WESTLAND AREA COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm. Present were
Daniel Province, chair, Betty Balthaser, Jerry Billman, Ron
Cooper, Virginia Frank, Glen Hymer, Mike Hurd, Dorothy
Jantzen, Carol Makar, Mike McKay, Dr. Bob Rinehart, Jan
Province, Bill Saxton, Debbie Wilder, Gary Wills, and Ted
Wotring. Hank Canello was excused. Also present were Leo
Abston, Norma Abston, Jill Billman-Royer, Jeff Brown, Sgt.
David Eing, Reza Reyazi, Fred Simon, and others.
Jim McCormick has submitted a letter of resignation from WAC.
He doesn't have time to attend WAC meetings any longer. He
is always having parties, down at his new business, and he
says he regrets that he can no longer put the time in that he
feels is necessary. He has asked WABA to appoint a new
representative to WAC, and their executive board has
appointed Jamie Mueller from the New Lincoln Lodge. Province
asked for a motion to accept the appointment. Wilder so
moved, and Jantzen seconded.
Saxton said that he will approve the appointment if Mueller
keeps giving us such great food. He made a presentation
today at the Lincoln Lodge, concerning the school bond issue,
and after eating dinner, they all had trouble talking. It
was nap time. They had marzetti, and homemade biscuits.
The motion was approved.
Saxton moved to approve the minutes of the August 1998
meeting. Jantzen seconded. Approved.
Zoning Committee (Saxton): Saxton introduced Jeff Brown,
attorney representing the applicant for Z98-065, for the
property located at 263 Hilliard-Rome Road. The applicant is
Casto Communities. The property owner is Art Iron.
Brown said that the property was rezoned over a year ago.
The property is located in the vicinity of Hilliard-Rome
Road, the Galloway Road extension, and West Broad Street.
The piece to the north was zoned M-1, and has been owned by
Art Iron. This property had been owned by the Philippi
family, and was annexed into Columbus. Art Iron decided to
expand their facility to the north, in order to take
advantage of the rail line. Along the southern boundary of
Art Iron's property is the world's largest dirt pile. Over
the years, Art Iron has dug some lakes on their property, and
they piled the dirt along the southern boundary.
When this property was zoned originally, it had three
components. There was an area of single-family residences.
There was a new connecting road that came from the existing
Galloway Road, to connect up to Rome-Hilliard. There was the
Galloway extension, that someday, perhaps beyond our
lifetimes, is supposed to go over the railroad tracks. When
Brown did the zoning originally, Mr. Younger of the Traffic
Division thought they would do this, and he wanted them to
give up the right-of-way, which they did. Brown's only
request, when they gave up the right-of-way, was that Younger
stay with the city long enough to see the overpass built.
Mr. Younger broke his word; he retired in August.
There were to be an area of twelve units per acre, and two
areas of eight units per acre, and the area of single-family
development. In addition, there is a 100' building setback
from Art Iron's facility, even though they have the world's
largest dirt pile over there. Nevertheless, there was
discussion from Staff and from WAC that they wanted the
setback.
At that time they did not have a developer. They are now in
contract with Casto Communities. They now have a layout to
match the existing zoning, with the areas of twelve units per
acre and eight per acre surrounding a lake in the middle.
They would like to put some garages along the north property
line. In the original zoning, there is a 100' building
setback. They did not differentiate as to whether the
structures would be habitable. Now, they are proposing that
they keep the 100' setback for the apartments, but allow the
garages to be build along the north property line. That will
provide a better buffer. There will be landscaping in the
gaps between the garages.
The other option they would like is an increase in density.
Brown has worked with Casto before, and every time, they have
changed their site plan. For some reason, this time, they
won't change their plan. With this property, they have done
some layouts with Casto. "It's maybe a possible Phase 2. And
when you do that layout, you can get a density of about 10.2
units. So our original thought was just to provide a couple
of options, was just to take these two plots here, and bump
the density from eight units to twelve units." They probably
will never use those additional units, unless the architect
changes his mind.
The difference is that, instead of having single-story
ranches, elderly housing, empty-nesters, where you can get
about eight units per acre, which is what they did
originally, now they are looking to they are looking at a
more traditional, two-story product. With that, you can get
a few more units on the property, so that's what they are
looking at.
