[0:06] [clears throat] miles.

[0:08] » We're all set to go, Bob. >> The hot.

[0:11] » Yeah, >> we all set. All right, great. Like to

[0:14] welcome everybody to the uh planning commission for the 2nd of September,

[0:20] 2026. Uh I guess the first item is uh roll

[0:25] call. [clears throat] >> All right, Mr. body

[0:29] » here. >> Miss Broadwell

[0:31] » here. >> Miss Denbo

[0:33] » here. >> Miss Andis

[0:35] » Yes. here. >> Mr. McComereber

[0:37] » here. [clears throat] >> Mr. Phillips

[0:39] » here. >> Mr. Reis

[0:40] » here. >> Mr. Stalter

[0:42] » here. Mr. Wadd >> here.

[0:46] The second item is the approval of minutes for the August 5th, 2026

[0:51] meeting. Does anybody have any corrections or

[0:56] other issues? Hearing none. Is there a move to

[1:01] approve? >> So moved.

[1:04] » Second. >> Second.

[1:07] » Do we need to

[1:11] call it anyway? >> All right.

[1:13] » So, everyone approved by voice vote. Yes.

[1:16] » Yes. Yes. >> Thank you very much.

[1:19] » Third item on the agenda is lobby visitation. Uh before we open anything

[1:25] up there, I would like to uh remind everyone that there is a signin sheet.

[1:30] So if you do in fact want to come up and speak uh in front of the commission,

[1:34] please make sure that you sign in. Uh we'd appreciate that. With that in mind,

[1:40] is there anyone who would like to come up and address the commission today

[1:44] about anything uh else that is not on the agenda?

[1:54] Seeing none, I guess we'll go to the next item.

[1:58] Okay, we have a public hearing this evening on the reszoning requests for

[2:04] 0.238 238 plus or minus acres located at 903 North Main Street identified as

[2:11] parcel numbers B 08 510 2 4 020

[2:19] 03300 0 and B 08

[2:25] 51024203

[2:31] 400 0 from pedestrian residential to medium

[2:37] density residential R2 zoning classification. James Smith is the

[2:42] applicant and property owner. Uh just wanted to read this quickly uh

[2:48] from the city here. Uh the purpose of the public hearing a public hearing is a

[2:53] meeting that provides the opportunity for public discussion regarding

[2:56] petitions for reasonzoning, annexation, variance and special use. Today the

[3:02] issue is uh as we just read uh interested parties may express their

[3:08] views and submit evidence supporting those views at the public hearing. The

[3:13] information shared will become part of the city's permanent record of the

[3:17] meeting and may be used by the planning commission in forming its conclusions

[3:21] and making recommendations to the city council. The planning commission is

[3:26] charged with conducting a fair and impartial factf finding hearing.

[3:31] Accordingly, commissioners must remain open-minded, objective, and impartial in

[3:37] considering testimony and forming a decision. Okay? So, there's four parts

[3:42] to the public hearing. The first is the staff report and then the applicant's

[3:47] testimony and then public testimony and then finally deliberation by the

[3:53] commissioners. So with that, Heather, if we could have the staff report, we'd

[3:59] appreciate it. >> Absolutely. So, of course, the staff

[4:01] report is part of your packet. Um the applicant, James Smith, is also the

[4:05] property owner. The reasoning request is for pedestrian residential to be changed

[4:10] to R2 [clears throat] medium density residential at 903 North Main Street,

[4:14] which is comprised of two parcels. One parcel is 48 ft by 150 ft. Um then the

[4:20] other one is 24 ft by 150 ft. All the procedural requirements for the

[4:26] hearing have been met under section 150.111 of the ordinances. That includes

[4:32] posting a sign on the property along with uh posting in the public hearing in

[4:36] a newspaper of general circulation and notifying all the adjoining property

[4:40] owners. The present use of the property, it's been had an existing structure and

[4:44] a garage that's been vacant per our file for many years. Uh proposed use

[4:49] according to the application is the property owner would like to use the

[4:51] structure as a duplex home with an upper and lower unit. Uh as you can tell I

[4:56] gave you quite a bit of a history that I could find from our records. So we

[5:00] believe the residence was at least built prior to 1915 since we did find the

[5:05] dwelling on a January 1915 Sanborn Insurance map. Um, that's a

[5:11] rabbit hole in itself that I don't need to go much further into, but um, at

[5:14] least we know it was built prior to 1915 at least. Um, making it at least 111

[5:20] years old. Uh, still has some historic architectural features left, including

[5:24] the original foundation and twotory curve bay windows, for example.

[5:28] According to the application, the under the rationale for the zoning request was

[5:32] that it has always been used as a duplex. Uh, however, city records

[5:36] indicate the legal use as a single unit dwelling. And I gave you a memo from the

[5:42] file titled exhibit C. While it may have been used as a two-unit dwelling in the

[5:47] past for or for a short time, once the use became a single unit dwelling, it no

[5:50] longer was considered a legal non-conforming use per the city records.

[5:54] And I give you a copy of nonconformities section 150.85 through 89 in our zoning

[6:00] code. Um, we also did some additional research just to make sure we were

[6:03] crossing all our tees and dotting our eyes. Uh, we looked at the utility

[6:07] business office, the utility accounts. there is only one electric meter and one

[6:10] water meter to the site. Um we also found a note that the pipes had burst in

[6:15] 2022. Uh we also checked with public works

[6:18] department and they didn't have any record of it being a duplex. They only

[6:21] charge for one can there. Normally a duplex will have a can for each unit. Uh

[6:26] we also looked at the wood county auditor website and found that the

[6:29] property was used as a single family dwelling for at least property taxation

[6:33] purposes. Um, again, that letter that I gave you, exhibit C from March 2nd,

[6:40] 1994, gives a pretty in-depth look at the property being used as single unit

[6:44] dwelling, uh, including mentioning the long-term residents, Clyde and Hazel

[6:49] Ursel, who lived there at least from the 1920s to 1970s. Uh there also was a note

[6:55] that they had added a kitchen to the upstairs for visiting relatives and did

[6:58] rent it for a short time, but didn't really it didn't really appeal to them

[7:02] to continue to rent after that one time. Again, it's all per that memo I gave

[7:06] you. Uh we also had another zoning code

[7:10] enforcement officer later on have a memo in the file that talked about it uh the

[7:15] property being used as a duplex with a contractor. uh the contractor had been

[7:19] inquiring about it and our code enforcement officer told them or

[7:23] reminded them that they could not use a duplex at that point in time and that

[7:25] was in 2024. Um we also had other documentation in the file uh basically

[7:31] one zoning permit dated April 28th of 1995 which changed the pitch of the roof

[7:36] on the detached garage. We gave you a copy of that. Uh we also have a couple

[7:40] of violation notices from the Wood County Health Department to repair,

[7:43] replace the deteriorating second level porch and porch roof, including all

[7:47] structural components, walking services, means of egress, and required protective

[7:52] railings, handrails to ensure the porch is safe, weather resistant, capable of

[7:55] supporting normal loads, and provides a safe and unobstructed means of egress in

[8:00] compliance with sections 400.08 through10. And that's exhibit J. We also

[8:07] gave you a copy of the current zoning classification of PR. So you can see the

[8:11] minimum lot depth with front yard setback, sideyard, rear yard, structure

[8:15] height, lot coverage. And then we gave you a copy of the proposed R2 with the

[8:20] same zone standards to give you an example. Uh as far as traffic, nothing

[8:24] would change or has been requested. So nothing [clears throat] needs to be

[8:28] followed per our access management policies and guidelines. Uh, as far as

[8:32] public improvements, public utilities are available on Curtis and North Main

[8:36] Street. Curtis Avenue has electric, a 6-in water line, a 42-in combined sewer.

[8:41] North Main Street has electric, a 12-in water line, and an 18in combined sewer.

[8:47] The sidewalk exists along North Main Street frontage, but there is not a

[8:50] sidewalk along Curtis Avenue. Uh, the next section compares building

[8:57] and lot standards. So you'll see the main differences between the PR and R2.

