Questions about Ohio 310 corridor
The trustees and zoning commission plan to meet later with MSI to cobble a final Ohio 310 plan. The document would be an influential tool the township hopes to use as input on state plans for the north-south highway. The township Web page is available at http://www.etnatownship.com/
"the deadline to submit Ohio 310 corridor questions is Nov. 24." However, if residents cannot submit queries via e-mail, then they need to deliver their paper questions or comments by Friday, Nov. 23, to the township office.
I’m reviewing the document and reacting to MSI's suggestions for the busy highway. I find it rather weak. I wonder just how much thought went into this plan. I end up having more questions. Many I think people/lawyers should be able to answer. I see a lot of stuff that apply “If you do “THIS”, then “THIS” will happen. But, thing are rarely one cause and one effect. They domino one after another and this plan doesn’t seem to me to care things out far enough.
I’m going to write up my view on each question please feel free to read and comment. Tell me what you think on some of my questions. I'll post as I get them done so bear with me and sorry if I don't get them all done.
1. Do we show the entire site of the proposed Wal-Mart (on the east side of S.R. 310, north of Trail East) as commercial retail on Map #1?
A. Yes, show the entire site as commercial retail to acknowledge the Wal-Mart.
B. Keep only the front parcels as retail and leave the rear as agricultural, acknowledging the existing zoning.
C. No, show as conservation residential.
If you believe that Wal-Mart is locating on the zoned site on S.R. 310 and don’t think that providing another location on US 40 would help convince them to locate there instead, select A. (Who is providing another location? For Wal-Mart to buy another location, they would have to be a seller willing to sell land to Wal-Mart for a price Wal-Mart will accept. How is Etna going to do that? Price set property? (Don’t think that is legal?) Is Etna going to buy the land and resell the land to Wal-Mart?)
If you believe it could help, select B or C. (I don’t see how changing the future use map when a building permits has already been issued, will help.) If you think it is helpful to have leverage with Wal-Mart for any additional changes to the site, select B, which continues to recognize the rear of the site as Agricultural. (Again Building permit issued what are you leveraging?)
My opinion is to show it as all Retail/Mixed Use. Unless the Wal-Mart deal doesn’t go through. According to the Pataskala Standard, “Scott Hayes, the attorney for the Langel family, said his clients filed the lawsuit earlier this month against Guttentag because Guttentag's lawsuits cost them money. The Langel family reached a deal to sell its property in 2005, according to court paperwork.” Does Etna want to get in the middle of an already contracted land deal? Would that open Etna up to the same liability?
Plus current zoning up and down 310 is zoned for business or retail and I believe several businesses are looking to develop the plan. One plan was in the Pataskala Standard earlier in the year showing a strip retail area in front of Cameron Chase. The sign for Hurricane Car Wash has been there long enough to make the “Coming Soon” a real joke.
I think current building permit should carry more weight in what is Future Plan then wishful thinking.
2. On the Representative Land Use Map (Map #2), do we show the proposed Wal-Mart site (on the east side of S.R. 310, north of Trail East)?
A. Yes, show the expected building footprint with parking lot.
B. Yes, but show an improved parking and outlot site plan.
C. Yes, but show only as a retail use with no specific building footprint.
D. No, show as conservation residential development.
If you believe that Wal-Mart is locating on the zoned site on S.R. 310 and don’t think they could be lured to another site in Etna, select A or B. (See my prior post) If you would like to see an improved parking and outlot configuration in hopes of influencing Wal-Mart’s development, select B. (If you have one, you should share with Wal-Mart. If it is good, you should not have to influence them to accept it.) If you believe something other than a Wal-Mart should be shown on this site, select C or D. (There is a contract to buy the land. Building permit has been issued. But by all means show a residential development or Disneyland on that site. Who wrote these questions?)
3. Should the large parcel located on the north side of U.S. 40, east of S.R. 310 be recommended for GB-3 land use as was shown on the draft?
