WESTLAND AREA COMMISSION

November 18, 1998

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm. Present were

Betty Balthaser, Hank Canello, Ron Cooper, Mike Hurd, Glen

Hymer, Dorothy Jantzen, Carol Makar, Mike McKay, Tom Morris,

Jan Province, Wilder, and Ted Wotring. King, Rinehart, and

Saxton were excused. Also present were Jim Voyles, Leo

Abston, Norma Abston, Jeff Brown, Sgt. Eing, Dori Sippial,

and others.

Jantzen moved to accept the October minutes. Wilder

seconded. Approved.

Zoning Committee (Saxton): Province introduced attorney Jeff

Brown.

Brown introduced issues Z98-085 and V98-096, for a property

located at the north side of Georgesville, west of Norton

Road. One item is a rezoning of the corner piece, and the

other is a request for a BZA variance.

The area in question involves the new portion of Georgesville

Road west of Norton Road, and the Thornton gas station.

There is some vacant ground to the west of the Thornton.

North of Georgesville Road, there is the detention pond, and

the existing development, which is the multi-family

development for which he is requesting the BZA variance.

What they are doing now is Phase 2 of that project.

Most of the ground in question is zoned for multi-family

development. The frontage is zoned commercial. The multi-

family area and the commercial area constitute Phase 2 of the

development.

To the north is another big detention pond.

The limitation text that he handed out calls for mounding on

Georgesville and Norton Roads. It calls for a fence along

those frontages, as well as street trees along the perimeter

of the property. It has the normal language about screening

the dumpsters and limiting the height of the light fixtures.

The second item is for the existing development. The city

zoning code requires two parking spaces per apartment unit.

In single-family developments, and for twin-singles, you can

count the space on the driveway as parking space. If you

have a one-car garage, you have one parking space in the

garage, and you have one parking space in front of the

garage, on the driveway. The city code allows that in

single-family and twin-single developments, but at this

point, they do not allow it in multi-family developments.

"What we want to do, on the existing development, on certain

buildings, the townhouse buildings, and if you look at I

think it's on the last page of what I handed out, is a

reduced copy of this site plan and it shows which buildings

we're talking about. These are townhouse buildings that are

marked. They have garages in the building, as part of the

building, and though sometimes I think I'm articulate, I was

told by the Zoning Commission they didn't quite understand

what I was talking about, and that I ought to go out and take

a picture, that that would be easier. So that's what I did,

and what the pictures shows is the front of these buildings,

for example. We've got garages in the front of the

buildings, and then we have parking spaces in front of those

garages, and then we also have what you call surface parking

spaces, which are the regular parking spaces that you'd have

in a normal parking lot."

What they want to do, is to be able to count the spaces in

front of the garages. The garages are all rented with the

units.

Developers have been doing this a couple of times a year.

What this represents is a kind of upgrade in the types of

units. Originally, most apartment complexes had only surface

parking, no garages, or they had groups of carports. What we

have here are better units, with attached garages. What they

are trying to do is to avoid ripping up more greenspace to

make more surface parking spots. The pavement is already

there. More than likely, even if they didn't get this

variance, the residents would park in front of the garages,

just as they do in single-family and twin-single

developments.

What he wants to do is to get a variance for those units, so

that the areas in front of the garage doors can be counted as

parking spaces. The other option is to cover more of the

site with blacktop to create more parking spaces that people

won't use, because if they have a parking space in front of

the garage, they will use it, because it's closer to their

houses.

Province asked what people do when they have a party.

"Blow horns, make a lot of noise."

Where do they park?

Brown said he doesn't believe there are any parking

restrictions on Georgesville Road. There are some additional

parking spaces in front of the community center, too.

Province said, "So, there really isn't any extra."

"Well, there is... If we, you know, do all these with the

surface parking spaces, counting all the garages and all the

spaces behind the garages, you end up with 535 parking

spaces. Code would say you only need 480." People will park

illegally in other peoples' parking spots, just as people on

your street sometimes block your driveway.