[9:01] There's a minimum lot area of 5,000 square ft in the R2. There is a minimum

[9:07] lot depth in the existing PR of 100 ft, but there's not a minimum lot depth in

[9:11] the R2. The front side and rear yard setbacks are the same and the structure

[9:16] height is 5 ft taller uh would be allowed in the R2. And there is a lower

[9:22] lot coverage maximum of 65% in the R2 versus 70% maximum in the PR. Also gave

[9:29] you a comparison of permitted and conditional uses. If you look at PR and

[9:34] R2, there's really not a whole lot of major differences. So for example, PR

[9:40] does allow some light commercial uses such as a barber shop, beauty shop, or

[9:44] day spa which would not be allowed under the R2 zoning according to our

[9:48] comprehensive use table. Another example, might be kind of odd to point

[9:52] this out, but a cemetery is allowable conditional use or conditional use in

[9:56] the R2, but not in the PR. That's another difference. A daycare center is

[10:00] allowed in PR, but not allowed in R2. Um, another example is a mobile home

[10:05] park is a conditional use in R2, but not PR. A mortterary or funeral home,

[10:10] ironically, is allowed a conditional use in PR, but not R2, where you could have

[10:15] a cemetery. uh professional offices are allowed are permitted in PR but not R2.

[10:22] Retail services are permitted in PR but not the proposed R2. And um the main

[10:28] difference that we're discussing would be the allowable use of a two-unit

[10:32] dwelling in R2 which is not allowed in the pedestrian residential. However, you

[10:36] could have an accessory dwelling unit um in the PR, but it would have to follow

[10:40] those specific um conditions within our zoning code. So, as far as adjacent

[10:45] zoning, we've got that up on the screen and also a map in your packet, but to

[10:50] the north is zone PR, residential, and a little bit further northwest is mixeduse

[10:55] neighborhood zoning with residential and commercial uses. To the east is zone PR,

[11:00] and a little bit further northeast is zoned, again, that mixeduse neighborhood

[11:05] with some residential uses in a hair salon. To the south is zone PR

[11:09] residential uses and to the west is zone PR mostly residential uses and further

[11:14] northwest is another um MUN zoning mixeduse neighborhood. So the staff

[11:20] recommendation is neutral for this request for many reasons that um I tried

[11:24] to cover by going into sections. So first I review the future land use plan

[11:29] and then the future land use map. Then the next section I look at the community

[11:33] action plan and then um I basically summarize the staff report with pictures

[11:39] and um references to the exhibits. So if we look at our seven principles

[11:46] when you look at these I figured there's at least five of the principles that do

[11:50] get covered by this request out of the seven. So you know that's that's

[11:53] positive when it comes to highly livable urban form that creates preserves a

[11:57] community. and we looked at local flavor and

[12:01] character. It's very walkable and adjacent to the downtown, which of

[12:04] course we want more people to support our downtown and um the great market we

[12:09] have there that uh really needs that small local support. Uh broad housing

[12:14] spectrum, good neighbor neighborhoods, and easy access to health and fitness.

[12:18] It's a very walkable neighborhood u very close again to downtown city park, even

[12:22] Ridge Park, Worster Green. For the next section, we look at

[12:27] applying the action items of the future land use plan under the priority area

[12:32] northeast sub area. This area is shown on the map and the goals of this area it

[12:38] says is in addition to tree proposed there's also ADUs on alleys as a

[12:44] recommendation which you know our zoning code again as I mentioned already allows

[12:46] accessory dwelling units as long as they meet the conditions. Um, also on the

[12:51] future land use map, the area is uh the color orange, which is which is

[12:55] recommended as traditional residential with retail permissions. And that's on

[13:00] pages 47 through 48 of the land use plan. And also under that map section,

[13:06] there's principles, priorities, and fit. And it's under number one mentions

[13:10] Bowling Green has concluded the traditional urban core, urban core in

[13:14] orange should be the primary focus of redevelopment.

[13:19] Uh section three, we review the community action plan which was

[13:23] completed in 2018. And this area fits into priority three, single family

[13:28] reinvestment areas. And the color on that map is yellow, which calls for

[13:32] lower density residential. And again, that's covered on pages 6 and 38 of the

[13:38] community action plan. Um the other priorities of priority 3 or excuse me

[13:43] strategies that they encourage are renovations, public improvements to

[13:48] simulate private investment and marketing the uniqueness of these areas

[13:51] to the broader region. And again this is what the community action plan says

[13:55] exactly for this area of where this home is.

[14:00] I gave you a copy too of the preferred plan labeled diagram one.

[14:07] So in summary, after reviewing all these various planning documents, it does

[14:11] support the future land use plan intention statement to have a diverse

[14:14] community of residents, business owners, shopkeepers, students to be economically

[14:18] viable, environmentally sustainable, comprised of households that work

[14:22] together to steward scarce natural resources and neighborhoods to be

[14:25] walkable, safe, and vibrant. Um, supports the five of the seven

[14:29] principles. does not necessarily support the future land use map as traditional

[14:34] residential with retail perm permissions. Since I mentioned that PR

[14:38] does allow the retail permissions, whereas the R2 would not allow any of

[14:41] those retail permissions except a home occupation. Obviously, you could be a

[14:45] lawyer at your house and and that would be um allowed to be doing that. um

[14:51] unclear if it supports the low density recommendation of the community action

[14:54] plan since that's a bit subjective to say a one family versus a two family is

[14:59] lower density. I mean I personally consider it lower density but other

[15:02] people may not consider that lower density. So I want to just recognize

[15:06] that that's really subjective. Um however the rehabilitation of this

[15:11] building does meet the primary focus area of redevelopment in the CAP which

[15:14] is around the urban core of the city. This would preserve a historic structure

[15:19] and that's by definition. Our historic structure is defined as 50 years or

[15:23] older and having architectural features that are historic and having residents

[15:29] that have potentially submitted to or been part of our culture, our past

[15:32] history. Um, also under chapter 158 of our historic architectural preservation

[15:38] code, which encourages the saving of resources and this is better for the

[15:42] environment, avoiding the landfill debris and costs along with the embodied

[15:45] energy of those who built the structure at least 111 years ago and would add

[15:49] much needed housing. However, there is not any R2 zoning near this property, so

[15:54] this could be considered spot zoning. However, there are other legal

[15:57] non-conforming uses, two-unit dwellings, three-unit dwellings, and apartments

[16:01] along North Main Street between Poe and Clay, and we have highlighted those in

[16:05] exhibit K of your packet, at least 16 that we counted on the list that we gave

[16:11] you. Uh, as a reminder, this is a recommendation to city council, so

[16:15] they're still required to also hold a public hearing. Uh, to finish my report,

[16:19] I also give you several pictures of the property, front, back, and sides, and

[16:24] the detached building. uh using pictometry, we give you some

[16:28] different aerial views of the prop property that you can see along Curtis

[16:32] and Main Street, a copy of the application and also all the other

[16:37] exhibits that were mentioned in the report.

[16:41] So hopefully I covered all you wanted to and maybe even too much. Um but I'm

[16:45] happy to answer any questions you may have about the report or anything else.

[16:51] [clears throat] >> Are there any questions?

[16:55] I have one. So, um, will the structure be maintained?

[16:59] » Can you talk in the microphone? Sorry. >> Will the structure of the building be

[17:02] maintained? >> Um, I believe so, but I believe that

[17:06] would be a better um question for the applicant who is here.

[17:09] » Okay.

[17:13] Any other questions? Thank you, Heather. Appreciate that. So,

[17:18] now we'll hear testimony from the applicant. Is Mr. representative here,

[17:23] please.

[17:31] » Good evening. I'm AJ Smith. I am uh son of Jim Patith who own the property.

[17:37] » I guess I'll start from the beginning. Uh this was owned by my grandparents who

[17:41] owned Al Smith Chrysler. Um to address the duplex part, the reason my grandpa

[17:47] was a car person, not a real estate person. He owned the brick house next to

[17:51] it, which I've lived into. Great house. The home uh that Lee lives in in the

[17:55] middle, and then this white house and the stone house behind it. He tried

[18:00] several times in the '9s with probably this council to tear down those houses

[18:05] and put a new dealership there. That was his dream. That's why he wasn't a real

[18:11] estate guy. That's why he never did the duplex. He bought those houses to tear

[18:15] them down to build a new duplex or I mean a new dealership. That's why I did

[18:19] it. As far as I lived there, it was a duplex

[18:24] from the late 90s to the early 2000s. My sisters lived there during college. It

[18:27] was a duplex. Uh after that, uh my grandparents got old, they let uh my

[18:34] cousin stay there for free who used it as just a one house. And then when his

[18:38] brother wanted to move in there, it was back to a duplex, an upper and a lower.

