City Council - Regular Meeting

Do I have to push it? Okay. The public hearing on ordinance number 9354 is now open. A public hearing is a meeting that provides for public discussion regarding ordinances and other matters pending before city council. Interested parties may express their views and submit evidence supporting those views at this public hearing. The information shared will become part of the city's permanent record and may be used by the members of city council in deciding whether or not to adopt the ordinance. Ordinance number 9354, ordinance amending and adopting certain sections of chapter 150 of the codified ordinances of the city of Bowling Green, Ohio, regarding zoning code. Excuse me. There are four parts to our public hearings. The first is a staff report. The second is petitioner testimony. The third is public testimony. The fourth is discussion by members of city council. To start, we will receive a staff report on ordinance number 9354 from planning director Heather Saylor.

Good evening, thank you. I did give you a copy of the handout at your seats. I don't know if you want me to go through each change or how in-depth that you have followed these proposed zoning code amendments through Planning Commission to the point it got recommended to you, but essentially we have made changes or proposed changes to the zoning code based a lot on our change to having an online portal now, so all of our applications for permits and subdivisions, et cetera, that run through the planning department are now online. And second to that, since we were proposing changes because of the digital portal, we thought, you know, we always have a running list of edits we would like to propose of things that come up every now and then as review permits. So this essentially reflects those edits plus again the online portal changes. Planning Commission did review these items on March 4th with staff and then held a public hearing on April 1st recommending the text amendments to the city council. I gave you a copy of the memo that we gave to Planning Commission just because it provides basically a word bank, I'd call it, of labeling the reasons and matching that to the text amendment. So again, boiling it down to whether the change was related to a digital online portal change or comprehensive use table, et cetera. So do you want me to go through each change or what is your preference?

I would like you to go through each change, please.

Okay, so when you look at the first page, which would, it's dated February 23rd of 2026. Proposed zoning code amendments chapter 150 under historic overlay zone 150.11b where it talks about certificates of appropriateness. We basically want to remove the word written in front of COA instead of just having it be more open so you could be digital. It doesn't have to be written for the COA. So again, that's related to our online portal. The second change proposed is to section 150.18b vision clearance triangle. We've actually had some issues when we get complaints about this issue and it's not clear about where you measure from, whether that be the edge of the right-of-way or the property line, and so we wanted to make it clearer by saying we like to measure from where the right-of-ways intersect. And also, if that does pass, we would, of course, change it with the visual diagram under C, and it's titled Figure 4. For the next change, Comprehensive Use Table, Section 150.42, we're proposing one change, which is for telecommunication facilities under I, Zoning Institutional. As you can see in the table, it was originally a P for permitted use, but if you look further into the zoning code under basically the specific regulations for uses telecommunications facility, it actually says it's a conditional use in all zoning districts. So we really think this was just an oversight and we think it should match the text in that table. under section 150.44 accessory uses. We've had some situations where a shed was proposed in the front yard and did not require permit as long as it was 100 square feet or less in size. And so we were just proposing that under the table, table 22 accessory use setback table, that they be the same as what's applicable to principal structures for the front yard setback. So, for example, if you're in the PR district, it could be a 20-foot minimum setback, or it could be that average front yard setback for that block. So it could be closer, it could be further away, depending on that block. If you remember, we added that maybe about six months or so ago for PR and some other zoning districts.

I'm sorry, that just means that it has to be set back to whatever the average front of the house is?

So whatever the minimum front yard setback is for that zoning district. So let's say the average front yard setback for. So they can't put it on this next to the sidewalk. Correct. Got it. Yes. So let's say the minimum average front yard setback for East Reed Street is 10 feet.

Right.

As long as they're out of that 10-foot setback, then it's out of the front yard setback as required by the zoning code. Or if it's 20 feet, et cetera.

So just to be – I am – I don't want to restrict anybody's use of their private property to the extent possible. I think the front of the house has to be set back at least the minimum setback. Correct. Stairs leading up to the front door can be in front of that setback. I believe so. I'd have to look closer at the code, but I believe so. I'm pretty sure that's the case. So what we're really saying is that we can't, nobody can put a shed in the front yard.

