City Council - public_hearing

We're going to go ahead and get started. Our third member should be here any minute now. The public hearing on Resolution 3912 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 their 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. Resolution 3912, resolution amending and adopting chapter 156 of the codified ordinances of the city of Bowling Green, Ohio regarding access management policies and guidelines. 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 Resolution 3912 from Planning Director Heather Saylor.

Good evening. First of all, I gave you a copy of the access management draft for your review. If you would like to give that back to me, that would be great. So I could have staff use that if it ultimately is passed. We appreciate saving on paper. This is an update to Chapter 156, the Access Management Policies and Guidelines. So having access management provides a proactive planning approach to maintain the integrity of our public roadways to ensure safe and efficient movement of people and goods now and into the future. This document provides a framework for regulating the number, type, size, and location of access points from the roadways to private property while balancing the needs of access for those types of developments, change in use, new construction, subdivision, addition, et cetera. So essentially any use or changes which increase traffic the city needs to review and approve access for. We have the current document, the current AMPG, they call it, on our website, and we also have the draft document on our website. Again, it's a little under 100 pages, so we didn't want to print a lot of those extra copies. So the AMPG was first adopted in 2001, and it had an update in 2009. And we contracted with Manikin Smith Group in May of 2024 to update this document. Also, I wanted to mention that Pat Ecchi is here, the consultant we worked with on this document. If there's any specific questions maybe I cannot answer, he's really the expert on this, so I appreciate him being there. So the reason for the update was requested by our department for several reasons, most importantly to reflect the city's complete streets policy, update road functional classes, add visuals, updated maps, and align with ODOT standards. The update to the document was guided by a steering committee in coordination with Mannequin Smith, as I already mentioned. We had representatives from Public Works, Engineering, Planning Commission, Fire, Police, and City Council. It was Rachel Phipps prior to her term ending. Planning Commission did review the proposed document, and that was on Wednesday, July 1st, and they referred to the request of City Council with a positive recommendation. They did not recommend any changes. I also gave you a copy which is titled Summary of Key Changes in the 2026 Update to the Access Management Policies and Guidelines. So again, a lot of this is kind of cut and dry as far as following the ODOT manual, adding visuals, and really wanted to provide some clarity to developers by having a visual. We really like visuals if you can't tell between our zoning code and the access management document. So that is basically it, unless you have any specific questions for me.

Do you have any questions? Nope. OK, so this resolution 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. You can come up. OK, Jody, did we receive any correspondence? We did not. OK, do we have any additional comments or discussion?

Nothing for me.

All right. Thank you, everyone, for your participation. This concludes the public hearing on resolution 3912. I will see you again at 625 for our next public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay, everybody's getting out there.

The public hearing on ordinance 9368 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 9368. Ordinance amending the zoning district map of the City of Bowling Green for approximately 22 acres at the southeast corner of South Dunbridge Road and Expressway Drive from interstate commercial to institutional zoning. 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 9368 from Planning Director Heather Saylor.

Thank you. I do believe the applicant is here from Vermillion Development on behalf of Whitson Properties LLC, the property owner. Again, the request is for zoning change from the current interstate commerce to institutional zoning, which would allow assisted living is what they're actually interested in building according to their application. The location is at the southeast corner of South Dunbridge Road and Expressway Drive. It's comprised of three parcels, approximately 22 acres in size. I also gave you a copy of the aerial map, which shows the neighboring zoning districts. Planning Commission held the required public hearing on Wednesday, July 21st, and referred the rezoning request to City Council with a positive recommendation of approval, and the staff report provided a neutral recommendation. I also gave you, or I can give you a copy if you'd like the staff report, but I know you've seen that as part of the Planning Commission packets prior. So essentially the zoning change allowing institutional actually allows less intensive uses than the current zoning of IC. There are differences in the setbacks such as the front yard setback of 50 feet and a side yard setback of 10 feet compared to a zero side yard setback. unless they're adjacent to residential and a minimum of 25 feet compared to 60 feet in the IC zoning for the actual setback too. Another difference is there is no maximum lot coverage in the I zoning where the actual IC zoning has a maximum lot coverage of 60%. Lastly, there is the same maximum height of 60 feet in the I zoning. I gave you a copy of the IC, the intent of the IC, along with the district standards. And then I gave you a copy of the proposed zoning and for the institutional, along with again, those standards that I just mentioned. And I gave you a comparison of the permitted and conditional uses in IC versus institutional. Again, highlighting that there's quite a bit less uses allowed in the institutional versus the current IC zoning. Again, I give you a map so you can see that adjacent zoning and otherwise that's it, unless you have any specific questions for me.