[18:42] uh it has sat vacant for a long time because when they passed away in 2012

[18:45] and went to a trust with multiple people and we all know how that goes. Nobody

[18:49] wants to put money into a place when not one person owns it. So my parents did

[18:55] get control I think 2021 or 2022 but by this time they're in their 80s and

[19:00] they're car people too. Um and they didn't know what to do with it and so

[19:04] they asked for my help so here I am. Um, it has a bathroom upstairs, a kitchen

[19:10] upstairs, a separate entrance from the front upstairs. That's how we always

[19:13] used it. One door that's locked from the inside separates the other side. The

[19:19] bottom unit, you walk in from the back and it's there. There's nine parking

[19:23] spots, four in the driveway, two in the uh garage, and three along the side. So,

[19:28] there's ample parking. And if this were to stay as a single residence, there's

[19:32] six to seven bedrooms anyways in this house. So there isn't going to be a big

[19:36] difference as far as the number of people living in this place. Really none

[19:40] that I can tell. Then I would go to if you go from this building down to PO

[19:46] which is about five blocks. There is over 20 multi-unit places including five

[19:53] 1 to 19 unit and up to six offices with apartments above it. They don't list how

[19:58] many there are. That's just on Main Street. If I were to take my time and go

[20:03] from Main Street to Grove, I'd probably more than double that number. So, this

[20:07] is not unusual. This is a rental neighborhood. I live three blocks away,

[20:11] one house in from Main Street. And there's an old classic house next to me

[20:15] that is a three-bedroom place, and I'm fine. I know what neighborhood I live

[20:19] in. Two houses down from this was an old high school classmate. It's been listed

[20:25] for rent by New Love. So, this is a rental neighborhood. That's what this

[20:30] is. So, I would go there as well. Finally,

[20:35] there's no classic features on this house. I'm not going to tear down

[20:39] anything. I'm going to completely redo it with the help of my family. We're

[20:42] going to put new windows in, new duck work, new kitchens, new bathrooms, split

[20:49] the lines, everything. When my grandparents did leases, I can't find

[20:53] them. So, I can't give you any leases. That was well over 30 years ago. So, I

[20:59] don't have that for you. But again, I don't know of a 100-y old home with

[21:03] separate entrances with a kitchen upstairs, a kitchen downstairs, a

[21:06] bathroom up, and a bathroom down that are separated. I've never seen it, and

[21:10] I'm in real estate. So, I've never seen that at all. And then my last point

[21:15] would be that there's precedent for this. Within the last two years, uh 416

[21:19] West Worster, right next to Dun is a much more classic home. Uh actually it's

[21:26] in the the twob block radius which I would call as a lifelong resident the

[21:30] the most historical neighborhood in in the town and it was uh allowed and it

[21:35] has sat and hasn't been worked on and it's still vacant. That won't happen

[21:39] with this house. We will get it done but we want to do it the right way. We want

[21:44] to split the lines. And then the last point I would say is I'm in real estate.

[21:48] There is many homes in this city that are duplexes that don't have the their

[21:54] utility split. Many. I'm not going to go through and name them, but there's many.

[21:59] So, uh, in the end, I'm not changing what this place was uh used as. I'm not

[22:05] adding a bunch of walls. I'm not tearing into a bunch of stuff. In fact, I'm

[22:09] going to put well over $100,000 into this, which will increase all the

[22:12] neighborhoods value. So, I would think that would be something that they would

[22:16] like and I would think it would be something the city would like cuz I just

[22:20] think that's what the city needs. People that actually take care of their stuff

[22:23] and redo it. So, I thank you for your time.

[22:26] » Thank you. Are there any questions?

[22:31] None. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[22:33] » Yep. >> Okay. At this point, we'll hear

[22:37] testimony from the public. Any [clears throat] uh member of the public

[22:40] who'd like to address the commission may come forward at this time. Please come

[22:44] to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the

[22:48] record and uh please spell your last name.

[22:53] Any volunteers? Anyone who wants to speak?

[22:59] » Howdy. >> I wrote things down because I'm a little

[23:02] nervous. My name is Lee Liatru. L I E B E T R E

[23:08] U. I live at 909 North Main Street, the house just north of the property that

[23:13] we're discussing. I'm here tonight to respectfully ask

[23:17] that you deny the request. I'm not opposed to development or

[23:22] anybody improving their properties. In fact, I've spent years doing that. Every

[23:26] dime I have has gone into the house that I live in.

[23:31] Something needs repair, I repair it. This was once a beautiful old majestic

[23:37] Victorian home that has deteriorated. It's been empty for about 10 years. It

[23:43] was used as a single family home before that. I mean, it literally has gardens

[23:48] growing in the gutters. So, to think that he's going to start taking care of

[23:52] it now when he hasn't in the past is a little surprising to me. He's talked to

[24:00] me. He actually showed me the property last year with some of his ideas with

[24:04] four bedrooms upstairs and four downstairs.

[24:08] And um I don't want beer pong on the front

[24:13] yard. I don't want cornhole being played next to me

[24:17] and that's all I see going into there. $100,000.

[24:22] It could probably use at least 150. He talked about a kitchen being

[24:28] upstairs. It's plumbed for a kitchen. There is no kitchen up there. There's

[24:33] five bedrooms upstairs. There's no bedrooms downstairs. So, I don't know

[24:37] where the seven came from either. And I don't understand where the parking would

[24:42] be. There's There is a twocar garage that's filled. I I don't know how that

[24:48] would work with a twocar garage and then more parking behind it. That's all there

[24:55] is. So, I I see parking for possibly four cars at the most.

[25:02] I would like to think that my quality of life means something to y'all. Also,

[25:07] with as much money as I've put into my home, we've all made significant

[25:11] investments. We we maintain them. We repair them. We improve them. We do that

[25:16] with the understanding that the residential character of our

[25:18] neighborhood matters. [snorts]

[25:22] by if restoring this property to a single family home is too much for the

[25:27] current owners, then I would ask that they sell it and let somebody else move

[25:32] in there that can that can manage all of the repairs that it's going to need.

[25:38] If the zoning is changed to accommodate an eight-bedroom use with inadequate

[25:42] parking, the burden of that decision, excuse me, falls not only on the

[25:46] property owner, it falls on every one of the neighbors that's invested their time

[25:50] and money and life into maintaining their home. I respectfully ask the city

[25:55] council consider us too and that you deny the petition. Thank you.

[26:01] » Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who'd like to uh

[26:07] address respond to that real quick. >> I think it's insulting.

[26:11] » Can you come to the mic to me? >> I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, if you could

[26:15] come back to the podium, please.

[26:23] » I think it's insulting to insinuate that college students are bad renters and

[26:27] that I'm going or my family's only going to rent to college students. I have

[26:31] plenty of properties in town and more than half of them I probably put at 70%

[26:36] are to regular people, not college students. But again, I I think that's

[26:41] insulting.

[26:44] Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission?

[26:49] [clears throat and cough]

[26:55] » Good evening. Um I'm Sheri Layman. I live at 136 Curtis Avenue and my name is

[27:02] spelled l a y m an not like the street. Um

[27:09] we have rental properties on our street and I'm fine with having rental

[27:13] properties on our street as long as they take care, mow the grass, shovel the

[27:20] snow, you know, do all the things. My concern about this house is parking is

[27:27] tight on our street. It's not really a you can't park up by Main Street. There

[27:35] is a twocar driveway and a twocar garage, but I'm worried about spillover

[27:41] parking creeping down the street. And when we have guests or relatives over,

[27:48] my driveway can accommodate some but not all of them. And so that's a major

[27:54] concern um to me. The property as vacant,

[28:00] yeah, it's kind of dilapidated, but the grass is mowed and you know those kind

[28:04] of things. So I don't have an issue with that. But I have an issue with more

[28:10] rentals on an already crowded street when parking is at a premium already.

[28:18] » Thank you. >> M Let me ask you a question. I I'm

[28:21] wanted to clarify the parking situation >> because I'm hearing different things.

[28:26] There's they can park two cars in the garage, right? Yeah.

[28:29] » And then the the other two are just the entrance to the garage in the driveway

[28:34] entering the garage. >> Yes.

[28:36] » How about And then along Curtis Avenue. Is there parking along there?

[28:40] » Well, you have Main Street and you can't park up by the stop sign. So, it would

[28:45] be [clears throat and cough] >> the garage.

[28:48] » Past the garage. Is that right? Yeah. >> Pass past the past the um alley.

[28:55] » Okay. Any additional parking would be past this properties

[29:01] » border. >> Yes.

[29:03] » Okay. >> Okay.

[29:04] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[29:14] » You're going to have to excuse me because I don't speak well in front of

[29:18] people. But I did want to come here tonight. Uh, I've known Lee for a very

[29:22] long time. >> Excuse me, ma'am. Please.

[29:24] » Oh, I'm so sorry. My name is Sean Reeves, 324 Sunrise Drive. Reeves. Re ee

[29:31] ves. >> Thank you.

