Amidst sometimes spirited debate, the Bowling Green Planning Commission on Wednesday continued their review of the city’s draft zoning code update.
The commission voted to recommend that council accept the draft zoning map as proposed, including a Pedestrian Resaidential zoning district which has drawn concerns from some residents.
Work on revising a zoning code from the 1970s has been ongoing. The city held a series of presentations by the Cincinnati-based firm ZoneCo, which was contracted to revamp the code, in October, February and June. Wednesday’s meeting marked the third meeting of the planning commission focused on reviewing the draft zoning code.
The Pedestrian Residential district is a neighborhood area located in a rough donut around the downtown. The proposed area is bordered by Poe Road to the north, Napoleon Road to the south, and on the east largely by Enterprise Street. To the west, it is substantially bordered by Maple Street, but it also extends to include portions along Eberly and Gorrell avenues.
The Pedestrian Residential district would allow some businesses to operate within that neighborhood district.
Fern Larking Kao asked why homeowners in the proposed area hadn’t received letters explaining the potential zoning.
“Are they not going to know about it until you finish passing it?” she asked.
David Wilson said if this is approved, he would pursue action.
“We citizens of BG of many years, and most born and raised here, moved and invested in this R-2 district for what it was and is,” he said, reading a statement. “You may have plans to impart your forced will and compliance on us, or force us to leave and take our city and school tax money with us.
“If you approve of such a plan, we the citizens/residents may need to take action to force the city to a referendum and take it to a vote by the district’s taxpaying citizens/residents/property owners at the city’s expense of time, money and public exposure of your actions and proclivities.”
“We take great pride in our property,” said Peg Baker. “And as I walk the neighborhood, I don’t understand why you’re changing the zoning. I do not understand it at all. Does someone own a lot of property in the area that you have highlighted to change?
“We have businesses already around there,” she continued, “so I don’t understand the rationale.”
“There’s no ulterior motive here with some large landowner or builder that’s pushing us,” said commission Chair Bob McOmber. He said it is a modern movement to incorporate small businesses into neighborhood settings.
“I think that some of the comments I’ve heard from yourself and other folks in the area presume that if any business were to open up in a neighborhood setting, that that’s bad things for the neighborhood,” McOmber said.
“If we thought that opening any business in a neighborhood would be a bad thing, then I think we would throw the whole thing out and start over again,” he said. “The sentiment here, I think, on our part is a properly controlled environment that small businesses can be an asset for the neighborhood” and increase property values.
“It’s not something that we just came up with, city officials came up with as a hare-brained idea in the last six months,” McOmber said, noting the idea has been in the making for years, with planning document discussing it since 2014. “This is a natural result of those conversations.”
Wilson said that the businesses already in the area have been there for many years.
“Communities change and evolve over time. We did have some of these little businesses in this district,” said commission member Wil Airhart. “I know I’m optimistic that as long as we do this carefully … it is going to look a little bit different five or 10 years from now than it does today.
“We just have to be careful and intentional about it and not pretend that the way it is today is the way it always was and the way it always should be.”
Member Erica Sleek proposed that the Pedestrian Residential district be removed, and changed to R-2 residential zoning.
“It’s already what we need it to be,” Sleek said.
“I think we can address this in other ways than changing it,” said member Abhishek Bhati.
One way would be to allow residents to have a say in what businesses are allowed in that area, he said.
Member Mark Remeis said that there is support for a Pedestrian Residential district.
“In these meetings,” he said, “I think it’s fair to say that there are individuals that live in these neighborhoods now that like walking to a bar or a barbershop or their local law firm. They like it. Just because we haven’t heard from them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
“It’s very common in these types of situations, when somebody agrees with a new law or a new piece of the code, they don’t come to tell us they agree with it,” Remeis said. “I don’t believe that everybody that lives there wants to not have it as PR.”
Sleek agreed that people might not come and tell them if they’re agreeable.
However, she said, “I’m listening to the community and I’m trying to understand why we can’t make some kind of a compromise.”
Sleek suggested designation two blocks designated as Pedestrian Residential district.
McOmber suggested truncating the district on the west at Maple Street, excluding Gorrell and Eberly Avenues. He said that would make the east and west sides of more even.
“It is something that made sense to me that I’m just putting out there for the rest of you to consider and comment on. I’m not making a motion at this point,” he said.
McOmber asked if anyone wished to make a motion. Airhart moved to recommend to council the proposed zoning map as it is.
The motion passed 7-1, with Sleek voting against.
Among other recommendations, the commission:
• Voted unanimously to recommend that council consider whether any additional camouflaging or similar disguising of telecommunications antenna is warranted, under section 150.66 of the proposed code.
• Sought to clarify section 150.98, which deals with the ability of, and criteria used by, the planning director to approve conditional uses. Airhart and Bhati said they would prepare language for review at the next meeting adding quality of life as a factor to consider, as well as clarifying whether it is within the discretion of the planning director whether to approve a conditional use which meets all of the criteria.
• Voted unanimously to recommend that council amend Section 150.54 (d) of the proposed code, adding a portion to its first sentence, so that it reads “A home occupation shall not cause significant increases in traffic volumes on the street fronted by the home occupation by persons other than the person occupying the home.” The change was suggested by Remeis out of concerns that it may affect residents working as drivers for ride-sharing or delivery services.
• Voted unanimously to recommend changing the height limit for accessory dwelling units from 18 feet to 25 feet. An ADU is essentially an additional unattached structure on an owner-occupied property where an individual can live, frequently a child who has moved back home, or an elderly parent. The change was made in order to accommodate ADUs which, for instance, might be located on the second story of a garage.
• Voted 7-1 to recommend renaming the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning district Limited Commercial Zoning. Airhart voted against the proposal. McOmber proposed the change, saying that some have confused the zoning with the Pedestrian Residential district.