Not necessarily. So let's say your house sits back further than the front yard setback requirement, the minimum, then you could potentially still have one of these accessory uses in the front yard, as long as it's the minimum front yard setback back from the property line. Do you understand? Like say my house sits a little further back.

So if your house sits farther back, that seems fairly arbitrary though. So some people are going to be allowed to shed and some people are not.

Potentially. But they could still have it as long as it meets the minimum setbacks.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Okay, so the next proposed amendment is under 150.79 fences. So basically there's a beginning portion of the code that talks about the visibility triangle and that basically you can't put anything greater than two feet in the visibility triangle. Well in this section of fences you'll read it says no fences shall be installed in the vision clearance triangle. So what we're trying to do is just match it with the vision triangle and basically say that you can't have anything greater than two feet. Again, it's an inconsistency we found in the code and wanted to fix that. Under 150.81, outdoor lighting, our utilities director had the suggestion to just change some wording. So instead of saying protect the night sky, he was proposing that we do outdoor lighting intensity must be limited to reduce new uses, to avoid and limit light pollution. Also, we're proposing in B that all outdoor lighting except sign illumination, removing except sign illumination shall comply with the following. So we thought it seemed kind of odd not to include signs, which the digital signs can be very bright if you ever notice that in the nighttime. We thought, you know, why can't this also apply to those electronic message signs? under sign regulations in all zones and districts. So again, this is the same thing I just alluded to, but I'm adding it, or proposing that we add it to the sign regulations in all zones and districts. So I'm proposing to add any illuminated or electronic signage cannot exceed the outdoor lighting regulations established in section 150.81. Also under signs, but under N, temporary sign regulations, number seven, we're proposing that we eliminate a portion about temporary signs cannot move, such as feather signs or inflatable signs, which are not permitted. So currently those type of signs are not permitted, but we're proposing that council considers allowing a feather sign, basically, or a sign that can move in the wind. They're often called a horizontal banner or a feather sign. We've gotten response from our business community that they tend to use those signs a lot, and we just thought it's something for, again, the council to consider. It would still require permit, and there still would be a maximum number of days as required under the temporary sign regulations. Also to the sign regulations section, but under the regulations table 150.84, we noticed that building identification sign is not mentioned in a lot of the zoning districts. I believe it was only mentioned in one zoning district, and we thought that was very inconsistent because it's a pretty minimal size sign, it's defined in the code, and we basically had, I think it was a downtown business call and asked about how they could use one of these, and that's when we noticed it, that it's not addressed, in all the zoning categories that we felt it should be as a permitted sign. So we are proposing that the building identification sign be added to the R3 zoning, which basically could be an apartment complex, C commercial, IE innovation and employment, mixed-use neighborhood zoning, agricultural zoning, recreational conservation, pedestrian residential, university-oriented residential, and interstate commerce. And lastly, the Central Business District. So also under, let's see, Article 6, Administrative and Procedures, under 150.92, Zoning Certificate, a lot of this section is about removing the word written. Again, going back to our digital online portal, so instead of saying under written request from the owner, et cetera, take out written, In B and in also C, we want to remove something that's been kind of an issue for us. Our old zoning code actually allowed zoning certificates to be valid for a period of one year from the date of approval. And for whatever reason, in the new zoning code, we say from the date of application. Well, when someone applies for a zoning permit, especially if it's a larger development, it can take several months. to finally review it, get comments, and then get the site plan according to our regulations and ordinances in order. So we would like to change that, that it will be valid for one year from the date of approval rather than the date of application. Does that make sense? We thought it was a pretty simple change, and we think it makes, honestly, it's common sense, we think. And again, it was in the old code, just something that I think we just didn't really think of until you go to apply it to something, and it ends up becoming a red flag in how we review things. Under 150.94, application and issuance of zoning certificates continued under A. Again, we're removing written applications, so it just says application for a zoning certificate. Same with B, instead of saying written application, we just want to say application, so again, it can be used online as an application. Moving forward down under E10, where it says all drawings must be prepared on reproducible paper, well again, we're on an online portal, so we're not collecting any paper any longer, so we wanted to remove that, which means we would renumber the rest of that section. Same for the existing number 16 and 17 we want to remove that requirement to submit six prints of final drawings and Again back to digital there same with number 17 We don't want the copies Under section 150.97, zoning certificate application completeness, the applicant will be notified in writing of any deficiencies in the completeness of the application. Well, again, we wanna remove in writing. They will be notified, but it doesn't have to be in writing. Section 150.98, planning director's duties, where it says at the very last sentence, filing an application with the planning director on forms provided by the planning director. Well, we wanna remove on forms, because again, we want it to be digital. Same with 150.104, Zoning Board of Appeals. We also want to remove under A that they must file a written notice of appeal to the board, because again, we don't want any more written. The ZBA forms have actually been working really well being online. Lastly, the glossary of terms under Section or Article 7, a feather sign. We thought adding the word temporary sign would clarify if we do want to allow that type of sign, that it wouldn't be a permanent sign, it would be a temporary sign, and thus need to get a permit. We also are proposing changes to a sexually oriented business definition. We think there's a portion of that that actually works in conflict with each other. So we wanted to clean that up and basically remove half the definition and make it clear at the beginning. And we noticed some things carried over from the other code that really don't fit into the new code like it did in the old code. So again, it's just cleaning that up. Same with retail sales for those types of sexually oriented materials. And let's see. and then also the vision clearance triangle. Again, we wanted to update that definition with our proposed definition of measuring that from the right of way in the section towards the beginning of the zoning code. And then lastly, under zoning certificate or zoning permit, instead of saying a document issued by the planning director, we wanna say an approval granted by the planning director or his or her designee. So again, getting rid of the written out of there. Thank you. You're welcome. Does that help? Any other questions?