Thus, there are three components. One is to adjust the
setback line to allow for the garages, still keeping the
apartments back 100 feet. Bump the density on the lower
area, which will probably never get used. And bump the upper
area, which depends upon whether they will build the
traditional two-story apartments, instead of the one-story
ranches; that density may be used.
Since they had to do the rezoning, in order to correct the
building setback, they thought they could revisit the density
numbers, now that they actually have someone interested in
the property, as well as a site plan and a layout.
Saxton said that there are two issues. One is to build
garages in the setback.
Brown said that they have a 100' building setback along the
northern property line, adjacent to Art Iron. What they
would do is to modify that, so that the apartments themselves
would stay 100 feet back, but to allow the garages to be
built within 100 feet. No habitable units, but allow the
garages.
So the garages would be on the setback?
The garages would be on the setback, but would be back at a
minimum of 25 feet, which is the normal perimeter yard
requirement for a multi-family development.
Saxton said he would like to divide the issue, and handle the
setback line and garages together, and then handle the
zoning.
Brown said it could be three issues, considering one side of
the street, and then the other.
Okay. Saxton asked for questions about the garages. Saxton
asked whether they would be one-car, two-car, or what kind of
garages they would be.
Brown said they would be multiple garages, with six to eight
bays together.
J. Province asked whether there would be garage doors, or
would they resemble carports, open in the front?
Most of the time, the developer has done traditional garages,
but Brown doesn't know, specifically, what this plan entails.
Will these garages be specifically for the residents of the
apartments, or will they be rented to anybody who wants one?
They will be for the residents. Some people are willing to
pay extra for an enclosed space.
In the case of the garages located just north of Moore's
Dairy Bar, we asked and the developer added a limitation
prohibiting storage of perishable foods. Do we want to
consider that?
Saxton said that that's because those were a rental project,
and this is not.
Saxton asked if there is any way we can get a commitment that
they will be garages. If trash cans are sitting out front,
it will look very good.
Brown said that multi-family units will be required to have
dumpsters. They have used compactors before.
Province said that dumpsters are usually visible on the site
plan.
They also have landscaping around them.
Cooper asked whether there will be garages for the entire
complex, or just for the northern part of the development.
Brown said that the plan shows sixty garages.
How many units?
The plan shows 276 units. That does not include any of the
optional garages within the buffer area. You'll probably
have about 80 garage spaces.
Cooper said it would be nice if the entire area had garages.
That's not going to happen.
Hymer said the garages would be built within the setback, but
25 feet from the property line.
The normal setback for a building, on the perimeter yard for
an apartment complex is 25 feet. When they did the zoning
originally, because of the Art Iron facility, which was zoned
M-1, the city asked for a bigger setback for the apartment
buildings. Brown wasn't smart enough to differentiate
between an apartment building and a garage. A garage has no
issue in terms of what distance it is from Art Iron's dirt
pile.
Hymer said the garages will be 25 feet from the property
line. The garages will be 25 feet deep?
No, a garage is usually about 20 feet deep.
That leaves about 45 feet between the garages and the
apartment buildings.
Province said that means the drivers will be backing out into
the road.
Right. Same thing with parking spaces.
The original setback was just to move residences away from
Art Iron, right?
Yes.
Art Iron is a buffer between the residences and the railroad
tracks.
There is the world's largest dirt pile, but the city still
wanted more of a separation, because the normal requirement
for an apartment building is 25 feet.
Parks will be asking for additional money for the additional
units, and Traffic is going to be asking for something else,
so they get a second opportunity to look at it.
Saxton moved to accept the setback for the garages. Billman
seconded. Saxton asked for a roll-call vote.
Billman yes J. Province yes
Cooper yes Saxton yes
Frank yes Mueller yes
Hymer yes McKay yes
Hurd yes Makar yes
Jantzen yes Wilder yes
Rinehart yes Wotring yes
D. Province yes
Brown said that, originally, there was a line separating
areas of twelve units per acre from an area of eight units
per acre. Now, he wants to continue the area of twelve
across the line. That's based upon conversations with Casto
about doing a Phase 2, versus what they had originally
thought, since it is only a six-acre piece, of doing one-
story ranches.
Saxton asked how many additional units we are talking about.
If you did max it out to AR-12, you would end up with 24
additional units. The site plan that Casto did, only gets it
up to 10.2 units. So, there would be a maximum of 13 or 14,
in terms of their drawing.