I do have one. Are there buffering requirements between, so it'll be IC and institutional? No. Okay. Do you have any questions?

No. I do not.

I did want to add one more thing. Um, so a few years ago when you had a rezoning request for the same area of Dunbridge, it did not follow our future land use map. And you did amend that, um, to include that the land use map be updated along with the rezoning being passed. So I just wanted to mention that if you do consider passing this, if you would also consider amending that ordinance to include the future land use map to be updated. Does that make sense?

You're asking us to enter an amendment that would ensure that we re-examine the future land use map?

What we did before, or council did, they amended it to include the land use plan. So the existing ordinance, they added that not only was the rezoning approved, but also the updating of the 2014 land use plan.

So you're asking us to concurrently update the plan so that this meets that?

Correct, yes. Excellent, thank you. You said it much better than I did. Thank you, Joel.

I have a question I guess based on that last point. It seems from recent planning commission meetings and maybe this is just my imagination, but that the future land use plan seems to be in tension with more and more requests that we are getting. Would it be worth it? Or would you advise that we take another look at the future land use plan, which is now over a decade old and maybe see if a more comprehensive reevaluation would be necessary?

Absolutely. We're actually requesting in our 2027 budget an update to the comprehensive use plan. So we will see how that goes. But yes, definitely in the plan. OK. No pun intended.

Next, we will receive any testimony from the petitioners.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Marcus Lavigne. I believe I've met with many of you before regarding our plans as we've been kind of going back and forth for about six months for a proposed Silver Birch senior living facility. I just wanted to address one of your questions regarding buffering. We are proposing buffering around our building. in the form of landscape berms and year-round vegetation around our building just to prevent any screening issues with maybe land uses that aren't compatible or as compatible with our proposed use. And then myself and Carrie Dixon with Vermilion Development can answer any questions.

Do we have any questions right now?

Yeah, I have a few, sorry. How many units of housing?

Yeah, so we are proposing 120 units. Okay. Medicaid eligibility? Correct, yes. Okay. How many full-time employees do you know? Full-time equivalents would be about 50 to 55 at this site.

Okay, thank you. Of course.

Thanks. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee at this time? Jody, did we receive any correspondence? We did not. Do we have any other discussion or comments?

I think it's great, 120 new units of housing, Medicaid eligibility, 50 to 55 full-time employees. I think when we had discussed it previously, annual payroll is going to be in the millions of dollars. So I think it's a great proposal. The fact that they are voluntarily undertaking the additional screening, suggest to me that they're going to be good neighbors, which I think is an added bonus. So I look forward to voting in favor of this.

I support this project as well. I think it's going to be an asset in our community.

Yes, I do as well. I did stop over last night after dark to see what the lighting situation was like, and I didn't think it was too bad. The field wasn't lit up from the nearby uses, so I was glad to see that. Thank you everyone for your participation. This concludes the public hearing on ordinance 9368.

Thank you.

The public hearing on ordinance 9370 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 9370, ordinance establishing interim zoning of R1 low density residential zoning for the approximately 0.84 acres of land located at 1200 Sand Ridge Road and recently annexed to the city as petitioned for by Michael Q. McNamara. There are four parts to our public hearings. The first is the 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 9370 from planning director Heather Saylor.

Good evening again. So the interim zoning recommended for this property came from Planning Commission as R1, low density residential. As mentioned, it's 1200 Sandridge Road, which works out really well for us because for whatever reason, it already is a city address. We don't have to change the address, which is always a bonus. Again, so Planning Commission did recommend the R1. I gave you a copy of the map showing all the adjoining or adjacent zoning classifications, gave you a copy of the R1 zone standards of lot area, lot width, setbacks, et cetera. Also gave you a table of the permitted uses, which seems to meet everything around the area with housing mostly. And I think that's it, unless you have any questions for me.

Any questions? Nope. Nope, okay. Do we have any testimony from the petitioners? Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to address the committee at this time? Jody, did we receive any correspondence? We did not.

Okay.

Do we have any council discussion?

As for me. Okay.

Thank you everyone for your participation. This concludes the public hearing on ordinance 9370. And that was our last one.