ThisWeek CW 12/15/2011
Canal Winchester officials want to rezone nearly 500 properties in the preservation district to downtown zoning designations.
Both the Old Town Committee and the city’s planning and zoning commission reviewed proposed changes to 494 properties during their Dec. 12 meetings, where 30 residents expressed concerns.
Vickie Miller, 185 Washington St., said she opposes the downtown label and preservation standards on the properties.
“My house was built in the 1800s. I object to people referring to my property being associated with downtown because it is not part of the downtown. I see that as a negative,” Miller said. “I don’t want to be part of the preservation area, either; I don’t want that restriction on my house.”
City planning and zoning administrator Andrew Dutton said he has been working with city staff members and the Old Town Committee, Landmarks Commission and the planning commission to develop downtown zoning districts.
The proposed designations are: downtown general commercial (DGC), downtown single-family and downtown multi-family.
“Right now, our general zoning districts don’t fit very well. For example, our general commercial zoning states a setback of 50 feet, which nothing downtown would fit,” Dutton said. “So most everything is the same (as current zoning) but with slightly different setback standards.”
Those changes, according to Dutton, would make it easier for renovation and redevelopment because a variance would not be required just to maintain current and appropriate setbacks in the preservation district.
The drafted setback for DGC is 0 feet at the front and sides of the building, 20 feet at the rear. Discussion over building height is ongoing, but was generally agreed to as no higher than three stories, Dutton said.
Residential downtown single-family and downtown multi-family are proposed to have a front setback relative to adjacent buildings with five feet on each side yard and 20 feet at the rear.
Further restrictions on the commercial use of properties have been proposed for DGC to prohibit liquor stores, pawn shops, check-cashing facilities, rehab centers and firearm sales.
Resident Glen Walls, who owns a building at 36 N. High St., asked what he would gain and lose from this change.
“Mostly what you’re losing is what’s now (been added to the) prohibited uses, but what you’re gaining is some relaxed development standards,” Dutton said.
Of the 494 properties, nine are proposed to change from general commercial to downtown single-family — a move that concerned several of the property owners.
“It’s always been a curiosity as to why (my house) was commercial zoning,” said Robert Stedman, who owns a building at 18 E. Mound St.
He said if wants to sell his home in the future, changing the zoning to downtown single-family “might make it less desirable if someone wants to use it for a business.”
Stedman also said he is concerned that prohibiting liquor stores would affect his brother’s business, Village Wines, which is reopening on High St.
“I’d like to understand the changes better É see a list written out telling me exactly what all this means to me,” Stedman said.
Jeff Cotner, 160 W. Waterloo St., agreed with Stedman, and said his building is currently being used both commercially and as a multi-family dwelling.
“I was not aware until tonight that I’m one of the properties going from commercial to residential. I recently moved into that house, and I own Key Realty and operate an office out of there,” Cotner said. “So I stand to lose a huge amount going from commercial to residential.”
Dutton said the city looked at the outside of these properties to determine whether it appeared they were being used commercially or residentially, and whether they appeared to fit commercial use standards.
“We took anything that was apparently residential from the outside that didn’t seem like there was a business there to change back to residential,” Dutton said.
Planning and zoning commission member Jennifer Solomon said her home was originally was zoned commercial but has since been rezoned residential. She said her insurance company would not allow her to maintain residential insurance on a commercial structure — another reason the city gave for the proposed changes.
Planning commission member Jeff Graber said city officials would study each of the nine proposed properties on a case-by-case basis with the property owners to determine if the zoning should change.
“We’re just looking to get comments today and move to come back with changes based on those at the next meeting,” Dutton said.
Planning commission member Mike Vasko said Dutton is available for discussion prior to the next planning and zoning commission meeting.
“Andrew is available for phone calls and we want everyone to have the opportunity to discuss this thoroughly. We will table this until the next meeting for further consideration,” Vasko said.
The proposed changes require approval by both the planning commission and a city council. The next planning and zoning Commission meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 9, at Town Hall, 10 N. High St.