So there would be a total, in Phase 2, of how many additional
units?
Somewhere between 12 to 24, or maybe not. It all depends
upon the product. What this allows the developer to do, is
to have two options. They can go with ranches, or with
traditional two-story buildings, which could be either
townhouses or flats with a second story of flats.
Saxton said that he thought, in the original zoning, that we
limited the development to ranches.
No. The original restriction was eight. That would be the
equivalent restriction of what would happen, if what you
wanted was the ranch product.
And the square footage of each unit would be...?
Brown has no idea.
Saxton asked whether he has any idea what the rent would be.
Brown said he was told today that the units on the main piece
of property are the same ones they are constructing on East
Broad and Reynoldsburg-New Albany Road. You go out East
Broad Street, and turn left, which is going north, on
Reynoldsburg-New Albany, and it is about a mile, on the west
side of the road. It is the same product they are going to
build here.
Hurd asked if the single-family houses are being built right
now. Where is it coming in?
Yes. The single-family area will have a couple of access
points. Off Rome-Hilliard Road, a lot of the lots have been
staked. Brown thinks the houses have not been started yet.
Yes, there are some.
D. Province said, where the curve is, they are cleaning the
curve up, a little bit.
Hurd said the single-family houses are being sold under the
assumption that the zoning we approved earlier, the number of
units etc...
Brown said it makes no difference. There is a multi-family
area and a single-family area. They could put all the units
along the property line, if they want. They could not tell
whether there is another building on the interior, or whether
they went from a six-unit building to an eight-unit building.
Hurd said, and they never build the maximum allowed on the
acreage either... It's the same argument.
D. Province asked about the landscaping.
It will be normal landscaping. They understand that they are
asking for something different, so they will be asked to do
something else. They just did the same thing on Lazelle
Road, with the same issues, and they did a buffer of a
combination of evergreens, ornamentals, and mounding there.
They can do the same thing.
Saxton asked for a reason to increase the density.
Brown said that density is just a number. Most people latch
onto density as a way to judge the quality of a product, and
he can take us around the city and show us very attractive
units that are 14 or 15 units per acre, and he can show us
stuff that is ugly at 8. When they were planning on ranch
units, 8 per acre wasn't a problem. They don't typically ask
for more than what they need. They didn't have a user. They
now have a user. And when they were looking at laying out
that piece of property, they said that, "Gee whiz, since we
have to go into there, why don't we talk about that?" The
other thing... maybe we want to go into a split. The one
thing that surprised him, is that in terms of this particular
piece, he thought they would be very interested in re-doing
the plan and being able to pick up, but they told him they
like the plan, and they're going to stay with that. So, they
may be interested, as they're doing the smaller piece, in
dropping the bigger piece. That's something he can take back
to them, if that's something WAC could find supportable, in
terms of the smaller piece, and now the bigger piece.
The smaller piece is closer to Art Iron, isn't it?
Yes. It is possible they could build twelve per acre close
to Art Iron, and eight below the line.
Saxton asked whether that is a new proposal.
Brown said that life will be a lot easier if he can get WAC
to support what he's doing. He thinks his client would be
satisfied with that change.
Saxton said that, since this is a new proposal, different
from what was discussed last week, he would like Brown to
hold up the map and go over it all again.
Brown said that one piece would be changed from eight to
twelve, while the other piece will stay at eight. So the
most we are talking about is another 12 to 24 units,
depending on the product line.
Is there any chance of getting that first row, which would be
right across the street from the single-family homes, to be
left at eight, and then go to twelve?
Brown said there isn't much room, and that would just play
havoc with... One of the problems in laying it all out was
that we created this artificial line, and it played with the
mix of the types of buildings that you had, between what you
could do here, and what you could do here.
Province said a landscaping buffer would be better.
Saxton moved to approve Brown's new proposal.
Brown said, twelve units and a landscape buffer along this
line.
...And leave the other one, on the left side, at eight.
Rinehart seconded.
Saxton asked Rinehart to comment on the matter.
Rinehart said the newest proposal would result in fewer
students generated from the original proposal, making them
both twelve. The number of new units that he is talking
about increasing, would result in approximately eight
students more, from the current zoning to the new zoning.
So, there would not be a significant increase in the number
of students.
