Far Northwest Coalition

APRIL 2011 FNWC MINUTES

Far Northwest Coalition

Columbus, OH

 

April 27, 2011

 

The Far Northwest Coalition (FNWC) met for its regularly scheduled meeting at the Northwest Library on Hard Road.  Members present were John Best, Kelly Thompson and Rich Herner.

 

Best opened the meeting by referencing the Railroad Quiet Zone that has been proposed for the Snouffer Road grade crossing.  He explained the issue and how the zone would work with gates, cones and a warning horn at the crossing, not on the train.  He noted that Worthington Schools had provided a letter including several concerns from their perspective.

 

Best then explained to the residents in attendance the makeup of the FNWC, its makeup, the area covered, why and how it functions (normally zoning related  issues), and other general matters that come before the group on a monthly basis.  He also related to the group information on the progress of the Hard Road expansion.  He noted that Phase III, from Sawmill Road to Smoky Row is slated to begin in 2014, with right-of-way and utility work already being considered. 

 

Best then introduced the developers and their attorney to the large crowd in attendance; Jill Tangeman as attorney, Nick King and Mike Kenney being the developers for the apartment complex project to be located on Snouffer Road, essentially at the corner of Snouffer and Smoky Row Roads.  He explained that the developers and their attorney had been to the FNWC meeting in January with a conceptual plan for the project.  He noted that they were now back with an amended proposal to present to the group.

 

Tangeman then started the presentation by stating that they were not there for the FNWC vote that evening since there is a piece on the west end of the site that is still in Perry Township, which they are asking to be annexed into the City of Columbus as part of the overall project plan.  There is to be a hearing on May 24 for that property and once that piece is approved for annexation, sometime thereafter, probably in June, they will be back asking for the FNWC’s approval of the change in zoning for the project.  They were at this meeting to update the community as to where they were in the process and answer any questions that the residents may have.

 

Nick King then took up the presentation and explained that the original concept was for 270 units on the 10+ acres (including the current Perry Twp piece) but that they had reduced it down to 216 units (20% reduction) now.  They had increased buffering on the east side to include additional screening to the neighbors, as well as the addition of some garages on that side, as requested by City staff but the project would still be 3 stories in height.  He said that the lower density also frees up space on the site for a park area adjacent to the pond.  They have also included fencing, trees and shrubbery on the Snouffer Road side.

 

King noted that a traffic access study was done by their engineer and accepted by City staff that warrants the addition of a turn lane into the property.  He also stated that they have preliminary support for the project from the building service division, traffic, sewers and parks staff.

 

It was questioned by residents whether the reduction in the number of units was as a result of a City staff requirement to reduce the density because of sewer capacity constraints.  They claimed that the reduction in units was not as a result of any sewer capacity issues.  They claimed that there is adequate sewer capacity based upon the analysis of their engineers and accepted by City staff.

 

Some residents expressed a concern over “goose control” for the pond and park areas and whether the pond is in reality a detention area for water runoff.  The developers said they will put in what is required by the City but the pond area is still not fully committed to; they stated that if the land is not used as a pond, it would be used as additional park area.  Tangeman said they will contact the Rec and Parks department as to how the City handles “goose control” now.

 

Residents questioned the number of parking spaces on the site and the developers said the City requires 1 ½ parking spaces per unit and that they would be providing at least that many spaces, if not more.  Residents felt that more spaces than the minimum would be necessary and were concerned about parking on local residential streets, with apartment tenants and visitors walking through local neighborhoods and backyards to get to the site.    

 

A resident of the Whispering Pines subdivision, immediately to the west of the subject property, asked about drainage wells that are on the St. Peter church property and the fact that the subject property currently seems to absorb that water runoff.  She said that existing drainage swales at St. Peter are directed toward this property and that on the corner of Whispering Pines there is a back up of water runoff now.  Her concern is that this water backup will increase since this land will no longer be absorbing that runoff.  Tangeman said that they cannot make the water runoff worse, that they must contain on the property their own water runoff.  She said that if it is water drainage from another property, they may have to deal with that also but that has not been required of them at this time.

 

Residents noted that on the presented plot plan, the entrance was staggered from the Asheville Commons entrance and asked why they were not across from each other.  King stated that City staff asked that the entrance be moved 200 feet west of the Asheville Commons entrance.  He said the required access lane will be used from both east and west but neither the stack of cars, nor the turn lane, would stretch to the Asheville Commons entrance.  It was also noted by residents that the back entrance to St. Peter Church on Snouffer Road would be eliminated.  King said that they have agreed to try and work with the church on this back access.