[29:33] » Um, so I've known Lee for a very long time. She's always lived in that house.

[29:37] We've known each other about 12 years. I've never known the house to really be

[29:42] vacant enough for me to pay attention to. And they also own the beautiful like

[29:48] Snow White cottage in the back too. It's just begging to be redone. Um I myself

[29:56] purchased the Lincoln house and it was a college party house basically. Uh I

[30:03] attempted to turn it into the town's first historical bed and breakfast but I

[30:07] ran out of money. And [sighs] uh I will tell you when you're driving

[30:13] through town on the north end of town, it has a different vibe.

[30:19] When you reach south of the businesses and stuff, it has a different vibe. And

[30:25] the difference to me there is the college students. And I understand how

[30:31] important they are to our community. However,

[30:35] I don't want North Main Street to start looking like South Main Street, and this

[30:41] is where it starts. I did offer to purchase that home. I was given the

[30:46] price of $200,000, to which I declined. Um,

[30:52] I think that it should remain a single family home. Thank you.

[30:57] » Thank you.

[31:02] Is there anyone else?

[31:09] » Hello, my name is Felicia Boyd. I live at Oh, sorry. B O Y D. I live at 823

[31:16] North Main Street. So, the house on the other side of Curtis, but still next to

[31:20] this property. And I had to bring my notes, too,

[31:24] because I don't remember everything well.

[31:28] So, I am asking the commission to carefully consider the proposed resoning

[31:32] of this property from pedestrian residential to medium density. My

[31:36] concern is not necessarily about renters. I do know that we have renters

[31:40] um along Curtis and also actually right next door to me. Um I just met my new

[31:44] neighbor. She's lovely. Um I'm not really concerned about who may

[31:50] ultimately live there. My concern is more about the change in density and how

[31:53] that change would affect the existing residential neighborhood and the

[31:57] properties immediately surrounding it. Um much like others have said, it is

[32:01] somewhat of already congested street. Um since I live right on the corner with

[32:06] this property, I do often see that if if there is anyone parked where you're

[32:10] allowed after the yellow line, um traffic coming in and coming out, it can

[32:15] get a little bit congested at times. Um especially when we have, you know, our

[32:20] community events like Black Swamp, people they park, they walk. Um

[32:24] [clears throat] but it's aside from those times of the

[32:27] year, it is already pretty congested. Um we do tend to notice when there's a lot

[32:32] of parking on our street when we try to back out of our driveway since some of

[32:35] the parking is right at the end of ours. Um

[32:39] there would be possibly um substantially more vehicles, parking demand, traffic,

[32:45] noise, activity, and then reduced privacy for those of us who live

[32:49] directly around that property. I respectfully ask the commission to

[32:53] carefully consider the impact this change would have on the surrounding

[32:56] homeowners and renters and their quality of life and to please deny the resoning

[33:00] request. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[33:15] Good evening. My name is Tom Kiger, Ki Ger. I live at 148 Curtis. That's four

[33:22] houses down from the subject property. Uh,

[33:28] first of all, I'd like to provide some additional information that the city

[33:32] maybe doesn't have. I was over at the county courthouse. According to the

[33:37] auditor's department, the house in question was built in 1900.

[33:44] I went over to the public library. I went through the city directories

[33:50] from 1897 to 2025.

[33:57] They're not sequential, but there's a couple or three years between

[34:03] each volume. In 1947

[34:07] and in 1949, there was a listing for a 9003 12 North

[34:14] Main Street. That suggests to me that in those dates

[34:19] there was in fact a duplex there that supports the uh information

[34:27] that is in the memorandum to the city

[34:32] paragraph 5. Uh further on in 1980

[34:40] 82 and 84 uh Mrs. Ursel who lived there at the

[34:45] time. Mrs. Hazel Ursel had a had a roommate uh Rebecca Pringle

[34:52] who was taking care of her. Uh she was also listed

[34:58] in those directories and that would help substantiate the information in in

[35:03] paragraph six of the city's memorandum. Uh

[35:10] I mentioned the house is built in according to the county 1900.

[35:16] If you look at uh your handout, the handout that was

[35:22] provided to us on page 25, you basically see the south side of the

[35:28] house looking northeast. And you can see there's the stub of a little side porch

[35:35] there. Uh historically that was part of a much

[35:39] larger wraparound porch that went from the side around to the front and that

[35:45] was a piece of historic architecture that's already been removed from the

[35:49] house. Unfortunately,

[35:53] if you also look in your packet on page 28,

[35:59] you'll see a picture of the two-car garage.

[36:04] And it's been stated that you could park two cars in the garage and you could

[36:09] park two cars in the in the driveway. Well, that's true. You could park

[36:14] vehicles, but you can't get them out,

[36:18] right? You can't get the two cars out of the garage because you got two cars in

[36:22] the driveway. Uh

[36:27] earlier this evening, uh I took pictures of typical parking on our street and I

[36:36] sent them to a couple of members of the committee and I sent them to your

[36:40] committee president. Uh I didn't know how to get them put up on the screen. Uh

[36:47] the street was full from my [snorts] house all the way down

[36:52] to Main Street. We can park on one side of the street. That's fine. We can park

[36:56] on the north side, but between

[37:01] driveways, and you know, you have to have a little

[37:05] yellow space next to your driveway so nobody cut you off access.

[37:10] The street was full. This wasn't a weekend. This wasn't a

[37:15] special event. It's just life on Curtis Avenue.

[37:22] There's been discussion about renting.

[37:29] Yes, we have rental properties on Curtis Avenue.

[37:33] Their homes, families live there. [snorts]

[37:38] Husband and a wife with their kids.

[37:42] That's a totally different type of rental property

[37:46] than what might be encountered by a duplex with the potential for four

[37:53] bedrooms upstairs and four bedrooms downstairs,

[37:57] which would be allowable under that kind of zoning.

[38:02] So, that doesn't sound bad, right? Eight people.

[38:05] But you have to think about it. eight people turns into 16

[38:10] because we have significant others. You know, the boyfriend or the

[38:14] girlfriend or the husband or wife are going to come and visit.

[38:18] Where are they going to park? The street's full.

[38:23] You can't fit them in the garage. You can't fit them in the driveway.

[38:28] Yes, there's a alley that runs

[38:33] just to the west of the property behind the property. Runs for two blocks. It's

[38:38] a single lane alley. It's paved. There's no parking on the alley. There

[38:42] isn't enough room. If you parked a car there, your car is going to get hit.

[38:48] Nobody has talked about snow removal in the winter.

[38:55] If these alleys are full, where's the snow plow going to go? If the street is

[39:00] full, we're not going to get our street plowed properly. We're going to have one

[39:05] lane. It's going to be a mess.

[39:10] Not to mention, with this house being on the corner, it's going to provide

[39:15] additional traffic at a corner intersection.

[39:20] those 8 to 16 people are going to be going in of that out of that property

[39:26] and that intersection is not designed for that volume of traffic. I'm sorry,

[39:30] it's just not.

[39:37] I could provide other information. I believe there are other members of the

[39:42] neighborhood that that might also speak to this, but in essence,

[39:48] turning that building into a multifamily duplex does not fit the residential

[39:54] neighborhood, the family neighborhood that we have. It just doesn't. [snorts]

[40:01] If we look down to South Maine, we can see numerous old, beautiful homes

[40:09] that have had this very thing happen to them. And those are certainly not in

[40:14] keeping with what we want to have down here on Curtis Avenue in the fourth

[40:18] ward. >> [snorts]

[40:20] » I would ask for your consideration that you reject this application and

[40:27] help us keep our neighborhood a nice strong neighborhood. Thank you.

[40:32] Any questions?

[40:36] » Nope. Thank you. >> I Excuse me. I do have a question.

[40:39] [clears throat] Um, so when you did your research, which is very helpful, and you

[40:42] said there was a 903 and a half. >> Yes, ma'am.

[40:45] » A couple times. So what you're saying was that was in the past and then since

[40:48] then it's been a single family. >> Yes, ma'am.

[40:51] » Okay. Thank you. >> Uh specifically in 1947,

[40:56] [snorts] uh Clyde and Hazel Ershel lived in 9003

[41:02] and 9003 and a half was listed as Mrs. Lahi Gmershaw Gomerol.

[41:11] Uh, and as you know, typically when you go through city directories, if there is

[41:16] a duplex, it it's always a number and then that number and a half.

[41:22] » So, I didn't see any place since 1947 or 1949

[41:29] where the city directory substantiated that it was a duplex.

[41:33] » Thank you.

[41:40] Is there anyone else who'd like to address the commission?