Saxton asked for a roll-call vote.
Billman yes J. Province no
Cooper yes Saxton yes
Frank yes Mueller abstain
Hymer yes McKay yes
Hurd no Makar yes
Jantzen yes Wilder abstain
Rinehart yes Wotring yes
D. Province yes
Saxton asked whether Brown would like to mention the Burger
King thing, to get everybody thinking about it.
Brown said that this is for the Glimcher Company, on the
south side of Georgesville Road, on the west side of Holt.
If you drive that area, you will see a service road along the
south side of Georgesville. Historically, everything around
that site has been zoned M Manufacturing. There is a little
corner piece, about 1.5 acres, that has a C-5 zoning, which
basically allows a gas station. What is being proposed is to
change the zoning to M, to match everything else on the west
side of the road, and the expectation is that there will be
additional retail on that side, and probably a restaurant on
that corner. That will be a new one in the cycle, and it
will probably be brought before WAC next month.
M for manufacturing, when you are contemplating commercial
development?
Yes.
Brown will bring it to the WAC zoning committee on October
13, and at the WAC meeting on October 21.
Saxton introduced the zoning request that we heard last
month. The city requested Fred Simon bring it back for
further discussion with the neighborhood.
Fred Simon thanked WAC for giving him an opportunity to bring
this item before them for the third time.
At the meeting of the Development Commission, Staff made a
comment, and then WAC made a comment, regarding the fact that
information was submitted to them at a late date, which did
not allow the commission time to review it. The reason was
that Staff had requested certain additional information from
them, and they knew that Simon could not get it back to Staff
before Staff sent their information to the Commission.
Therefore, the Commission received it late and didn't have an
opportunity to review it. As Province will attest, if they
receive information late, so that they don't have time to
review it, they do not look at it too positively. Therefore,
Staff, the Development Commission, and WAC together agreed to
continue the matter until the October meeting.
Simon wanted to appear before WAC again because two items he
was given, that he relayed to us last month, were in error.
The information was given to Simon by a subordinate of his
client. He assumed some things that he should not have
assumed.
One matter concerns Galloway Road and the Franklin County
Traffic Engineer. Simon indicated to WAC that the Franklin
County Traffic Engineer had decided that there was to be no
access onto Galloway Road. That was an error. The client's
subordinate told Simon that he assumed, since they had
decided to take access off Galloway Road, that the decision
had resulted from conversations between the developer and the
engineer. That was not so. It was a decision of Simon's
client's engineering firm.
The second matter concerned Province's question about Parks
and Recreation. Simon had indicated that his previous
conversations with Parks and Recreation centered around the
department wanting access to their parkland. When he talked
to the same subordinate, he learned that they were mistaken.
They do not have a park that they need easement to, and that
was the end of it. Simon said that that was the end of the
conversation. That, too, was in error. His client has
indicated that Parks and Rec wants $13,000 cash, and that the
client will make a $15,000 cash contribution to Parks and
Recreation.
Since that time, Simon has discussed with his client that one
of WAC's principal concerns was the 900 square foot
limitation on residential structures. His client has agreed
to a new minimum of 1100 square feet in the R-2, and 1200 in
the SR zoning area.
In the matter of the access from the residential development
to the corner site, which will be commercial, that access has
been relocated, resulting in the elimination of one lot, so
the density of the development is decreased.
Saxton said that the lot sizes have not changed, and we still
don't have our 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 rule.
That is correct.
Saxton said that the square footage minimums still are not
met. They are 1200 square feet on ranches and 1400 square
feet on two-story houses.
That is correct. We have 1100 and 1200.
D. Province asked whether there will be two-car attached
garages.
Yes.
A neighbor distributed copies of objectives the area
residents have agreed to. They would like the area to be
rezoned LR-2, instead of the proposed R-2 and SR. They would
like limitations that are in effect in Epernay. They would
like to see 1200 square foot homes, and minimum 60 foot lots
backing up on Epernay and the other development to the south.
They would like to see that no buildings would exceed 2 1/2
stories in height. No homes will be constructed with a
below-grade driveway. No homeowner will be permitted to
convert garage space into living space. (The neighbors noted
the definition of "living space" as being exclusive of
garages, basements, and attics, but that line does not
address this issue). They would like to see these changes in
a limitation text.
