to follow R-2 Two-Family Residential standards, preventing marina zoning from being used to increase residential density.
- Clarified limits on planned district flexibility. While planned districts may still allow flexibility in design standards, each individual use would be required to obtain its own conditional use approval and comply with use-specific site-area calculations.
- Uniform rules for combined-use developments. Parallel language would apply the same area-calculation rules across marina and planned district zoning to eliminate ambiguity.
How the ordinances work together
Taken together, the two measures align process and substance. Ordinance 26-02 restructures the review pathway so conditional use and planned district applications are introduced and tracked as ordinances from the outset. Ordinance 26-03 tightens how density and site area are calculated within that process, limiting the ability to use overall site size — including water or flood-prone areas — to increase development intensity.
Once introduced January 8th, both ordinances will be published and scheduled for future public hearings and council votes at a subsequent meeting or meetings.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 