A. Yes, leave as GB-3 even if the Wal-Mart will be located on S.R. 310.
B. No, instead show as GB-2.
C. No, instead show as GB-1.
D. Maintain the recommended land use as it is zoned today – Manufacturing.
The site is currently zoned M-1 Manufacturing, but was proposed to change to GB-3 to allow an alternate site for Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is not moving, then it should probably remain Manufacturing (select D); or if Manufacturing is not desirable here, change to GB-1 (select C). For virtually all GB zoning, Etna should propose starting with GB-1, so that applicants that desire more square footage have to rezone the property, encouraging negotiations with the township. (I would suggest if you have an area that you would allow a GB-3 it should be zoned for that so they don’t have to rezone to come in where they are wanted. I would think rezoning down would allow for less conflict and ease of coming to the area without have to negotiate. I can see the merit of having all zoned the same so that land cost stays competitive. Wal-Mart could really have bought other land around this area. There are land available closer to the exit and where zoning would have been changed will little resistance. However, I think that land was overpriced and lead to the Wal-Mart going to a land that would need to be rezoned and price reduced because of the poor zoning of the past left the land split zoned. I would be against zoning land different if it will create prime and less prime land.)
4. On the desired Future Land Use Map (Map #1), do we recommend the future land use match the existing zoning along S.R. 310 north of Trail East and south of Refugee Road (which is predominantly Agriculture and Planned Unit Development)? (This has a simple answer. Use current zoning unless a proposed change is in place or request from the plan will strongly suggest a change in zoning.)
A. Yes, match existing zoning.
B. No, show conservation residential as currently shown (recognizing existing retail).
C. No, show typical suburban residential and retail pattern (like Pataskala).
D. No, show the entire frontage as retail
The current township zoning map shows Agriculture and Planned Unit Development in this area along S.R. 310. Most people expect the owners of the agricultural land to request a rezoning in the near future. (Due to most land is split zoned.) At issue is what the community wants to see as the land use on this portion of S.R. 310.
One important consideration is the legitimate concern of pushing land owners to annex to Pataskala. (Who wants to pay an income tax?) The draft plan recommends conservation residential development that helps to preserve some rural character while still allowing the standard number of lots. If this matches the community’s intent, select B. (By Zoning this area residential, won’t that give the home developers a green light to build and food our school system with more families?) Some land owners expect to rezone this land to typical suburban retail or single-family housing (or both). The concern here is the creation of a continuous retail corridor like that found on Broad Street in Pataskala, S.R. 256 in Pickerington, or S.R. 79 in Heath and the impacts associated with that intensity of development on the community. (Why do you just site bad examples where they did it wrong. Look at North Hamilton road in Gahanna and what Gahanna has done with Creekside. The were able to put in service road and have a easy flowing traffic plan Traffic is not flow through residential area but allow access to the residential area.) If you believe a mix of typical retail and subdivision is the appropriate use for the remaining agricultural land here, select C. (I don’t understand the Pataskala reference in this suggested answer?) If you think additional retail frontage is the preferred use on this section of S.R. 310, select D (You will need good access road and service roads to make this work.) If you believe this land can and should remain as agricultural farm land into the future, select A.
5. On the Future Land Use Map (Map #1), do we propose maintaining the existing retail zoning along S.R. 310 south of Trail East and north of U.S. 40 or show a mix of retail and commercial as the plan currently shows?
A. Yes, show the land as general business that matches the existing zoning (GB-1).
B. No, show as mixed-use development that allows housing as well.
The current township zoning map places general business zoning in this area. This zoning allows office and commercial development. This study discusses the importance of the S.R. 310/U.S. 40 intersection and views it as a mixed use area where retail, residential, and office development can occur in a mix of uses at a neighborhood scale (not big box). This area suffers from access issues that exacerbate the impact of intense development.
The plan can show this area as solely retail (select A), or expand the types of uses that could be considered here by designating it as mixed use (select B). Regardless, large format retailers (“big boxes”) will not be able to locate here with the new GB-1 zoning. The new zoning will also require more adequate buffering requirements between uses. (I don’t see how adding housing in this area will negate the access issues they are saying will happen.)