That was very helpful.

Good. Okay, thank you. If there are no further questions. So this ordinance originated with the city administration, and there will be no additional applicant testimony at this time. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee? Please give your name and address for the record, and you can just step right up. Okay. Jody, did we receive any correspondence? We did not. Okay. Do we have any discussion among our membership?

I'll go. Sure. Heather, I appreciate the a lot of work that went into this by your office as well as Planning Commission I think there's a lot of good stuff here the online permit applications in particular I imagine was quite a bit of work but I think it will really help streamline that process other signs is something that I've heard about from several business owners as well as housing developers that are trying to make make sure that their plans pencil out regulating signs as outdoor lighting, I think makes a lot of sense. I do have some reservations about the changes to the accessory use table. I have shared with council a proposed amendment that I hope is given some consideration this evening, specifically the regulations around what I would call some of the more innocuous uses, rain gardens, play sets, tree houses. I think it makes a lot of sense to have larger setbacks for sheds, for example, outdoor storage. If we're not allowing a house to be built on the sidewalk, I think it makes sense to ask everybody to adhere to those same regulations for other types of buildings. I am very wary of prohibiting people from having, for example, patios or decks or play sets in their front yard. I think those really add to the character of our neighborhoods. I appreciate driving through our neighborhoods and seeing people out in the front yards playing. I know certainly around my house, I enjoy the families that live around the area and I think it really adds to the appeal. So I would like to tweak that a little bit and hope council would agree, but otherwise I think these changes make a lot of sense.

Joel, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Yeah, I'm in agreement with the vast majority of these changes. I agree with Jeff. I think that some of these mandates about accessory uses are too restrictive. I support all of the changes that Jeff has proposed. I'm a little on the fence about the shed use. I think, I don't know that we have a real interest in restricting somebody's use of a shed. So I would probably propose to include sheds in, what is it, F2D, and not restrict shed use unless it's over 100 square feet. But other than that, I'm in agreement with everything.

Thank you. And I will say for the most part, I agree. But I think there will be some things that we need to clarify, especially when it comes to gardens versus rain gardens and how we would differentiate between those things.