 

Residents then said that this density would also present additional traffic concerns in the area with only one entrance to the complex and the possibly of more than 300-400 new cars on the local roads each day.  It was noted that Brookside Woods is already used as a cut through for people trying to get to Dublin-Granville Road.  They had installed traffic calming speed bumps several years ago but this will just make things that much worse.  King claimed that the access study only required that a turn lane be added.  He said this had been approved by City staff. 

 

There was some contention about statements of City staff approval and an attorney hired by local civic groups noted that City planning had not approved the development, only that certain departments had accepted what had been presented.  There was some back and forth between the attorneys for both sides and it was settled that the City has certainly not approved of this project plan.

 

David Brehm, a local resident of Brookside Woods, then addressed the group.  He said that there is nothing wrong with development, just that this high density proposal is not appropriate for this area, being surrounded by single family homes.  He stated that seven different civic associations in the area, representing well over 1500 households, have organized together in opposition to this proposed apartment project.  He showed on a map the location of the seven plats; Whispering Pines, Brookside Woods, Brookside Estates, Asheville Commons, Stilson Village, Stilson Highlands and Olentangy Highlands, all being located in the immediate area.

 

Tom Francis, a resident and President of the Brookside Estates Civic Association representing over 400 homes, then addressed the group in attendance.  He said this site is currently zoned residential.  He said that apartments can be a reasonable transition from single family zoning to more intense uses.  High density is certainly appropriate in some areas with access to major roads, such as Easton, Polaris and so forth, but not for this site, which is surrounded by single family homes   He said that the Northwest Plan developed by the City of Columbus, as recently as four years ago (Northwest Plan can be accessed on line from the City of Columbus web site) still felt that residential zoning (single family and two family) was appropriate for this site.  He said that high density such as this proposal on this site was not appropriate.  He asked that the FNWC not endorse this zoning application.

 

Rick Van Brimmer, a resident of the Asheville Commons subdivision and President of their home-owners association, then spoke to the group.  He said he represented the 29 homes in Asheville Commons, which had its access drive located immediately across the street from the proposed complex.  He said when he was considering building a new home; he wanted to build around other single family homes and checked into the zoning in the immediate local area.  He then chose Asheville Commons to build his home.  He said he understood the traffic concerns in the area but Snouffer Road is now well past its capacity.  He said residents of his plat will sit 5-10 minutes sometimes trying to get out onto Snouffer Road.  He said he prefers development to bare ground but looking out his window and seeing 3-story apartment buildings across the street is not appropriate zoning.  He likened putting this high density apartment project in the middle of a single family area, to trying to land a 747 at Don Scott Field; it is just not appropriate for the area.  On behalf of the Asheville Commons HOA and his wife, he requested that the FNWC disapprove this zoning request.

 

Dorothy Martin, a resident and President of the Brookside Woods Civic Association representing over 300 homes, then addressed the group in attendance.  She said she could remember the day when she could ride her bike with her family to Brookside Elementary or the park by Perry Middle School.  She said there are still children walking and bicyclists trying to get to the schools and parks, even though it is still the same 2 lane road she rode bikes on with her family 27 years ago; without sidewalks and only ditches on the side of the road.  She also commented that Brookside Woods and Brookside Estates are already used as a cut through for many people trying to reach State Route 161.  She then provided pictures taken at different times during the day, as well as Sunday morning, to show the amount of traffic already using Snouffer and Smoky Row Roads.  Martin then asked that the FNWC maintain the residential zoning for the subject property and help enhance the local neighborhoods by rejecting this proposal for a high density apartment complex in this neighborhood.

 

David Brehm then again addressed the group.  He noted that he had been for several years a member and chairman of the City of Columbus Development Commission, the body which will consider the zoning change request for this property after the recommendation of the FNWC.  That body will then make a recommendation to Columbus City Council for final consideration.  Brehm said that development is needed in the area and he would have not joined with this group of civic associations if it was solely opposed to development on the site.  He mentioned Mercer Square, completed by this developer, as being a more appropriate development density for that area.  It has access at multiple points, and it is adjacent to higher density units as well as some commercial properties.  He said that the economy and the markets have changed but this type of high density project is not appropriate for the area.  It will only make the current problems worse.  He said he would like the opportunity to work with the developer on this site and come up with something more appropriate.  He said the group of civic associations has retained counsel and asked that the developer work through retained counsels to have a meaningful dialog about this development project.  