Hurd asked, "What's the hardship?" Why do they need a

variance? Wasn't the site plan approved with the required

parking lots?

Brown said that the project is now under construction. When

you do a project, you don't start all the buildings at once.

You have buildings breaking ground, under construction, first

floor, second floor, and finished units.

But didn't the original site plan show enough parking spaces?

What happened to all the parking spaces? Was the site plan

changed?

"This would change the site plan, in certain respects,

because it would remove parking areas that were shown

originally. But, what happens when it was submitted, is

that, you cannot count the spaces behind the garages, so

that they couldn't, without a variance, whether they did that

before they started the project or kind of at this midpoint,

you still couldn't count the spaces without getting a

variance."

Hurd said the developer has an original site plan that was

approved by the city, right? (Correct). So, what are they

asking for, now? The original plan had 480 parking spaces,

but they don't have that now?

"In terms of, out there right now, there are not 480 parking

spaces in configuration with what was submitted to the city

originally."

Were they originally counting the 128 parking spaces?

No, when the drawing was originally submitted, it had 128

garages, which hasn't changed, and it had 480 minus 128

surface parking spaces. What they have done is, they looked

at that, and decided that they would like to count the spaces

in front of the garages, so that they don't have to chew up

more of the site. So, they want the variance to count those

spaces, to reduce the amount they have to cover with asphalt.

If they get approval, they will have to submit a revised plan

to the city, showing the new count of parking spaces, so that

they would be in compliance with the code.

Hurd said he is still confused. They got a site plan

approved. How many parking spaces did the original plan

have?

480.

Province said, you have to tear up green space and put in

asphalt to do it as it was originally sent in.

Hurd said, they don't want to do that.

To get it approved, they had to...

Brown said that the original drawing showed 128 garages,

which has not changed at all. They showed the balance of the

required parking as surface parking. What they have done is,

when they actually built it, they have not put in all of the

required surface parking. What they want to do...

Is the handout the original site plan?

No. That is not the site plan that the city originally

approved. "The building configurations are basically in the

same places as what the city approved, versus what's been

built in the field. What has changed is the total number of

surface parking spaces. They have not put in all of the

surface parking spaces that were shown on the plan to the

city." They have to do one of two things, in order to get

their certificate of occupancy. They would have to blacktop

more of the site to create more surface parking, to get up to

480, or they can go forward to try to get the variance.

J. Province asked where the parking lots had been located,

that are now not being built.

Throughout the site, there were little adjustments. Between

two buildings, there had been a parking space. Some of the

lines had been drawn to create ten or eleven spaces, and now

there are nine. There had been parking on the south side of

a particular building, and now they have flipped it, so the

parking on that side of that building isn't there anymore.

The islands in the parking areas originally were smaller.

They picked up one space here, three spaces there...

If all the units are rented, and there are two cars per unit,

people will have to use their garages, or there won't be

enough parking spaces, right?

Yes. With the current plan, with maximum usage, there are

535 parking spaces, which gives some spillage. There are 279

surface spaces, as well as 128 spaces in front of the

garages, and 128 spaces inside the garages. That gives 535

spaces, of which 480 would be required.

Makar asked whether they are one-bedroom or two-bedroom

apartments.

Brown said he thinks there are a mixture.

Are there more parking spaces available for larger

apartments?

Brown said the city code does not link the number of parking

spaces to the number of bedrooms, though there are other

places that do. Columbus code says only that every dwelling

place must have two parking spaces.

And, ideally, if you live there now, you aren't supposed to

park in your driveway?

Right. Though the city isn't going to go out and cite

somebody for doing it. However, the site plan has to be

brought into conformance. Likewise, in a single-family

house, you are allowed to park one car in front of the

garage, but if your teenager parks a second car there, too,

the second car is technically in violation, but the city

isn't going to come out and cite you.

Was the original intention for the residents to park in front

of their garages?

The intention is to upgrade the units, in terms of having

attached garages. The question becomes, if there is one

person living in the unit, obviously you would have one car

in the garage and nothing else. If you have two people, you

can have one car in the garage, and one in front.