[41:48] » Hello. Uh, my name is Lynn Pearson. Um, P A R S O N. Um, I live at 127 Curtis

[41:56] Avenue. Um, and I just uh um I share the concerns that my

[42:02] neighbors have described about the congestion on our street. Um, we only

[42:09] have parking on one side of the street and if people have guests over or if

[42:15] there's a party, the street fills up very quickly. Um, I would also like to

[42:22] say is turning off of Main Street is sometimes really dicey because there is

[42:27] parking in front of the the the property that we're talking about. And you really

[42:35] can only go into this one little space and wait for the other car that's

[42:41] coming off of Curtis to turn into North Main. Um, and people in North Main are

[42:48] beeping at you [laughter] because you're just having to wait um and kind of

[42:52] negotiate to let the space open up. And this is a regular occurrence. So, it's

[42:57] not just um black swamp or not just, you know,

[43:04] when there are other things going on in the city. Um, I do recognize that

[43:09] there's a need for um, multi-use properties and I'm a college

[43:16] professor, so I know my college students need places to live. But in terms of our

[43:22] street, I just am concerned about the possible congestion,

[43:27] um, the limited parking spaces that the property has. And so for that reason um

[43:34] I support what my neighbors have said and ask you to consider carefully the uh

[43:40] the application and to deny it. Thank you.

[43:46] » Thank you.

[43:51] » I I'd like to readress just for one second. I I forgot to submit my my

[43:56] paperwork, which was the uh directory review with all of the uh [snorts] the

[44:03] address dates. So, who would I give that to to get into the record?

[44:07] » Jason, please. Appreciate it.

[44:18] » Is there anyone else? >> Just a second if you would, Mr. Smith.

[44:23] Is there anybody else who would like to address us?

[44:28] » Hello. Uh, my name is Megan McMorris. M C M O R R I S and I live at 821 North

[44:36] Maine. And um I'm new to this. I'm new to Bowling Green. I've only been here

[44:42] three weeks and I'm a renter. So, I think I wanted to just pipe up on behalf

[44:47] of Tom came to my door yesterday and that's when I learned about this. But I

[44:51] also had seen the sign and I was a little concerned myself. Um I think the

[44:56] issue isn't owning versus renting. I think we've cleared that up. Um [snorts]

[45:01] when I first saw the sign, I was a little I was like, "Oh no, could this be

[45:05] happening again?" You see, I just moved I'm a I'm a native of Bowling Green.

[45:09] That's why I moved back after 35 years. I just moved from Portland, Oregon,

[45:13] where I was for 26 years. And [laughter] I thought, "Oh no, could this be

[45:18] happening in Bowling Green?" Now, granted, there's what I'm talking about.

[45:21] There's a lot of redevelopment, tearing down places and um multi-use. I lived in

[45:27] this wonderful neighborhood and I saw it over and over again um in displacement.

[45:31] Now, that's not happening here, nor am I saying that. And I and I see you out

[45:36] there working and I'm not trying to rein I don't I'm new to this. I'm just trying

[45:39] to I just wanted to um say it's not about the renting. I think we've

[45:43] ascertained that. Um I just feel it's a slippery slope. I I'm not quite certain

[45:49] about the duplex. If it's simply a duplex, that's fine. Um the four

[45:53] bedrooms, I I am wondering about the congestion. I love this area and I'm

[45:58] going to be whether renting or owning for Bowling in Bowling Green for a while

[46:02] and I'm worried about about my neighbors. Thank you so much.

[46:06] » Thank you. Is there anyone else?

[46:26] My name is Tom Knox. I'm speaking as a resident of Bowling Green's fourth ward

[46:33] for over 50 years. I'm speaking also as the owner of the

[46:39] late 19th century house recently acquired at auction which is next to my

[46:46] own. For more than 50 years it was the duplex

[46:51] rental progressively less well-maintained if at

[46:55] all [gasps] until it became uninhabited because it

[47:00] was uninhabitable. Uh if all goes well, it will return as a

[47:07] single family owner occupied home that fits into its neighborhood

[47:14] on North Maple Street and be available at a moderate price by

[47:21] today's standards.

[47:25] Such an endeavor as this

[47:29] is a fool's errand, however, if the zoning code does not mean what it says.

[47:36] Okay. To turn to the case at hand, in a very

[47:41] few instances, a serious argument can be made for spot zoning.

[47:46] [gasps] The current appeal for reszoning

[47:50] of 903 North Main Street from pedestrian residential to R2 is not

[47:58] one of those cases. Okay. [gasps] Uh the structure is in a series of

[48:05] blocks on the west side of North Main Street that remain single family homes

[48:10] or at least retain the appearance of such.

[48:14] For the most part, they were built in the half century or so before World War

[48:19] II, and thus they reflect changes in Bowling Green's residential architecture

[48:24] over several generations.

[48:28] » [sighs] >> They and

[48:32] the houses on West Worester are arguably what the public generally can see of

[48:39] Oldtown Bowling Green outside the business district.

[48:47] The heart of the application for reasonzoning is a vague and unsupported

[48:52] assertion that the house has always been used as a duplex

[48:59] and an unspoken assumption that that justifies a reasonzoning to

[49:06] bring it in line with the alleged use.

[49:12] I think even a short glance at what was once one of the grander

[49:19] houses in Bowling Green suggests that for at least many decades of its

[49:26] existence, it was never used as a duplex. It functioned instead as a

[49:33] single family home. >> [gasps]

[49:38] » The duration of ownership by the applicant's family precludes anything

[49:43] other than occasional or historically short-term use as a duplex.

[49:52] And I think uh the planning department can confirm that [sighs and gasps]

[49:59] the house has been vacant in recent years, not days, not weeks, not months,

[50:06] years, and during that time it has not been

[50:10] used as a duplex. Uh a further question,

[50:17] what exactly does used as a duplex mean and does it

[50:23] justify a resoning? [gasps] Uh the purpose of the sought

[50:31] after resoning is to remodel to remodel this house into a duplex.

[50:41] There are few walls or facilities in the structure that would suggest it was ever

[50:46] actually duplexed. Observe from the outside, there is

[50:51] single electrical service and there's nothing to suggest there was ever

[50:55] anything other than single electrical service.

[51:00] uh this would account for the stated objective in the application of

[51:07] remodeling the structure into a duplex and

[51:12] splitting the lines. The house has clearly suffered neglect

[51:19] as has an adjoining vacant property owned by the applicant.

[51:24] But reszoning should not be a reward for vacancy

[51:29] and owner negligence.

[51:33] In short, the application for resoning is a self-serving convenience for the

[51:38] owner, no matter the grievous damage it will do to the adjoining property owner,

[51:44] the neighborhood, or the integrity of the zoning code.

[51:50] Moreover, if granted, resoning will repeat a mistake regarding older housing

[51:56] stock that has been been made many, many, many, too many times in Bowling

[52:03] Green. As for the applicant, he has and has had

[52:09] other alternatives that comply with the existing zoning code, and he has chosen

[52:14] not to take them. Thank you.

[52:19] Mr. Knox, could you uh for the record state your address, please?

[52:28] » And his last name. >> I'm not sure.

[52:34] » I'm sorry.

[52:39] [clears throat]

[52:42] » I'm hard of hearing. >> That's fine. No problem. Thank you. Oh,

[52:46] Mr. Ox, please, if you could, just for the record, state your state your

[52:50] address. If you could state your address, please for the record.

[52:53] » Will I state my what for the >> address, please?

[52:56] » Oh, 217 North Maple Street. >> All right. Thank you very much.

[53:00] Appreciate that.

[53:07] Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am.

[53:18] My name is Rose Drain and I live at 228 East Court Street. Uh, my last name is

[53:26] spelled D R A I N. [clears throat]

[53:32] I am speaking this evening on behalf of the board of directors of BG Save Our

[53:37] Neighborhoods Group, which requests that the planning commission deny the

[53:43] application to reszone 903 North Main Street from pedestrian residential to

[53:48] R2. The 2023 zoning code was adopted to

[53:54] establish a more consistent, fair, and equitable set of requirements to

[54:00] accommodate a variety of housing and building needs within the city. Council

[54:04] and the administration worked hard over many, many months to address the needs

[54:10] of all areas and neighborhoods while working to preserve Bowling Green's

[54:15] sense of place. The resulting policy decisions should be respected and upheld

[54:21] by the planning commission when considering requests for resoning.

