Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parking Standards topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee to study on-site parking rules after Bowling Green visit; discussion continues

2095828 · January 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Findlay planning committee agreed to continue its review of on-site parking requirements for new residential development after staff planned a visit to Bowling Green to study a policy that removed minimum parking requirements; members discussed a prior Lincoln Street site plan where parking rules limited development options.

The Findlay City Planning & Zoning Committee voted to continue its review of on-site parking requirements for new residential developments and requested staff report back after a visit to Bowling Green, which recently eliminated minimum parking-space requirements.

Grant, a city staff member, said he and another staffer planned to visit Bowling Green the same afternoon to learn why that city removed minimum parking requirements and how the change has worked in a college‑town context. "We're going to discuss with them why they went to that," Grant said, adding the trip would provide insight for Findlay’s consideration.

Committee members noted one local site where parking requirements shaped a development proposal: a split lot on West Lincoln where a developer pursued a duplex or triplex and encountered difficulties meeting on‑site parking standards. Members said the project went through site-plan review but ultimately was not built; the design would have produced a large backyard parking area and an awkward layout, illustrating how current rules affect housing feasibility.

Dan DeArment, 4th Ward, moved to continue the conversation after the Bowling Green visit; Jim Niemeyer, 6th Ward, seconded the motion. The committee approved the continuation by voice vote.

Members expressed differing initial views: some said strict parking requirements can prevent denser housing forms from fitting on constrained lots, while others said removing minimum parking can shift parking demand onto streets and is not necessarily a net benefit. The committee agreed to gather examples and the Bowling Green experience for a future meeting and to circulate relevant site‑plan documentation, including the West Lincoln case, for further discussion.

No code changes were adopted at the meeting; the action taken was to continue study and report back to the committee.