 

A Whispering Pines resident then asked about the 1 ½ parking spaces per unit and whether that would be enough.  She noted that they already have people parking at St. Peter church and walking through their back yards to get to apartments to their west.  Another resident asked about rental rates and the developer said the plan was for one and two bedroom apartments ranging in rents from $700-$800 and $900-$1000 per month, respectively.  The mix of units was then questioned and the developer replied that they plan on 70% two bedroom units ranging in size from 1000-1100 sq. ft. and the other 30% being one bedroom units being 700-800 sq. ft. in size. 

 

King said a major concern in the local area is parkland and that the City asked for additional parkland, resulting in their addition of a park on the site.  Best noted for the group that any new development must either set aside some land for a park or provide money to the Rec and Parks department in lieu of parkland.  King said the City did not want the money but wanted the parkland area in this case.  King said this would be a City park, accessible to the public, but maintained by the developer.  That brought immediate comment from several residents about where these park users would be parking their cars; in the neighborhood streets or other adjacent owned parking areas.

 

Best then said he felt a traffic study should be completed, not just an access study, limited to just the ingress/egress to the subject property.  He said having driven in this area; he felt that there is a greater traffic bottleneck in the area than just access to this particular property.  He said he would be an advocate for a full fledged traffic study to evaluate the greater community, not just a single access point.  

 

Another resident voiced his concerns over Snouffer Road becoming another Hard Road, where homes were destroyed for the right-of-way.  He said residents do not want this project in this density and that it would just exacerbate the current traffic problems on Snouffer Road.

 

A resident asked why the developer felt that an urban density level fit in this suburban neighborhood.  The developer said that there is a need for other types of housing.  A couple of residents of Asheville Commons then both commented that they did not want to be looking out of their kitchen windows at 3 story apartment buildings.  Another resident voiced concern for the safety of kids in the area based on the proposed density of these units and the large number of additional people that would bring into the area.

 

Tangeman then commented she thought the group’s major concern was increased traffic in the area.  Van Brimmer replied that if the developer thought that traffic was the main concern of the residents, the developer was badly mistaken.    

 

King commented that he would not consider single family on this site if the land were free.  A FNWC member asked King why they would stray so far from the Northwest Plan zoning recommendation for this site.  Would they consider a development with a density more in line with the concerns and desires of the residents? His only reply was that things have changed.

 

A resident noted that they were not against development but would like more interaction with the developer in smaller groups to have a dialog on this project.  The developer said they would be happy to meet with smaller groups but the resident noted that the civic groups have retained counsel and she asked that the attorney be the developer’s first point of contact.  She then had to ask a second time to get a response from the developer about working through the group’s counsel. 

 

Another resident asked what the developer’s contingency plan might be. The developer responded that they would move forward as they would feel necessary.  A Stilson Village resident then commented about crime that has been brought to the area from units on the west side of the railroad tracks.  Her concern being that bringing additional density like this may result in more crime in the area.

 

Best then explained that the FNWC would not be taking any vote on this zoning change request until the developers have the annexation complete and come back to the FNWC, probably at the June meeting.  He noted that based on residents’ comments, he would like to see the developers meet with the civic group and its attorney to try and work out a suitable solution for the subject property by the time they return to the FNWC for a formal presentation and vote.  He also said the FNWC website is listed on the meeting agenda and there is space there for comments.  He said he will set up an area where residents may post comments about this rezoning request.

 

Chet Chaney, Perry Township Trustee, then addressed the group.  He said the local civic associations have banded together with their attorney in opposition to this high density zoning change and that Perry Township has been involved as a facilitator in the process.  He then asked John Kennedy, the civic groups’ attorney, to again explain the zoning process and give a rough timetable to the residents in attendance.  Kennedy said he is an attorney who is normally on the developer’s side in a zoning change, so he is fully aware of the process and the things that can happen in the process.  He explained again the process of the FNWC review and recommendation, roughly a month later the review and recommendation by the Development Commission and then another four weeks or so for the City Council to make the formal decision at its meeting.

 

Chaney then encouraged the residents to remain unified in this process.  He said the developers will try and pick off residents or groups one at a time and pit one group against another.  He said residents need to remain united and require that the group’s legal counsel be the point person for contact with the developers.  He and Michelle Elliott, the Fiscal Officer for Perry Township, asked for contact information of the residents in attendance so they can keep the people in the loop on what is going on in the process.

 

David Brehm then explained how the political process works on a zoning like this and the fact that the group needs to stay focused and united in opposition.  He said the developer has a right to develop the property and will try and wear down any opposition to it.  He noted that a good turnout at the Development Commission would be needed but that is a much more formal venue and calls for no development at all or interruptions of presentations would not be looked at kindly by the Commission.  He repeated that the opposition needs to be disciplined; the message must unified and consistent.

 

There being no further business to come before the FNWC, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Rich Herner

FNWC Secretary