[54:28] During that process of the zoning code rewrite, many citizens of Bowling Green

[54:35] came together. More than 600 people signed a petition

[54:41] with the strong view of weighing in on the ordinances that would impact affect

[54:48] the zoning of what is now the pedestrian residential district. With a strong

[54:54] united voice, the people asked council and the administration to write zoning

[54:59] code to address the conversion of single family homes to income producing

[55:04] multi-unit rentals and the associated loss of owner occupied housing in the

[55:11] district. Both practices have been identified as

[55:16] the driving force behind the observed overall loss of economic vitality and

[55:22] vibrancy in Bowling Green that were detailed in the city's 2014 land use

[55:29] plan and reiterated in the 2018 community action plan.

[55:36] residents urged council to curtail these practices in the PR district and create

[55:41] zoning to improve opportunity for owner occupied residences, support social

[55:47] cohesion, and preserve historic relevance, local character, and unique

[55:52] neighborhood qualities. An issue on which residents remained firm was that

[55:59] additional duplexes should not be permitted in the PR district. On June

[56:05] 12th, 2023 in this room, council agreed with a

[56:11] unanimous vote to prohibit additional duplexes in the PR district.

[56:20] It's clear that the property at 903 North Main Street has not been

[56:24] maintained. Indeed, it's known to have been unoccupied for at least 10 years

[56:30] and is in need of serious repair. [snorts]

[56:33] Reszoning this property would undermine the PR district's goal of presuming

[56:38] preserving opportunities for home ownership by allowing another single

[56:44] family home to be converted to a two-unit rental property.

[56:50] Granting the request would also serve to weaken the zoning standards established

[56:55] for the PR district. when the commission agreed to grant the zoning request um of

[57:04] Ana Miller to change uh the property uh at West Worcester Street. Um

[57:13] the planning commission [snorts]

[57:17] [clears throat] decided that that was an exceptional

[57:23] case because of the historic nature of the property. um and that because of the

[57:31] stated use by the um by Ana Miller that it was going to be turned into um higher

[57:40] quality rentals that would be um an asset to the neighborhood.

[57:48] Um, [clears throat] also to speak to

[57:52] Abashek's question, um, regarding whether the structure would be kept

[57:58] intact, um, once the the parcel is zoned R2,

[58:04] um, the owner can do anything with it. Um, and so the the property could be

[58:11] torn down if Mr. Smith decides he doesn't want to put um $100,000 into the

[58:18] property, it could be torn down and um the the lot could be used um to build

[58:26] something else uh a duplex in the R2. So rather than allowing additional homes

[58:34] in the PR district to be converted to rental use, we would encourage the city

[58:40] to work with residents and organizations like BG Song to identify additional ways

[58:45] to support the rehabilitation of older homes and return them to viable owner

[58:51] occupied housing. Doing so would preserve the neighborhood character

[58:56] while creating new opportunities for home ownership. The PR district was

[59:01] created in part to protect those opportunities. Reszoning this property

[59:06] would work against that purpose. And for these reasons, the board of BG Save Our

[59:12] Neighborhoods Group asks the planning commission to deny the request to

[59:16] reszone 903 North Main Street from pedestrian residential to R2. Thank you.

[59:24] » Are there any questions?

[59:28] » Thank you.

[59:31] Is there anyone else who wants to address the uh commission?

[59:41] » Hearing none. Hearing none. I just want to ask the commission. Does the

[59:45] commission have any problems with Mr. Smith coming back one last time?

[59:49] » No. >> Okay, fine. Mr. Smith, [clears throat]

[59:58] » I just want to address two things. Uh, one is the parking. When I lived there,

[1:00:03] there was four people upstairs and then separate three people down. Same thing

[1:00:06] when my sisters live there. We had zero issues with cars. And there's again 937,

[1:00:12] 934, 625, 617, 611, 610, 616. Those are all multi-units within two blocks of

[1:00:19] this place. And there's five one to 19 units within several blocks of this.

[1:00:26] This is the neighborhood. Second, one of the neighbors here has parked two cars

[1:00:31] in front of this house for years. In fact, they've called my parents and

[1:00:35] asked if they could use the uh driveway, which of course my parents are great

[1:00:38] people. They said yes. So, I find it iran ironic that they're complaining

[1:00:42] about parking. Second, to address this, that house is was historic. It's in the

[1:00:48] most the most historic oneb block radius. There's shades over all windows

[1:00:54] and no work's been done for two years because I tried to buy that about 10

[1:00:58] years ago. No work's been done at all to it and it's sitting there vacant. So

[1:01:02] there is precedent. That won't happen. We're not going to tear down the house.

[1:01:06] We will get on it and we will make it a nice place again.

[1:01:10] » What what house was that that you were talking about? next to funeral

[1:01:15] west cover everyone.

[1:01:19] » Here comes I voted against that.

[1:01:26] » I just had one one last question. The photos that I took this evening of the

[1:01:31] on street parking conditions, how do I get those entered into the record?

[1:01:36] Because a picture is worth a thousand words. give them to you.

[1:01:40] » You can email them to us or do you have copies you want to give us? It's up to

[1:01:44] you. >> They're on my phone.

[1:01:46] » Okay. Yep. I can write down our email for for you.

[1:01:49] » Very good. >> Thank you.

[1:01:51] » Thank you. Okay.

[1:01:56] Hearing no other requests, uh, I'll open up the floor to discussion

[1:02:03] on the commission. >> Y

[1:02:06] » any comments? Any particular questions? Well, I'll start by saying I really

[1:02:11] appreciate everyone being here. There have been some recent changes in my

[1:02:15] neighborhood and um I'm glad that people are going around and speaking with one

[1:02:19] another about it because some things that happened just a block north of

[1:02:22] where I live on Frezy I would have been against but I mean it's my fault I guess

[1:02:28] I didn't know about it but um changes that change the landscape of the

[1:02:32] neighborhood. um putting in a place that has six bedrooms and I agree once you

[1:02:38] have six people living in a house it's more than six cars that are then parked

[1:02:42] there and they're parked on the grass and things like that. So I really

[1:02:46] appreciate everyone coming in here and expressing their opinion about what it

[1:02:50] will do to the neighborhood. Um I am against spot zoning. I was against the

[1:02:55] reszoning request for 416 West Worcester. So, I will stand by that

[1:03:00] tonight and my vote will be a no for the um resoning.

[1:03:06] » Heather, I've got a question for you. Um if there was talk about being remodeled

[1:03:12] to have four bedrooms upstairs, four bedrooms downstairs, if that were the

[1:03:16] case, if we're a duplex and had four and four, how many people could legally live

[1:03:20] there? >> Well, our zoning code is based on the

[1:03:22] number of bedrooms. So, it's hard to say for sure though based

[1:03:27] on number of bedrooms because you could have families there. Um, and what we

[1:03:31] mean by that is relation. So, I could live upstairs with

[1:03:37] my four children and still have a four-bedroom house or even smaller. So,

[1:03:42] it's hard to say occupancy, but it the zoning code is one unrelated per

[1:03:46] bedroom. >> However, family doesn't follow that same

[1:03:50] regulation. Am I explaining that well? You have to be careful with fair housing

[1:03:55] laws and how those operate. So, >> I guess I'm I'm responding to the point

[1:04:00] about could have as many like 16 people living there. That seems like

[1:04:06] not the most likely result, but you could have two people per bedroom. I

[1:04:10] could if you have couples living there. I I could see.

[1:04:15] » Again, it depends on the definition of family.

[1:04:17] » Okay. There's no so there's not a definite number but

[1:04:21] » correct >> it would be fairly substantial

[1:04:25] » and again defining a household is a slippery slope and we're very cautious

[1:04:30] with that.

[1:04:33] [clears throat] >> Is that a definitional problem based on

[1:04:38] how we put together this multifamily versus single family?

[1:04:45] I mean, I'm asking you, as you just covered this family, you know, in

[1:04:49] quotation marks versus, you know, you got eight bedrooms possibly up to this

[1:04:54] number of people. And when you say multif family, bringing the family in,

[1:04:59] does that bring down the possibility of having, you know, so many unrelated

[1:05:05] people within a residence? >> Um, so I'll back up a little bit. So,

[1:05:09] our zoning code defines multi- a multi-unit dwelling as three dwelling

[1:05:13] units or more. So, we would not consider a duplex multi-unit dwelling. We

[1:05:19] considered a two-unit dwelling. So, you could have two units, whether it be up

[1:05:23] or down, side by side, as long as it's two units and it meets our zoning code

[1:05:28] definition of dwelling unit where it has kitchen, living space, bedroom,

[1:05:33] bathroom. Um, and it could technically I mean I guess you could say it could

[1:05:36] technically have up to five bedrooms. However, that's I'm guessing that's

[1:05:41] pretty unlikely given the space that's there, but I can't say that for sure.