Also, they don't like the name "Weston Village", which has
negative connotations.
They would like to see the development consist entirely of 55
and 60 foot lots, and no 50 foot lots at all. By doing this,
they would lose maybe ten lots, and the money they would lose
would be made up by charging a bit more for larger lots. The
neighbors would like the development to be brought up to
Epernay's standards. The argument about empty-nesters and
first-time homebuyers doesn't hold much water, as many of the
residents of Epernay fit those categories.
He would like to see Crossbrook Boulevard be laid out
differently. Currently, Beaujolais Place is a straight-shot
shortcut, and the traffic on it is excessive now. He thinks
Crossbrook, as it is currently laid out, would be even worse.
Also, with the current plan, the accesses from Hall Road to
Beaujolais and Crossbrook will be so close together that it
will become difficult to exit from either of them in the
morning.
Saxton told the neighbors that WAC has no control over
traffic issues, and these matters should be taken to the city
Traffic Engineering people. Cooper noted to Saxton that the
changes he is suggesting would be easy to implement.
Saxton noted that the neighbor's request, for 1200 square
feet on both ranches and two-story houses, is less than the
WAC minimum standard.
The neighbor said he had not heard of WAC's standards before.
They're fine with him. They don't want 725 square feet
homes, as that would be equivalent to an Epernay downstairs.
The average house in Epernay is over 1800 square feet.
He doesn't think it is fair for the value of his house to
take a beating, because a house half its size is built beside
it.
Another neighbor said that she checked out Clifton Chase
subdivision. All of the 60 foot lots in that development
have been sold, and only eleven 50 foot lots are left.
There are 11 left out of 114.
The west side is ready for larger homes. Why can't we raise
our standards a little bit?
There were 43 people from the neighborhood present at the
Development Commission last week. They have 114 signatures
on a petition in opposition to this developer's proposal.
A neighbor said that no one went around to the neighbors,
telling them to be at the WAC meeting tonight, yet more than
20 are here. When the time comes, they will be out in force.
Province said that, at the Development Commission, it was
asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the split-
rail fence, and there is still nothing in the language about
it.
Simon said the developer will take care of it until the lots
are sold. Then, it will be responsibility of each homeowner.
That will be in the subdivision plat, as well as in deed
restrictions.
Saxton asked what has changed since Simon was here last.
Simon said that the minimum square footages of houses will be
increased from 900 square feet to 1100. 55% of the lots will
be 50 feet in width, and 45% will be 55 or 60 feet wide.
Simon told the residents that the houses adjacent to Epernay
and the development to the south will be SR, with 60 foot
minimum widths.
He doesn't understand Item 5, which states that there are to
be no garages below grade level.
Saxton said that Grove City has outlawed those, but they can
still be built in Columbus.
Simon said that there would be no problem.
Simon said that he will create a deed restriction to prohibit
the conversion of garages into living spaces.
A neighbor said they have trouble with that. The last five
or six houses that were built are less than 1000 square feet,
and they were told that the only way they can fight this is
to initiate litigation against the builder. That's why they
are asking for a limitation text. They want a limitation
text, so that it will be up to the city to stop it.
Saxton moved that the application be accepted. D. Province
seconded. Saxton called for a roll-call vote.
Saxton no Frank no
Mueller abstain Hymer no
McKay no Hurd no
Makar no Jantzen no
Wilder no Rinehart no
Wotring no D. Province no
Billman no J. Province no
Cooper no
Saxton told Simon that, as he explained to the applicant on
the telephone, it is necessary to meet WAC's minimum
standards, in order to get approved. Saxton thanked the
residents of Epernay for coming.
Old Business: Province reminded everyone that, for the past
six months, we have been discussing the proposed revisions to
the Westland Area Plan. On September 22, there will be an
Open House, held in this same room, at which the public may
provide comments. We have two people here tonight to gather
comments and suggestions.
Reza Reyazi stated that he is with the Department of Trade
and Development. He and his associate will be working on the
update of the Westland Plan.
Reyazi distributed an overview of the Westland Plan update.
He stated that this process was prompted by the recent
rezonings that have taken place, that were not consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. To the best of his knowledge,
the Update was initiated by the area commission, so we know
our reasons for requesting it.
Because they are both new to the process, they came here to
hear our concerns, and to learn what issues we want them to
consider.