How many surface spaces are being eliminated?

We are talking a difference of 73 parking spaces. There is a

surface requirement of 352 under the original plan, which

represents 480 parking spaces minus 128 garages. With the

proposed plan now, we have 279 surface parking spaces. For

all practical purposes, the pavement is already there, so

people will park in front of their garages. The question is

whether they will have to tear up more green space, to create

parking spaces that will never be used.

Sgt. Eing said there is inadequate visitor parking space.

Brown said that that is true of all apartment complexes.

Yes, but they are making matters worse.

No, they are counting asphalt as parking spaces for people

who will probably park there anyway.

Province said that, when there is a party, people will park

all over the streets.

Brown said that it is more likely, that when there is a

party, the roommates will park in the garage and behind it,

leaving the surface spaces available for the guests.

Province asked for a motion to approve.

Brown said there are two items.

Province asked Brown whether he wants to deal with both at

once.

Brown said, "That's fine."

Does Brown want to explain the other one?

"I did that... We've got the rezoning of this piece on the

corner from multi-family, from commercial to multi-family

Phase 2. Then we have the BZA for the stacked parking spaces

in front of the garages for the site that's under

construction."

Province said they should be dealt with separately.

Province said that, at the WAC zoning committee meeting last

Tuesday, the zoning committee unanimously approved both

issues.

Cooper moved to approve. Balthaser seconded.

J. Province asked, "This is the variance?"

This is the variance.

Balthaser yes McKay yes

Canello no Morris no

Cooper yes J. Province no

Hurd no Wilder yes

Hymer no Wotring no

Jantzen yes D. Province yes

Makar yes

The motion was approved.

Province said he wished the developer could find a few more

spaces, since there is inadequate parking for parties. Also,

some residents will fill their garages with junk, so that

they will have to use the surface parking spaces.

Brown said people can park on Georgesville Road.

J. Province said there is no parking permitted on

Georgesville Road.

Province asked for a motion to approve the rezoning.

Hurd asked the unit density.

It is 17.4 units per acre. It is ARLD, which is the same

density as the existing apartments, and the same as the

apartments south of Georgesville. There is a limitation text

referring to landscaping, fencing, the height restriction on

the lighting, and the screening of the dumpsters.

Province asked whether there will be an entrance from

Georgesville Road.

There will be one curb cut on Georgesville, which will

probably be close to the detention pond. The city was

concerned with the curb cuts from Thornton being so close

being so close to the intersection. They wanted any curb cut

for this development to be farther to the west.

Province asked whether the developer will do anything for

Parks and Recreation.

No, they don't have to, because this represents a downzoning.

The ground is currently zoned for commercial development.

Makar asked whether there will be a playground area within

the development.

There is a community building...

Yes, but is there a playground area?

There is a large green area, and a pool. A community

building...

Is this a continuation of the existing development? (Yes).

Then, will it be connected to the rest of the development?

There is a street that will hook up to the existing

development. There will be a curb cut somewhere on

Georgesville Road. There will be no access onto Norton.

Cooper moved to approve the rezoning. J. Province seconded.

Balthaser yes Makar yes

Canello no McKay yes

Cooper yes Morris yes

Hurd no J. Province no

Hymer yes Wilder yes

Jantzen yes Wotring no

D. Province yes

The motion was approved.

Prairie Township Zoning (Hymer): On the 24th, the Prairie

Township trustees intend to meet to discuss regulations

regarding recreational vehicles.

Jackson Township Zoning (Cooper): There was a public meeting

held to discuss the proposed Marathon Oil pipeline. About a

hundred people showed up at the township hall. Most were

opposed to it, obviously. The Jackson Township Board of

Trustees are in opposition to it right now, and are taking a

position to block access at any place where it might cross

the road, pending another public meeting to get their

questions answered. Marathon Oil did mention eminent domain.

That was challenged by the zoning administrator, who

questioned whether an oil company has that right. They still

haven't finalized using the AEP power right-of-way. It would

appear that that still is the plan.

Cooper was not at that meeting, though he read about it in

the paper. There will be another meeting, but it isn't

scheduled yet.