[1:05:44] But that's the definition of a one-unit dwelling. You could have up to five

[1:05:48] bedrooms.

[1:05:56] You look perplexed. Do you have any other questions?

[1:05:59] Do how often do you get phone and maybe

[1:06:04] you're not the right person to answer. Do we get phone calls about congestion,

[1:06:08] not being able to, you know, navigate through streets because of traffic? Do

[1:06:13] do we have an idea of how legitimate or how bad that problem is on that north

[1:06:20] west side of town? >> I do not. That's not typically a call we

[1:06:24] would get. We would get more so complaints if someone were parking in

[1:06:27] the grass, for example, or even our police division would likely get those

[1:06:31] complaints. We try to be a one-stop shop where, you know, we give complaints to

[1:06:35] the right person, but that's not something we would normally hear about.

[1:06:37] » Is is that a street that um and I don't know the formal name that is um deemed

[1:06:44] like a snow street that if we get over two inches, they have to to move for the

[1:06:49] plows. >> I'm not sure. I'd have to look at our

[1:06:52] records at the city. Okay.

[1:06:55] » I mean, normally you'll have one side that's no parking [clears throat]

[1:06:59] » and the other side would normally allow parking, but again, it varies all over

[1:07:02] the city. >> Okay. So, um I'm talking I'll keep

[1:07:06] talking. Um thank every I want to thank everybody for taking the time and the

[1:07:11] effort to um voice your concerns and they're all very valid. Um I'm you know

[1:07:18] I probably struggle a little bit more with this one. Um, you know, I I have

[1:07:22] always said I think that our town needs more housing. I see um probably more

[1:07:28] people transfer into town than probably anybody else. And it's not always people

[1:07:35] that want to purchase a home, right? And um our housing stock for rentals is very

[1:07:44] very thin. Um, and I'm specifically talking about professional rentals, non-

[1:07:49] studentent rentals. You know, there is no guarantee in my opinion that this

[1:07:54] property would be rented to college students, right? Um, we heard from a

[1:08:00] professor that lives right down the street, right? That is already living

[1:08:04] right there. And, um, there's a very high percentage chance that, um, it

[1:08:09] could be somebody that's professional that's there, too. Um, we heard that it

[1:08:13] meets five of the seven BG principles, which is a high percentage of what we're

[1:08:19] looking for when we look at some of these. Um, we already know that there's

[1:08:23] a lot of duplexes in the neighborhood, too. Um,

[1:08:29] conversely, I am not a fan of spot zoning, right? Just like Julie said, I

[1:08:35] am not a fan of the spot zoning. We went through an exhaustive um exercise to um

[1:08:42] to redo our zoning code. Um and this is part of it, right? Um congestion is a

[1:08:48] legitimate factor. You know, I asked about um traffic and things like that

[1:08:53] and congestion is a legitimate factor. Um but again, I don't know that there's

[1:08:57] any guarantee that um we're going to have eight people live in a duplex. We

[1:09:03] don't know. We just we don't know. Um, so, you know, I I struggle um with um

[1:09:11] with both sides. So, I see, you know, your your point. I'd love to see um

[1:09:16] somebody actually put the money in and and spend the money to to update and do

[1:09:20] the things to to beautify to make it better because it has been um you know,

[1:09:25] neglected. So, um I know I just spoke on both sides of the fence. Um, but those

[1:09:31] are those are things that I'm considering as as we continue to

[1:09:35] discuss. >> Another question. Uh, the these other

[1:09:39] properties that have duplexes and and three units so far, are those legal

[1:09:43] non-conforming uses, is that what properties are?

[1:09:46] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:09:47] » It's a good question. >> And this doesn't fall under that

[1:09:52] heading. >> Correct.

[1:09:55] Um, I know he kind of hit us with 416 West Worster and uh, Miss Miller's

[1:10:00] property. And that's a double-edged sword, I think, because you're right. We

[1:10:05] we kind of went out on a limb to, you know, looking at the property location,

[1:10:09] what it was, and what the historic importance was to the city and said,

[1:10:13] "Okay, let's set aside what we've been trying to do for these years and give it

[1:10:18] a spot reszoning." And, you know, you're right. They They

[1:10:24] haven't done I should keep an eye on it when I drive by it. I don't see anything

[1:10:26] being done. >> Nothing's been done. But again, that

[1:10:31] runs maybe both for you and against you

[1:10:34] because okay, so what if that's the one mulligan we give out, you know, to

[1:10:39] somebody came up and promised us that we're going to do X, Y, and Z, and well,

[1:10:43] they haven't done it. And so now the next person's up to bat. I want to do

[1:10:47] and we get hit over the head every time we we look at one of these gorgeous

[1:10:50] houses, you know, falling apart and go, "Well, I want to beautify it, but I want

[1:10:54] to make it a duplex." And so now you're the second person to

[1:10:59] come up to us and want this. So now are we setting up a precedent where go,

[1:11:03] okay, here's some beautiful old house that's fallen into ruin and somebody got

[1:11:08] a hold of it and it's like, well, I'll beautify it, but I want to be able to

[1:11:10] turn it into a money maker, too, to make it worth it. And I'm kind of on both

[1:11:15] sides of that fence because we set the president once and so and it's

[1:11:21] [sighs and gasps] clearly bit us in the ass to say pretty clearly. So um I don't

[1:11:28] want to set up a precedent where just that every time you know somebody gets a

[1:11:32] hold of these old houses and like all right we're going to we're going to

[1:11:35] beautify it and put it back to where it was but we also need to make it a duplex

[1:11:39] to make it you know financially feasible. I'm kind of wary of going

[1:11:43] ahead with that myself.

[1:11:51] » I'm going to jump in and just say one more thing about um I've been in my

[1:11:55] house for 30 years and prior to that at some point it was a duplex which I can't

[1:12:00] even imagine. I think what's there's an outside entrance to the basement. I mean

[1:12:05] it's a 1901 built house. So, I think the person who lived upstairs must have gone

[1:12:09] down into the basement and then back up some stairs beside the kitchen or

[1:12:13] something to get upstairs, but there was supposedly a kitchen up there and

[1:12:18] there's a second bathroom. Um, I don't know where how they I have a single

[1:12:24] driveway. I don't know how they arranged with with the parking and all that, but

[1:12:28] I will say since I've purchased it, there are so many more there are

[1:12:32] benefits that you can get grants. Um, and I have been the beneficiary of those

[1:12:38] um, through the city and then also the county because it's owner occupied. So,

[1:12:42] I am all in favor of turning this back into a or maintaining it, whichever it

[1:12:46] might be, as a single family dwelling because that's where you can really get

[1:12:50] some money that you can put into your home and make it much better um, because

[1:12:56] it's owner occupied.

[1:13:00] I I would just like to remind everybody that this is just a recommendation and

[1:13:05] it goes to city council who will have the final say. So I would encourage you

[1:13:10] all to come to city council and uh express your views to them. All we do on

[1:13:16] this is just recommend yes, we would support it or no, the planning

[1:13:20] commission would not support it. It's not the end of the line. uh no matter

[1:13:25] what our decision is, it goes to city council. So I I just think it's

[1:13:31] important that you all know that I disagree that we are setting a

[1:13:35] precedent. I think we take look at each individual request on its own merits and

[1:13:42] because we say yes to one it the maybe the merits we saw differently than what

[1:13:47] you're presenting to us. Again, it goes on to city council. um attack bill

[1:13:53] Harold if you need to, but just no matter what happens here, it's not it's

[1:13:58] not the final end ending. So, however passionate you feel and which you feel

[1:14:04] very passionate, keep it for city council also.

[1:14:09] » That's a good point. >> You made the point.

[1:14:12] » Thank you. it it as I add up the things in my mind,

[1:14:17] there are some points that can be made in favor of both positions. It's not a

[1:14:22] completely one-sided uh uh question here. I guess the thing I think sways me

[1:14:29] one way or the other is these other uh addresses in the area that are duplexes

[1:14:36] or threeunit buildings. Um, those are legal nonconforming

[1:14:43] uses. They're they're not what the what that

[1:14:48] area is intended to to have, but they're grandfathered in basically because they

[1:14:52] were put to that use before the zoning code was changed.

[1:14:58] So, and my conclusion is that just because a number of other place other

[1:15:04] addresses are legal nonconforming uses that that doesn't mean we should add one

[1:15:09] more to that list. So, although I think it's a close call

[1:15:12] that uh there can be points made in favor of Mr. Smith's position as well as

[1:15:17] against, uh I I think unless somebody convinces me in the next few minutes,

[1:15:21] I'll probably vote no on this.

[1:15:30] Are there any other comments, questions?