They have a limited charge. The handout identifies the items
they are to consider. Within the confines of those issues,
he is open for comments. He has no preconceived ideas.
Saxton said that several of the people in this room worked
100 hours on the previous Plan. He doesn't think anyone in
this room thinks that the Plan needs to be revisited. We all
believe that City Council should live with the plan that they
approved in the beginning. The only zoning changes from our
original Plan are the ones that City Council voted over our
opposition. We have not approved anything that differed from
our original Plan.
Saxton believes that we are spinning our wheels again.
Saxton, the Provinces, Cooper, and others in this room
attended at least a dozen meetings to create the original
plan. The only changes that have been made to the original
Plan were those that developers caused City Council to
change.
If there is a reason to revisit the Plan, fine, but he
wonders how many of us are willing to spend all that time
again, revising the Plan, so that City Council can continue
to ignore it whenever a developer has a bright idea.
Province said that the biggest change to the Plan, the
development along Georgesville Road and Holt Road, were done
in disregard to both the Westland Area Plan and the Columbus
Comprehensive Plan, both of which had been voted and passed
by City Council. There are guidelines that City Council
should follow. They chose not to follow them in at least
four different cases. If we are here only to change the
Westland Area Plan to reflect the changes that have already
happened, then that is not what we are here for. We don't
want to revisit the Plan every two years, to decide that what
the developers have done already, we will now add to the
Plan.
Saxton said that a perfect example was on Norton Road, where
the area was to be for manufacturing. Then along came an
individual who had enough pull, that they are now building a
bunch of apartments there...
...With the second biggest dirt mound in the county...
We have lost tax revenue, we are adding still more students
to the schools, and that was the only piece of property
that we had left, on the West Side, that had an existing
railroad spur. And now we have apartments adjacent to a
railroad spur.
Reyazi said that he is aware of these issues. His sentiments
were conveyed indirectly to Reyazi by his colleagues who had
been working on the project. They agree with us, to the
extent that they recognize that that is a concern that needs
to be addressed. One of the ways he looks at it, personally,
is that, if this has been done and it hasn't worked, perhaps
it is his job to look for better information to support the
proposals that were made previously.
But, if that is the sentiment from the community, then it
would be his job, perhaps, to look at it from another way,
where he could back up that kind of proposal with more facts
and more information, so that next time, if something like
that gets to Council, there is a better chance that they
wouldn't turn it down, and that they would stick with it.
His intention is not to change anything necessarily. It may
be that they could come away from this process with the same
proposal. But, hopefully, it will be better, in that the
likelihood will be increased that the proposal would be
carried out. That is the type of supporting information that
he is looking for. He had not heard about the rail spur.
Cooper said he supports Saxton's statements. However, the
revision of the Westland Plan is going to happen, so there is
no sense in trying to stop what's already underway. But
before Reyazi spends three months of his time, (which is
valuable, and he assumes that there is a cost for this, which
the taxpayers of Columbus will pay), if we get more
information and more facts, and look at things in another
way, as he indicated, which Cooper doesn't think is
necessary, because he feels that he already put a great deal
of his own time into the previous Plan, it was very factual,
and it was very informative, and it did follow along with
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the surrounding area, as
well as for the City of Columbus. He cannot imagine how it
can be made better. What assurance will we have that, the
next time the City of Columbus decides not to follow the
plan, that anything will change, other than that they'll
come back in a couple of years and say, "Hi, we're your new
planners. We are going to do a three-month study, and we are
going to study it again to make it line up with what Council
wants to do to make the developers happy."
He understands that he is looking for information, and he is
behind him all the way, but he has three months to put it
together, and only one Open House scheduled. The last time
we did this, we had a subcommittee put together, with the
WAC, local businesses, and residents of the area, who worked
hand in hand with the developers, which was one of the
reasons the Plan that was put together was so factual, did
have so much good information in it, and fit like puzzle
pieces with the other plans for the area, even including the
Jackson Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Why is Reyazi doing this in a vacuum, with only one Open
House for input? Wouldn't it enhance and improve the
project, allow him to look at it different ways, allow him to
gather more information, if he encouraged a subcommittee to
be made up of area businesses, residents, and WAC, to help
with the Plan?
Absolutely. Part of the reason they came up with this
approach was because he heard what had been said before.