"the deadline to submit Ohio 310 corridor questions is Nov. 24." However, if residents cannot submit queries via e-mail, then they need to deliver their paper questions or comments by Friday, Nov. 23, to the township office.
I’m reviewing the document and reacting to MSI's suggestions for the busy highway. I find it rather weak. I wonder just how much thought went into this plan. I end up having more questions. Many I think people/lawyers should be able to answer. I see a lot of stuff that apply “If you do “THIS”, then “THIS” will happen. But, thing are rarely one cause and one effect. They domino one after another and this plan doesn’t seem to me to care things out far enough.
I’m going to write up my view on each question please feel free to read and comment. Tell me what you think on some of my questions. I'll post as I get them done so bear with me and sorry if I don't get them all done.
1. Do we show the entire site of the proposed Wal-Mart (on the east side of S.R. 310, north of Trail East) as commercial retail on Map #1?
A. Yes, show the entire site as commercial retail to acknowledge the Wal-Mart.
B. Keep only the front parcels as retail and leave the rear as agricultural, acknowledging the existing zoning.
C. No, show as conservation residential.
If you believe that Wal-Mart is locating on the zoned site on S.R. 310 and don’t think that providing another location on US 40 would help convince them to locate there instead, select A. (Who is providing another location? For Wal-Mart to buy another location, they would have to be a seller willing to sell land to Wal-Mart for a price Wal-Mart will accept. How is Etna going to do that? Price set property? (Don’t think that is legal?) Is Etna going to buy the land and resell the land to Wal-Mart?)
If you believe it could help, select B or C. (I don’t see how changing the future use map when a building permits has already been issued, will help.) If you think it is helpful to have leverage with Wal-Mart for any additional changes to the site, select B, which continues to recognize the rear of the site as Agricultural. (Again Building permit issued what are you leveraging?)
My opinion is to show it as all Retail/Mixed Use. Unless the Wal-Mart deal doesn’t go through. According to the Pataskala Standard, “Scott Hayes, the attorney for the Langel family, said his clients filed the lawsuit earlier this month against Guttentag because Guttentag's lawsuits cost them money. The Langel family reached a deal to sell its property in 2005, according to court paperwork.” Does Etna want to get in the middle of an already contracted land deal? Would that open Etna up to the same liability?
Plus current zoning up and down 310 is zoned for business or retail and I believe several businesses are looking to develop the plan. One plan was in the Pataskala Standard earlier in the year showing a strip retail area in front of Cameron Chase. The sign for Hurricane Car Wash has been there long enough to make the “Coming Soon” a real joke.
I think current building permit should carry more weight in what is Future Plan then wishful thinking.
2. On the Representative Land Use Map (Map #2), do we show the proposed Wal-Mart site (on the east side of S.R. 310, north of Trail East)?
A. Yes, show the expected building footprint with parking lot.
B. Yes, but show an improved parking and outlot site plan.
C. Yes, but show only as a retail use with no specific building footprint.
D. No, show as conservation residential development.
If you believe that Wal-Mart is locating on the zoned site on S.R. 310 and don’t think they could be lured to another site in Etna, select A or B. (See my prior post) If you would like to see an improved parking and outlot configuration in hopes of influencing Wal-Mart’s development, select B. (If you have one, you should share with Wal-Mart. If it is good, you should not have to influence them to accept it.) If you believe something other than a Wal-Mart should be shown on this site, select C or D. (There is a contract to buy the land. Building permit has been issued. But by all means show a residential development or Disneyland on that site. Who wrote these questions?)
3. Should the large parcel located on the north side of U.S. 40, east of S.R. 310 be recommended for GB-3 land use as was shown on the draft?