Cooper said he has another comment before we leave the Zoning

Committee. We have a lose-lose situation here, with this

last variance. It is obvious what has happened here. The

developer changed the design, and built the development with

less than adequate numbers of parking spaces, so that he

could cram as much as he could onto the site. The only

option is, by voting no on this, the developer would just

slap some asphalt down in the middle of nowhere, and call it

a parking area, and nothing has changed. If we vote yes, we

let them count the spaces and not let them slap more blacktop

down. Regardless of how we voted tonight, we changed nothing

in the design of the apartment complex. The real culprit is

the developer who does this without getting the variance

first, knowing that the city won't enforce it even if they

deny them the variance, which they will not do.

If you look at the pictures, the only resolution is to put

blacktop next to where the garage doors are, and cover up

what little grass there is in front of each apartment.

That's what they do in front of lots of apartments.

Nevertheless, the residents will fill the garages with junk

and then will park all over the place, anyway.

Cooper would like to send a letter of protest to the city, on

behalf of the Commission, for what they are allowing the

developer to get away with. This is just blackmail,

basically. There was nothing we could do about this tonight.

If we turned it down, they slap some blacktop over some grass

to meet the requirements, and everything stays the same. The

only way we can change this is to ask the city to enforce a

parking ban in places where they don't comply. That would

force the people to park on the blacktop in the middle of

nowhere, and that would make the developer uncomfortable, and

he wouldn't have done what he did.

It's the city's love affair with the developers that allows

these loopholes to happen. They change their design mid-

stream, knowing that no one will stop them by denying a

variance. And even if the variance was denied, there is no

enforcement.

Eing said they will not go onto private property to issue

tickets for parking.

Province said we continually see these parking problems in

the Qualstan development in "south Hilliard".

Canello said that, if there is a big party, the people won't

care if it is grass or asphalt; they will park anywhere.

Makar said that this complex does have a party facility. So,

if there is a party room, the parties should take place

there. There are about twenty parking places in front of it.

The rents are pretty high there, so the residents won't be

home much; they have to work to pay that rent.

Cooper said we should go global on this. It's a heck of a

way to run a city. Why should we waste our time listening to

a variance, when the outcome will be moot? Why waste the

Development Commission's time, and the City Council's time,

on resolution of a variance whose outcome will be moot?

Province said they have not changed the parking code. He

attended meetings four years ago, where these matters were

discussed. All of this was to be codified in the new parking

code. Someone killed the proposed parking code. Parking

spaces for restaurants still aren't allowed to be located

across the street from the restaurant.

Cooper said that, if we were forced to speak before Council,

we would have to say that we were forced to discuss and vote

on a moot issue, the outcome of which doesn't matter.

Wilder said that this issue will come up again and again,

with the growth of this area.

Makar asked whether they could have eliminated the pond, to

add space for parking.

No, it was needed for drainage. They could build fewer

apartments, but they won't.

Morris said we couldn't have made a difference tonight. But

we need a history of rejecting these things, which we don't

have. Then, when we go to Council, we will have an argument.

They will come back to us and will say that we approved this.

We won't have an argument that we had no choice.

Cooper said that the developer will be coming back to us when

he builds the new section, telling us that we already

approved this variance once before.

Hurd asked whether we previously rejected this issue.

No. They never came to us. It was zoned around 1969.

Does the Westland Plan recommend a maximum number of multi-

family units per acre?

No.

17 units per acre is pretty high. The original plan, as

approved by the city, had enough parking spaces to comply

with regulations. Brown came in and snowballed us, and he

didn't want to tell us how many parking spaces he was

eliminating.

Hymer said they are saving money on asphalt.

Province said he is saving money on asphalt. However, we do

not want to see acres of asphalt.

Makar said that, if they put asphalt everywhere, they will

spoil the appearance of the community.

Province said he has never seen an apartment complex that

didn't have every available parking space filled.

Hymer said that green space needs maintenance. Remember the

Westchester "park".

