Reynoldsburg City
OH

Ordinance
46-18

ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REYNOLDSBURG ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 131-95 ON NOVEMBER 27, 1995 AND AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED: Changing the Zoning District of a 10.58AC Parcel Known as 7227 E. Main Street, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, from CC Community Commerce District to S-1 Special District, and Removing the Parcel from the Historic Overlay District.

Information

Department:Development DepartmentSponsors:Ward 2 Councilmember Brett Luzader
Category:Zoning

Body

Please see attached document for legal description and map exhibit of parcel proposed for rezoning.

Meeting History

Jan 8, 2018 7:32 PM  Public Service and Transportation Committee Committee Meeting

Mr. Snowden: You might not now that the parcel that is being worked on for the city for the YMCA is actually zoned commercial. Again, why is that a problem? It brings in a lot of other requirements for commercial property. It's also technically within the historic district. The proposed building as it stands is not going to meet our historic design guidelines nor should it given its use. I think there was an idea back in 1996 that historic district might expand into that area with whatever redeveloped there, but given that it's an extension of our park that's really not realistic. I can also see that there's one typo there and I'll make sure that's corrected.

RESULT:REFERRED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Brett Luzader, Ward 2 Councilmember
SECONDER:Caleb Skinner, Ward 1 Councilmember
AYES:Brett Luzader, Stacie Baker, Kristin Bryant, Caleb Skinner
Jan 8, 2018 7:34 PM  City Council Regular Meeting
RESULT:REFERRED TO PUBLIC HEARING
Feb 12, 2018 7:30 PM  City Council Public Hearing

Mr. Snowden: This property will be known to you as the property where the city is working on the proposed YMCA project. It's a very exciting time, but the fact is this property, now that it's owned by the City, it's going to be used as park and public use, not commercial use, so the requirements for the historic district and the commercial design guidelines, etc, don't need to apply to this property. It's really an extension of Huber Park at this point and it should be zoned S-1 to reflect the main use. With that, I would ask for your support of this ordinance.

RESULT:REFERRED TO BOARD/COMMISSION
Mar 8, 2018 6:30 PM  Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Mr. Snowden: The city acquired the property from Nance Family Properties where the Swim Club was located and the Bingo Hall, as well as the property across the street from that with the house and the small wedding chapel. As you have seen the YMCA project is chugging along. Many details for the city departments still to address with those projects; however, the use is no longer commercial. The use is now public institution and that is better reflected by the S1 District. That portion is also in the historic district. I would like to revise the historic district zone; however, in the interim time I'm requesting you approve this ordinance which clarifies it’s not part of the historic district. The architecture of what's being proposed there is not going to reflect the historic design guidelines nor should it necessarily. We need to clarify that it’s not part of the historic district any longer. That might have made sense back in 1995 when the historic district went in assuming future development in that location, but it doesn't today. I am only proposing to rezone the east side of the Davidson Drive. The portion of that parcel that is on the west side is not part of this rezoning. It is still going to be zoned community commerce pending final decisions about uses and details from our city department.

Mr. Bowman: I think it makes sense to remove the historical district overlay on it because we don't want to have to negotiate around that when it comes to all of the in any design aspects. I think it makes sense. I know it's got a Main Street address. How much of it is on Main Street?

Mr. Snowden: I'd have to go back and look. The property owner went through and did a series of lot splits and lot configurations. People don't actually know there was a small alley there where Davidson Drive goes back called Brown Alley that goes back to like the late 1900's. I'd have to pull up the auditor's map and look, but there was some alley vacation. There were some properties that were kind of addressed off of that. Our piece is actually connected to Main Street via a strip of land that is along the where the trail comes to the.. yeah, exactly. I would expect our engineer to assign a new address to that as part of the process, although, it's ultimately his decision, but I think it's going to make a lot more sense. These parcels were connected. One of them was connected up. There was a parcel line through the middle of the Post Office building. Parcels reflecting the previous uses and previous construction there along East Main Street and the property owner the city bought the land from reconfigured some of that, I want to say last year. I have to go back and look at my files through the lot split. Not much is the short answer to your question and I would expect a new address to be reassigned as part of this process because otherwise it's not going to make sense.

Mr. Bowman: The only reason I ask is because if it were a substantial portion or a portion where in the future something could be built there, my only hesitance in removing the historical district overlay would be if something is being built right off of Main Street right where all the other historical stuff is. I want it to have those same restrictions. But if staff doesn't foresee that being an issue then... I don't think you could even fit anything new there.

