During a lengthy meeting on Wednesday, the Bowling Green Planning Commission began work to review the draft new zoning code for the city, focusing on one proposed zoning district.

The commission discussed, and made some recommendations for, the pedestrian residential district, fielding comments from a number of residents.

Work on revising the city’s decades-old zoning code, which was adopted in the 1970s, has been ongoing for some time. The city held a series of presentations by the Cincinnati-based firm ZoneCo, which was contracted to revamp the code, in October, February and June, to explain the contents of the draft.

In his remarks early in Wednesday’s meeting, commission Chair Bob McOmber said that there had been questions raised by some as to whether the zoning code draft was a “done deal” – that the city had already determined an outcome and that they were just “going through the motions.”

He emphasized that “that is definitely not the case. I don’t think anyone knows at this point what the final zoning code proposal that will go before city council is going to look like.”

McOmber noted the amount of work, time and money that went into the project, saying he thought that something, at least, would eventually be presented to council and passed.

“We didn’t do all that just to end up with nothing,” McOmber said, adding that what the code will look like “is yet to be determined.”

“There is no hidden agenda,” he continued. “The agenda is to end up with a zoning code that is better than the one we have now.”

McOmber noted that the commission’s decisions are only recommendations to council, which “will pay attention to what we suggest to them, but it’s not just a rubber stamp kind of situation.”

He also said he has heard some criticism of ZoneCo.

“And I feel after a considerable review of what’s gone on that ZoneCo should not be a scapegoat in this,” McOmber said.

He said that the city provided the firm with information in the form of the comprehensive planning documents drafted in recent years, and asked them to come up with a proposed draft of a zoning code.

Additionally, McOmber said, “some of the things that are now controversial have been talked about for a number of years.”

Eight audience members offered comments, centering on the proposed pedestrian residential district in the zoning code draft. The district, referred to as the PR, is a neighborhood area located in a rough donut around the downtown. Among its major features is that it would allow some businesses to operate.

Linda Duda said she was concerned about the 5-foot setback for residences, noting its rarity in the city, and asked if it was the intention of the city or developers to tear down houses in the district and build new construction.

McOmber said it is not the intention to tear down homes as the result of the new zoning.

“I don’t think that’s up for even discussion,” he said.

Jim Evans had concerns about the property dimensions in the proposed PR, including 30-foot lot widths. He said that increased density and other provisions could raise the prospect of changing the PR district to look like “an urbanized district. … We don’t live in Chicago, we want to live in Bowling Green.”

Evans suggested that a statement be added that current legal and conforming residences will remain legal and conforming when the new zoning code is enacted.

“We are typical, hardworking, everyday people,” said Emily Dunipace of her neighborhood, which would be included in the PR. “We intentionally chose to live in this area, to own a home in this very quiet residential area with historic architecture. … I would argue that we already have a walkable Bowling Green.”

Dunipace said that she didn’t see details such as regulations for the proposed businesses in the plan, and asked if density of the businesses had also been considered.

“How much more burden are we asking current homeowners to bear, based on adding additional businesses into the neighborhoods?” she asked.

Dunipace asked the commission to consider a trial run for the PR in a smaller area, to examine that data, “and then come back and show us what has been the impact on the homes in that area.”

“This proposed revised zoning code agenda and draft plan has its merits,” said David Wilson, “but the proposed PR rezoning of an entire existing R-2 District is not what we, the residents/citizens bought, own, live in or want. This matter is dividing the neighbors and the neighborhood.”

Peg Baker suggested that a better place for more businesses would be the current mall area on the north end of town.

“You could make that a very walkable area for businesses and residences,” she said.

As the commission moved into their work session to discuss the draft zoning code, McOmber decided to start with the PR.

Commission member Mark Remeis said that the PR does include a lot of change, and noted that the zoning code hasn’t been updated for decades. He said citizens of BG have seen towns and cities around them make changes, and said he felt that has created a distance between the growth of BG and the growth of surrounding municipalities. Remeis said he feels strongly that everyone should be open to some potential change.

“Just because I live in a world where things happen exactly the way they do right now, doesn’t mean it’s the best world tomorrow or next year or next month,” Remeis said.

He said he has empathy for the fact that change affects individuals, families and businesses. But the potential of businesses being next to residences in a neighborhood “doesn’t have to be bad,” he said, noting that currently the city has “a finite area” where businesses can locate.

If that isn’t expanded, “we literally stop the future potential growth of our city. And for me, that is really important. … For us to be a little more relaxing with some of the restrictions on businesses that want to open and come into our city, with respect to building heights, some other things, parking, things like that, these are really important for us to discuss through this process. Because we have lost businesses in the last 10 years because of some of the restrictions that sit here today.

The PR district, Remeis said “doesn’t need to be a bad thing. … We don’t need to do what Chicago does, but we can certainly do some things that bigger cities do that might make individuals want to move back to Bowling Green, stay in Bowling Green when they graduate from BGSU.”

Member Abhishek Bhati said that the commission needs to take a step back and think more deeply about the policies and implementation involved, and what data is driving it.

Member Erica Sleek agreed, asking why the particular area was picked to be the PR district.

“We need to really take into consideration, there are people who have lived here for a really long time, and we want to, yes, expand our city, but there are people who are already living here.”

Sleek wondered if a smaller test area for the PR could be implemented.

“We definitely need more data that is comparable to what we’d like to do,” she said.

“We’ve got to do something,” said member Tom Stalter. “The city needs something to make it more vibrant.”

He said the PR could bring positives, but that he also doesn’t want to affect existing residences.

“I think it merits, certainly, consideration by this body to suggest to the council that the area encompassed (by the PR) be smaller than what is currently proposed,” McOmber said.

ZoneCo’s Nolan Nicaise, who attended the meeting remotely, said something to think about is that, as currently proposed, the PR would allow for existing structures to be internally subdivided.

“There’s a lot of people that are forced out of the housing market because things aren’t accessible to them. So this is an attempt to allow some accessibility and recognize that people aren’t necessarily living with eight-person families. A lot of people are living alone as single people. So, allowing homes to be internally subdivided, that could provide some options for them, either as renters or owners.”

The commission voted on recommendations to council on some changes to uses permitted in the PR. They voted to make accessory dwelling units, day care centers, restaurants and retail sales and services conditional rather than outright permitted uses as they had been listed. They additionally voted to add artisan manufacturing as a permitted use in the PR, and removed cemeteries as a permitted use.

The commission will meet next on Monday at 7 p.m.