J. Province said that the city Recreation and Parks

Department finally decided that they would not accept that

site for a park. They made a site visit and they discovered

that there is a huge, dead tree in the middle of that lot,

and that removing it would be an expensive undertaking.

Also, the site has become a dumping ground for scrap building

materials. Therefore, the city refused to accept it.

Makar asked whether the developer, or the neighbors could

clean it up.

J. Province said that the city did not require the developer

to clean it, and now it's too late for that. The neighbors

could organize a volunteer effort.

Norma Abston said that, if cars are parked everywhere, there

is no accessibility for emergency vehicles.

J. Province said that that happened in Hardesty Heights,

once, years ago. Hardesty Heights reacted by eliminated a

great deal of parking, and enforcing the matter ever since.

Province asked whether we should send a letter about this.

Cooper said that he will write the letter.

Leo Abston said that the developers run the city.

Morris said that the WAC zoning committee members should

receive copies of the zoning and variance requests, prior to

the WAC meetings, so that they have an opportunity to review

the materials and to make site visits. As it is, members do

not have time to make an informed decision.

Province said that sometimes he doesn't get advance warning,

either.

Hymer said we need more community involvement in the entire

process. We should read his newspaper article. He hoped to

stir up the community about it.

Province said that the zoning maps are unwieldy and hard to

photocopy. He can distribute copies of the request, however.

He will discuss this further at the next zoning committee

meeting.

Province said that, at the last WAC zoning committee meeting,

an applicant said they intended to build a development with

50' lots on Doherty Road. But, when they went before the

Development Commission, they told them that they were to

build 50' lots measuring 600 square feet; they would be deep

lots with SR square footage. We need to think about whether

we want to consider square footage of lots, or only frontage.

City Council thought we were idiots. We will have to discuss

this matter more, in the near future.

Dori Sippial said that the draft of the revised Westland Plan

was circulated internally, within the city, last week.

Province said that when he receives a copy of it, he will

disseminate it to WAC members.

Sippial said she checked with the city regarding Cooper's

question, of a month or two ago, about sewer pipes in the

area. The city shows only a proposed pipeline for the area.

Anything under construction now must be a county project.

Cooper said he knows about a 12" storm sewer. He was

wondering whether a sanitary sewer is in the works.

Sippial said that the city is not planning anything.

Anything else must be a county project.

Cooper said that the Greater Hilltop Area Commission approved

development of the area that used to be an airport, but that

site will need sewer and stormwater service.

Province said he thinks GHAC opposed it, but the city

approved it anyway.

Cooper said that he can't figure out where the sewer and

water will come from. They can't bring it from the west,

across Demorest Road, because the land drains to the east.

That's why they put in the lift station in that development

nearby.

Sippial said she will find out more.

Other reports: Balthaser said that WABA is planning its

banquet for the end of February. It will be at the end of

the month.

Province said that the Ministerial Association has sponsored

a live nativity scene in front a church last year, but few

people saw it. They are looking to do it in front of the

library this year.

Canello asked whether anything is planned in the way of a

facelift for Westland Mall.

Province said that the manager of Westland Mall met with us

recently, and we suggested improvements, such as improved

lighting, a food court, etc. He was then transferred to

Eastland Mall, and he is implementing all of those

suggestions there.

Lane Bryant is moving out. Good management could turn this

around, but for now, the neighborhood's perception is that

the shopping center is dying. If nothing is done, it will

die.

Province said he has had fifteen or twenty calls from people

who want the traffic signal at Sullivant and Norton to have a

left-turn arrow for traffic turning north. He talked to

Traffic Engineering about it, and they said they were not

aware that there was a problem. If we send them a letter,

they will research the matter.

Canello moved that Province send the letter. Jantzen

seconded. Approved.

Province said they did City Council said that they would

improve the intersection of Baytree and Norton, at Laurel

Greene in 1999.

Hymer said Westwoods needs two lanes at Sullivant, so that

people making left turns would not block all traffic. If the

road is wide enough, this is simply a matter of paint.

Province suggested that there be no WAC meeting in December.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:00pm.