Mr. Snowden: I don't. Let me pull up both the county auditor and GIS which has some older county data and the current map of the county because I believe it reflects what was approved.

Mr. Bowman: While you're doing that I just want to make sure it's clear why I'm bringing this up. I just don't want something that looks really out of place in the middle of the historical district.

Mr. Snowden: So, here's the current configuration. The city oh, wow, it's getting busy here with the parcel numbers. This property we own, ok, you can see it's actually connected up in the middle of the bridge, so we actually own the land in the middle of the creek there. I believe that this is still Nance property. You can see the green there on your screen represents previous lot lines. As you can see you had some lots here that were originally configured for single family when the commercial uses went in they acquired, replatted those, so now what I'm proposing is to only rezone this piece to S1 and the only way is if you were going to build a building in the middle of the creek. The thing about the historic district and I can pull that up on our GIS, but I don't think it's necessary. The historic district actually includes the cities whole building and this whole piece here. I think back in 1995 they had the idea that that might redevelop someday and it needed to have more of a historic character. I would propose and I have our mapping folks at EMH&T have worked on a map for me to possibly revise the historic district to end at the creek because these properties here don't have the same type of historic character and nor do they necessarily need to. You've got the Post Office use here. Our general commercial community commerce district and the commercial overlay are a better fit for the types of uses, the size of the building. You're still having quality materials. Its still restricts. Pulls buildings up to the street, but we don't need to worry about how the... I mean the city building is never going to have the type of historic character that we like to see in old Reynoldsburg. It's just the nature of the architecture. I think we're moving in the right direction here, but I just wanted to move this forward so that there would not be any road blocks or confusion in place.

Mr. Bowman: I'm satisfied. Thank you.

Mr. Hicks: Just one other comment about the historic district. I'm just curious if we've removed any other parcels since the inception of the historic district. Whether we've removed any other parcels from the historic district, I agree with you that the historic district needs revised. We need to touch up the language. It could be a lot better so that we actually get more historic looking buildings, but at the same time I'm sure this YMCA building will come out, this is not going to fit with the historic district. It makes more sense for it to only be on the east side of Blacklick Creek, but I just want to make sure that we are not setting precedence here. We're eventually in 20-years each parcel that wants something that doesn't comply with the revised historic district has precedence to be able to remove themselves from the historic district and say well the Planning Commission approved it for the YMCA why can't I build the building I want to build and not make it look like it's in the historic district. I just want to be careful about the reasoning and logic for why we would remove property from the historic district and I hope soon we can readdress the historic district so that it is strengthened and maybe done a little bit more practical way and an updated way to make it more clear to applicants and how to make their projects fit in with the area.

Mr. Snowden: Mr. Hicks, I agree with you completely. We have never made this type of ordinance before. The only way someone could do this would be if they tried to rezone. They would essentially rezone themselves. Theoretically they have the right to make that application and it's up to Planning Commission and City Council to say no. Ultimately, you are the arbiters of what is an appropriate land use and land uses can absolutely change just as conditions change, but in this case you have a substantial public purpose here. That's the difference. That's what you would hang your hat on if you receive blow back from an applicant and I think that there's a strong argument that this probably should not have ever been included in the first place just because of the character, the development that was already there even when it went in. Your point is a good one.

RESULT:REFERRED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Eliot Bowman, Commissioner
SECONDER:Joseph Bizjak, Commissioner
AYES:Tyler Cullinan, Eliot Bowman, Steven Hicks, Joseph Bizjak
ABSENT:Pat Zollars
Mar 26, 2018 7:34 PM  City Council Regular Meeting
RESULT:REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Apr 9, 2018 7:32 PM  Public Service and Transportation Committee Committee Meeting

Mr. Luzader: This is the parcel across the street where the city is building the new community center which will also be put into the S-1 district.

RESULT:REFERRED TO COUNCIL [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Brett Luzader, Ward 2 Councilmember
SECONDER:Stacie Baker, At-Large Councilmember
AYES:Brett Luzader, Stacie Baker, Kristin Bryant, Caleb Skinner
Apr 9, 2018 7:34 PM  City Council Regular Meeting
RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Brett Luzader, Ward 2 Councilmember
SECONDER:Mel Clemens, Ward 4 Councilmember
AYES:Mel Clemens, Barth R. Cotner, Brett Luzader, Marshall Spalding, Stacie Baker, Kristin Bryant, Caleb Skinner

Discussion