[1:15:40] Is there a motion to approve this and forward it to city council?

[1:15:49] » I'll make the motion to approve it. So it's gets gets up for a vote. Okay.

[1:15:57] » [clears throat] >> I'll second.

[1:15:58] » He made the motion to approve it. >> Yes. To approve.

[1:16:03] » I'll second. >> No, he's got to do a roll call vote on

[1:16:08] the first motion. >> We need to do a roll call vote.

[1:16:11] » Yes. [snorts] >> All right, Miss Broadwell.

[1:16:17] » What's the motion? >> The motion. The motion is for our

[1:16:22] recommendation to approve and go to city council.

[1:16:27] So if if >> to approve

[1:16:30] » as you had as you had stated previously if

[1:16:33] » you don't agree with it. >> Okay. No.

[1:16:36] » Okay. >> Miss Denbo.

[1:16:40] » No. >> Miss Enis?

[1:16:42] » No. >> Mr. McComber?

[1:16:44] » No. >> Mr. Phillips?

[1:16:47] » No. Mr. Reis,

[1:16:50] » yes. >> Mr. Stalterzer,

[1:16:53] » no. >> Mr. Waddle,

[1:16:55] » yes. >> Mr. Body,

[1:16:57] » no.

[1:17:02] » So, it goes forward to city council with a with a uh

[1:17:10] no recommendation from the planning commission. Correct.

[1:17:14] » Correct. >> Correct.

[1:17:17] Thank you everyone who uh who came forward. We appreciate it. And uh we'll

[1:17:22] go to the next item on the agenda, text amendments.

[1:17:29] Uh there's a proposed text amendments to chapter 150 of the zoning code, article

[1:17:35] 2, district and zoning regulations. Sections 150.26

[1:17:41] commercial zone. Section 150.28 28 mixeduse neighborhood zone section

[1:17:48] 150.39 summary table of zone and district regulations

[1:17:54] article 4 generally applicable standards section 150.80 buffering

[1:18:02] section 150.81 81 outdoor lighting and article six administration and

[1:18:08] procedures section 150.94 application and issuance of zoning

[1:18:14] certificate. >> Heather,

[1:18:18] » well, I had a memo in your packet that reviewed the changes that were fairly

[1:18:23] minor. I don't know if you want me to go over those tonight or just wait till the

[1:18:27] public hearing.

[1:18:32] Uh, I >> can you

[1:18:35] » Yeah, >> I need the door.

[1:18:38] » Chase, can you close the door >> or move them down the hall a little?

[1:18:48] » What did you say, Heather? So, I gave you a memo in the packet um

[1:18:53] introducing the staff changes that we're requesting and I didn't know if you want

[1:18:57] me to review those tonight or do you want to wait till the public hearing

[1:19:01] that I hope you set for the next meeting October?

[1:19:06] » Set up for a hearing. >> Yeah, I don't I personally don't have

[1:19:10] any questions. Does anybody else have any questions or need to hear additional

[1:19:15] information at this point? Uh we can go ahead and set the public hearing for the

[1:19:19] next meeting.

[1:19:23] Is there a motion to uh >> So moved.

[1:19:26] » Thank you. I'll second. >> Thank you.

[1:19:35] » Thank you, Bill, [clears throat] for closing the door.

[1:19:40] » I said thank you for doing that. >> All in favor of the public hearing. You

[1:19:44] want to do it by voice? Voice the Kok voice vote would be fine.

[1:19:48] » That's fine. All in favor say I. >> I.

[1:19:53] » Opposed hearing none. Okay.

[1:19:58] Next item reports. Uh representative to the zoning board of appeals Mr.

[1:20:03] McCumber. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh on August

[1:20:07] the 12th, the ZBA met and considered three variance requests. The first one

[1:20:13] uh involved a a woman Sue Yohi who lives on West Worster Street and she had

[1:20:18] constructed a fence that was intended to be six feet tall which is uh the maximum

[1:20:24] allowed and um this was similar to a case we had a few months ago where

[1:20:29] because the ground was not even to make the top of the fence level meant that

[1:20:34] part of the fence was more than six feet. Um so she wanted a variance to to

[1:20:41] allow what had already been constructed. Uh as we discussed this uh it uh became

[1:20:49] obvious that Miss Yohi, a retired school teacher in the Bowling Green district,

[1:20:54] uh had had some problems with the contractor.

[1:20:58] And it uh one thing that came to light that was bothersome was that Chase had

[1:21:02] actually been on the site when the contractor was there constructing the

[1:21:06] fence and told him that what he was doing would be illegal. and he basically

[1:21:11] just ignored that that recommendation. Uh the problem we had was I think people

[1:21:17] would have been inclined to not allow the fence as is. Uh but Miss Yohi had

[1:21:23] paid the contractor in full. He's long gone and if we made her revised the

[1:21:30] fence, it was going to be an additional expense to to her.

[1:21:34] Uh so there was some discussion both ways about that whether we wanted under

[1:21:38] those circumstances to uh make her reconstruct a portion of the fence or or

[1:21:43] or leave it as it is. And we eventually voted 6 to1 to give her the variance.

[1:21:50] Uh the second uh item was Rebecca Ferguson who lives at 1622 Treetop Place

[1:21:56] uh wanted a variance to expand her driveway a bit. We've had several of

[1:22:02] these recently. This one was a little different. She didn't want to expand it

[1:22:05] to the side uh near a property owned by a neighbor. She wanted to expand it on

[1:22:11] sort of the inside of the property to try to partially or mostly eliminate a

[1:22:17] curve in the driveway that she's had trouble negotiating.

[1:22:21] And uh that that passed seven to nothing with minimal uh discussion.

[1:22:27] The third item was an interesting one. Um, you may recall from I think Chase's

[1:22:32] report that last month when I wasn't here that uh Chipotle had wanted to

[1:22:36] build a a store on the south side of town and uh there was a 25- ft minimum

[1:22:43] height requirement for commercial buildings and the building they wanted

[1:22:47] to build was going to be 18t 8 in tall. And uh we uh uh turned that request down

[1:22:54] at the time, but they came back at the next meeting and we we were advised by

[1:22:59] our legal counsel that we should allow them a second opportunity because they

[1:23:04] said they had additional information that might affect our decision.

[1:23:08] Well, the uh additional information essentially was that after the prior

[1:23:13] hearing when they didn't get the variance, the person in charge of the

[1:23:17] construction um uh

[1:23:22] came forth with a um uh basically a deed restriction on the properties that are

[1:23:26] around Home Depot in that area there. Uh there is essentially a deed restriction

[1:23:31] that says the uh uh any commercial building can't be more than 23 feet

[1:23:36] tall. So they couldn't meet the 25- foot requirement even if they wanted to

[1:23:41] because of the deed restriction. And this individual who was a different

[1:23:45] person than had made the presentation a month before said he went to their

[1:23:49] architectural people and told them, "Well, we've got to we've got to make

[1:23:53] this as tall as we can. The code is what it is and and you know, they're not

[1:23:57] going to really budge on this." So they came up with a design that would be 22

[1:24:02] feet 8 in tall, 4 in short of the maximum that they that they could build.

[1:24:08] And uh um uh taking that into account uh the variance now was granted. Uh so the

[1:24:16] 22 foot 8 inch height uh they had they have the variance for although you

[1:24:22] probably saw that in the in the last item we were looking at on the agenda

[1:24:25] here about changes to the zoning code. One of the changes was to eliminate the

[1:24:29] 25- foot u minimum height for commercial buildings. So [clears throat] maybe

[1:24:33] they'll go back to the 18 foot 8 inch version.

[1:24:37] I'm not sure, but they did get they did get their variance. So something's going

[1:24:40] to be built. There's going to be a Chipotle on the south side of town.

[1:24:46] That's the the all of my report, Mr. President.

[1:24:50] » Thank you, >> Heather.

[1:24:52] » No report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

[1:24:55] Thank you for all the information you supplied on the public hearing. It was

[1:25:00] » It was interesting reading, frankly. >> You're welcome.

[1:25:04] » Amazing. Find all that information you guys kept it all those years.

[1:25:10] » And I didn't even mention we looked through city directories too, Chase and

[1:25:13] I. So, I know that gentleman said earlier he had Well, we did too. I

[1:25:17] actually have copies. So, >> find some information on my house.

[1:25:23] [laughter] >> All right. All right. Well, thank you

[1:25:25] very much. Uh motion to a adjourn.

[1:25:31] » Second. >> All say I. I.

[1:25:34] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> Nice job, Bob.

Planning Commission Meeting – 9/2/2026

Transcript