So Heather, can you speak to, are gardens regulated under our current code?

Under accessory uses, we say fences and gardens are not required to comply with minimum setback requirements.

And is that the only mention, as far as you're aware, of gardens in the zoning code?

That I can think of, yes.

My recollection is that we intentionally did not include any language around gardens to make it as permissive as possible. So what is the difference between a garden and a rain garden?

So I will say that the code does define rain garden and it's a depression that is specifically made for stormwater infiltration. But I feel like it will be very difficult to say this is where the rain garden ends and this is where landscaping or regular garden begins.

file a little bit about rain gardens for you, if you're interested.

Well, we have a definition in the code, so I think that's the definition we need to use. Okay. But thank you.

So maybe separate piece of legislation that clarifies the definition of rain garden if we want to be more expansive or restrictive than what we are now. Okay.

What are the current regulations around rain gardens?

Well, as Caitlin mentioned, they do have a definition in the back of our zoning code, and they're defined as an accessory use, but they say they're not required to comply with minimum setback requirements.

Yeah, so in F2B there in our accessory uses, when it says fences and gardens, I think the assumption is that that includes all types of gardens, including rain gardens.

So we're proposing a restriction on rain gardens?

The amendment does, is my understanding, by adding it to D. Is there a reason we specify for patios that they are required to be three feet from the lot line and are not able to be located in the utility easement, but we do not include that same language for fences, gardens, or hot tubs?

So we changed the patio setback what probably again about six months ago or so because we had found that to be problematic because I believe we didn't want them in any setbacks is how the zoning code was originally worded. And in our old zoning code, we required a three-foot minimum. So we wanted to retain that. We thought it was pretty problematic because a lot of people come in for patio permits pretty regularly. And to have something in a utility easement that permanent is not good news for anybody who needs to access utilities. It's one thing to put a fence in an easement at your own risk, which we do put those disclaimers on our permit. So when you sign off, you say, number one, I know I have an easement. Number two, if I put any structure in my easement, I understand that's at my own risk. And so I don't know if that helps answer your question. I just think patios are a lot more permanent than something like a fence.

Like a hot tub, for example, that would be a little bit more difficult to, maybe not. I guess if it's empty, pick it up and move it.

Okay, just curious.

And I will say I'm also a little concerned about decks. Is there usually a part of the principal structure? And to let those extend out further.

I am generally in favor of gathering spaces in the public domain. How do we distinguish between a deck and a front porch? One is made of wood and the other is not.

So I think to clarify, it'd be two different scenarios we're discussing. So you could have a deck functionally attached to the house and it not be an accessory structure. It would be considered part of the principal structure of the house. So AKA also known as a porch, whether it be wood or a concrete elevated slab. When we're talking about accessory uses, we're talking about a deck being detached. So that's when we consider it an accessory use.

Okay, so for around a pool, for example, like a deck built around an above-ground pool.

Correct, if it was not attached to the house, right. And the word we use is functionally attached, meaning you step out your patio door and you're stepping onto your deck. It may not be attached within the siding of the house, but it's functionally attached by you stepping out of your patio onto the deck and then to your pool.

Do we have any other discussion? We're getting a little close to 7 p.m.

So currently, if it's functionally attached and it is less than 100 feet, it's allowed in the front yard setback. If it's greater than 100 feet, it needs to be set back at least as far as the front yard setback in that zone.

Let me add to it. If it's an accessory use and it's detached under the proposed text amendments, it couldn't be in the front yard setback.

But I might have lost you in your question. Did that? No, I think I'm trying to, the table's broken up a little bit, so I'm trying to.

Sorry, I cut it up and moved it back together. Look at this.

That's why you're the chair of the committee. Okay. Okay.

So you technically could have a deck now attached to the front of your house as long as it's out of the front yard setback. We're not proposing any changes to any of that?

Or it could be detached and less than 100 square feet would be permitted.

Correct. That's 10 by 10.

We all set?

Yep.

Okay. So thank you everyone for your participation. This concludes the public hearing on ordinance number 954.