A. Yes, leave as GB-3 even if the Wal-Mart will be located on S.R. 310.
B. No, instead show as GB-2.
C. No, instead show as GB-1.
D. Maintain the recommended land use as it is zoned today – Manufacturing.
The site is currently zoned M-1 Manufacturing, but was proposed to change to GB-3 to allow an alternate site for Wal-Mart. If Wal-Mart is not moving, then it should probably remain Manufacturing (select D); or if Manufacturing is not desirable here, change to GB-1 (select C). For virtually all GB zoning, Etna should propose starting with GB-1, so that applicants that desire more square footage have to rezone the property, encouraging negotiations with the township. (I would suggest if you have an area that you would allow a GB-3 it should be zoned for that so they don’t have to rezone to come in where they are wanted. I would think rezoning down would allow for less conflict and ease of coming to the area without have to negotiate. I can see the merit of having all zoned the same so that land cost stays competitive. Wal-Mart could really have bought other land around this area. There are land available closer to the exit and where zoning would have been changed will little resistance. However, I think that land was overpriced and lead to the Wal-Mart going to a land that would need to be rezoned and price reduced because of the poor zoning of the past left the land split zoned. I would be against zoning land different if it will create prime and less prime land.)
4. On the desired Future Land Use Map (Map #1), do we recommend the future land use match the existing zoning along S.R. 310 north of Trail East and south of Refugee Road (which is predominantly Agriculture and Planned Unit Development)? (This has a simple answer. Use current zoning unless a proposed change is in place or request from the plan will strongly suggest a change in zoning.)
A. Yes, match existing zoning.
B. No, show conservation residential as currently shown (recognizing existing retail).
C. No, show typical suburban residential and retail pattern (like Pataskala).
D. No, show the entire frontage as retail
The current township zoning map shows Agriculture and Planned Unit Development in this area along S.R. 310. Most people expect the owners of the agricultural land to request a rezoning in the near future. (Due to most land is split zoned.) At issue is what the community wants to see as the land use on this portion of S.R. 310.
One important consideration is the legitimate concern of pushing land owners to annex to Pataskala. (Who wants to pay an income tax?) The draft plan recommends conservation residential development that helps to preserve some rural character while still allowing the standard number of lots. If this matches the community’s intent, select B. (By Zoning this area residential, won’t that give the home developers a green light to build and food our school system with more families?) Some land owners expect to rezone this land to typical suburban retail or single-family housing (or both). The concern here is the creation of a continuous retail corridor like that found on Broad Street in Pataskala, S.R. 256 in Pickerington, or S.R. 79 in Heath and the impacts associated with that intensity of development on the community. (Why do you just site bad examples where they did it wrong. Look at North Hamilton road in Gahanna and what Gahanna has done with Creekside. The were able to put in service road and have a easy flowing traffic plan Traffic is not flow through residential area but allow access to the residential area.) If you believe a mix of typical retail and subdivision is the appropriate use for the remaining agricultural land here, select C. (I don’t understand the Pataskala reference in this suggested answer?) If you think additional retail frontage is the preferred use on this section of S.R. 310, select D (You will need good access road and service roads to make this work.) If you believe this land can and should remain as agricultural farm land into the future, select A.
5. On the Future Land Use Map (Map #1), do we propose maintaining the existing retail zoning along S.R. 310 south of Trail East and north of U.S. 40 or show a mix of retail and commercial as the plan currently shows?
A. Yes, show the land as general business that matches the existing zoning (GB-1).
B. No, show as mixed-use development that allows housing as well.
The current township zoning map places general business zoning in this area. This zoning allows office and commercial development. This study discusses the importance of the S.R. 310/U.S. 40 intersection and views it as a mixed use area where retail, residential, and office development can occur in a mix of uses at a neighborhood scale (not big box). This area suffers from access issues that exacerbate the impact of intense development.
The plan can show this area as solely retail (select A), or expand the types of uses that could be considered here by designating it as mixed use (select B). Regardless, large format retailers (“big boxes”) will not be able to locate here with the new GB-1 zoning. The new zoning will also require more adequate buffering requirements between uses. (I don’t see how adding housing in this area will negate the access issues they are saying will happen.)
Labels: 310, Corridor Plan, MSI
posted by Tough_Waters at 3:18 PM
2 comments