He heard that the work that was done in 1994 was pretty
complete and thorough. He does not expect major changes in
proposed land use. Primarily, he was looking to do more
research, for his own part.
The second issue, was basically what Cooper said. If
Reyazi's assumptions are wrong, he will find out at the Open
House. If the people come in on Tuesday, and say that the
proposed land use still is basically what they want, then it
will be up to them to look at the other issues and come back,
and perhaps their new plan will not be very different from
what we had before. If that is confirmed, then that is
what's going to happen.
He understands our frustration. He cannot make any
guarantees. He likes to think that his efforts and our
efforts are not wasted, that Council does take that into
consideration. Perhaps there is new information, perhaps
there are new ways to present the information, that might
help to convince Council in future decisions. Perhaps it
might bring together enough people with similar interests who
can encourage Council to stick to the Plan.
If he has scheduled only one or two Open Houses, it is not
because he is not interested in what the people have to say.
However, most of what he has heard so far, is that what we
have is what the people want. He is functioning under that
assumption. He is looking for new reasons and new ways of
presenting this information, with better supporting
documentation.
Cooper said he would be interested in finding out what that
might be, since he thinks we did a good job the first time.
Reyazi agreed, but said that perhaps we may be able to make
an improvement. If not, then that is okay, too.
If that is the case, then that also says something to
Council.
He thinks it is also a good idea to have the Plan represent
the current reality. Because if you put the Plan in front of
somebody who comes in for a rezoning, and what you present to
them is something that has already been eroded, it becomes
easier for them to make the assumption that, if something is
already going contrary to the plan, then it would be easier
to make a change in the area next door to it.
Cooper said that City Council needs to hear Reyazi say to
stick to the Plan, and don't deviate, or it becomes
impossible for us to present an argument to a developer.
City Council is the one that does this to us. Please share
those concerns with City Council.
Saxton asked if there is any chance that he can bring the
recommended changes back to WAC before he takes them to City
Council.
Absolutely. After he finishes the final draft...
Saxton said that it is silly for Reyazi to have us repeat
ourselves at the Open House. We will only repeat ourselves.
Does anybody here want to see the Plan changed?
(Silence)
Saxton said that several real estate people worked on the
original Plan, and were very happy with the result. Richard
Sensenbrenner attended the meetings and voted for approval of
the original Plan.
Reyazi said he is aware of that.
Saxton asked Reyazi what changes he thinks should be made.
It should be made current. It should reflect the changes
that have already occurred. He doesn't see anything else.
He will think very hard about other ways of presenting the
information and coming up with facts and figures to make it
less likely that Council will vote contrary to the Plan.
D. Province said that we heard a rezoning last month for land
off Doherty Road. The rezoning went before the Development
Commission and received unanimous approval there, even though
the Plan called for no more than four units per acre, and the
request was for R-2 density, and it even entered the easement
area where we said they should not be building anything. The
reason he is doing this is that he is incurring a great cost,
installing a sewer line in that we recommended never be put
in, because it generates still more houses. When that
passes, it will create a cascade effect, as the adjacent
properties are filled with six units per acre. We will have
the same dense corridor that we have on Holt.
They said that they will not build a major road through
there, because the county doesn't want it. Instead, they
will have houses on residential streets, such that the
residents will have to take ten minutes to find their way
out.
The officers will not be able to get their squad cars in
there.
Saxton said that he understands the need to make the Plan
reflect the current situation, but if it happens as Ron says,
that we have to update the Plan every two years...
Reyazi said he was at the Staff meeting for that rezoning,
and initially, he was opposed to it. But, he found that that
was the last piece of property that the Plan identified for
manufacturing in that area, and all the rest was already
zoned for residential development to the east of that. So,
the question was, if the last piece of manufacturing land
remains manufacturing, you will end up with a spot zoning.
He doesn't know what the right answer is, but the answer
includes making the Plan reflect the reality.
Province said we are tired of being on the wrong side of the
tracks. Just north of the tracks, the houses are four to an
acre, while in Columbus, they are building six to an acre.
The problem is that we do not live in Hilliard. Doherty Road
is an old farm lane which follows a channel, so that it
floods every time it rains. And they are planning to exit
housing developments onto it. We tried to address these
things in our plan. He understands that it is difficult to
go downtown to say that we have houses on one-acre lots, and
we want to protect them, because such things are not done in
this city. If you do any changes, we have to make it clear
that we have carefully thought them out.
Reyazi said that our expectations are reasonable. He doesn't
see any drastic changes that will have to be made. If the
revisions only reflect the changes that have happened so far,
that in itself sends a signal.
Province said that bringing the final draft to us is a little
late.
No, what Reyazi means is that, before the final draft is
presented to anybody, it will come before this body first.
Saxton said that, if there are a lot of changes, we will need
to have a special meeting just for that.
Reyazi said he will give us copies of it, and he will wait
for feedback, and will proceed as we wish.
Cooper said that, when we agree with it, we will all sign it.
And then he can take it to City Council, and they can all
sign it, too.
(Laughter)
Reyazi said he thinks that is a great idea.
McKay said that the fourth bullet on Reyazi's sheet mentions
a new police substation. Is that in addition to the one that
recently opened?
That is something he has already looked at. He already met
with the man in charge of facilities planning for the
Columbus Police, and they do not feel that there is a need
for an additional police substation in this area. They just
built the new one, and it can accommodate two precincts.
Province added, "In the Hilltop."
In the Hilltop, yes. They have taken growth projections into
account, and they do not foresee a need for an additional
police substation in this area.
Wilder said we may need to discuss an additional fire
station.
Reyazi said he sees his job as working for us, more than for
City Council.
What changes does City Council want to see made to the Plan?
This was not something initiated by City Council. He
understands that this was initiated by the area commission.
No. We merely asked, if they plan to approve all those new
houses, will they do something to improve the road?
McKay asked whether Reyazi was given an agenda to bring here
and package for us?
These four items are Reyazi's agenda, and that's all.
Province said that McClary was the boss, and he said at a
meeting, that City Council's opinion is that nothing in the
old Plan any longer exists. What they want to see is a new
Plan, and if it is 99% the same as the old Plan, that doesn't
matter. They want to have a new Plan to abide by. True,
they didn't abide by the old Plan...
We have nothing at this point.
Reyazi said that the old Plan remains in effect until the new
Plan is approved.
Some people above you don't agree.
Reyazi can't speak for them. He can speak only for himself.
New Business: Province announced that Jeanine Aeh is back as
our Regulations person. (Remember, when you telephone her,
you usually get an answer). There is no sense in talking to
Bob any longer.
Wills joked that he liked talking to him.
You can still talk to him, but it won't matter.
It didn't, before.
Province attended the grand opening of the new police
substation today.
There is a new COTA bus route, 10 West Broad Local. It now
meanders through Lincoln Village South, goes up and down
South Grener Avenue, before it goes over to Georgesville. In
this way, it services the Stiles Resource Center. It enables
those people to get to Westland Shopping Center.
If anyone wants to attend the Neighborhood Conference, let
Province know.
Cooper asked what is going on at Bolton Field.
Makar said that new hangars are being built, which should
accommodate some of the people on the waiting list. As soon
as they are built, they should be filled. They are also
building a new fuel farm for Corporate Wings. The current
facility still works, but it is outdated and it not up to
code.
What about the north side of Alkire Road, where they have cut
out about an acre in the middle of the woods?
Province said the explanation for that was that the radar
could not hear the airplanes.
Makar said that the runway is being extended another 300
feet. Some of the trees were too close, and had to be
removed. They are also replacing a cracked and stopped-up
storm sewer.
Cooper said that there is a sewer project underway at Alkire
and Big Run Road. Is that a sanitary or storm sewer project?
Saxton said that the storm sewer runs south on Big Run. The
water runs down through the church property. This is a
sanitary sewer line.
Is the project the Big Run Sanitary Sewer Project?
The sanitary sewer comes from Alkire Road, south on Holt.
The storm sewer goes through the church land.
Right, but the new Big Run sewer was supposed to come in from
the northeast, and turn all that around eventually.
Yes, but that was behind Wal-Mart.
Does Province know anything about that? (No). McKay? (No).
Dori can research that for us.
Is that the one that goes through the old airport?
Yes. Is it coming through there, or through Urbancrest and
under I-270?
Have they started it?
Maybe that's what we are seeing, then.
Reyazi said he doesn't think that is it, but he can ask
questions. He just saw the subdivision plat for the old
airport land. That land has just been sold.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.