Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

122 Olde Towne - New Apartment Development Proposed on Parsons Avenue

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion 122 Olde Towne – New Apartment Development Proposed on Parsons Avenue

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #558191

    Coy
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Do people currently park in that gravel lot? I’ve never used it. Never had any problem finding on-street parking on Oak or Parsons.

    Gravel lot is used all the time, and the street gets eaten up pretty quickly.
    They’ve been putting on less shows at Carabar, but when they do, it’s usually a good number of folks. I’m guessing you aren’t there in the 12-2am window?

    I walk, myself, but just sayin’….

    #558192

    Coy
    Participant

    So, I went to the zoning meeting tonight, and even spoke against the project, but I have to say that in total I have never seen such a joke of local governance in my life.
    I’m not sure if I now want to run for City Council or just RUN.

    I’ve never been to one of these meetings, but it was like a bad Parks and Rec episode, except Sewer Joe had a vote.
    Total lack of decorum by many members of the zoning board, with obvious and blatant misuse of the chair role by Kathleen Bailey to favor her position (clearly for).
    I run meetings like this (Robert’s Rules forum) and it was really, really bad. Clear manipulation and favoritism.

    The room was full of citizens, not a single one of which spoke in favor of the project, but the process was so clearly manipulated by Ms. Bailey (and whoever her Vice chair and/or secretary was… she just talked and shot down people whenever she felt like it, with no correction from the chair) that I’m certain no one could have expect anything other than a FOR vote.

    The vote was actually evenly split, with Ms. Bailey the tie breaker, so it looks like we’ve got Harrison West coming to the OTE.

    But don’t bother asking the developer what he has in mind with his company “Ote2 llc”, an llc not yet affiliated with this project, cause he will simply refuse to answer and none of the commissioners will question him.

    I’m almost sorry I went, cause that was a such shameless display of lack of decorum and professionalism by the commissioners that I’m going to have to think about if I even want to stay on this side of the city in the near future.

    On the positive side, we have confirmation that Carabar and ET Paul are not going to be looked at by ODOT until 2023.
    So, whoever the hell wants to move into a shitty townhouse for $2k a month across from Carabar, be prepared for some punk music at 2am, and don’t go bitchen bout shit.
    We told you so.

    #558193
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Coy said:
    I’m almost sorry I went, cause that was a such shameless display of lack of decorum and professionalism by the commissioners that I’m going to have to think about if I even want to stay on this side of the city in the near future.

    Just to be clear, you’re referring to the Near East Area Commission, right?

    http://development.columbus.gov/associations.aspx?id=29831

    I went to one meeting one time, I believe in regards to The Charles development on Long Street. It was a similar hot mess to what you describe, but maybe not quite to the same degree.

    #558194

    Coy
    Participant

    Yep.
    Straight up awful.
    Ashamed of the leadership in my hood right now… sad for OTE.

    I’m taking my talents to Franklinton.

    #558195

    Pablo
    Participant

    When I was at OSU in the late 80s we had to spend a quarter with the Near East Area Commission – my experience was the same as Walker’s and Coy’s.

    #558196

    c_odden
    Participant

    [The Statement of Hardship in the request is better written than many, but] (1) the premise is silly (“buildings constructed prior to current code are noncompliant” — not actually a hardship, or you’d be able to find examples of existing construction to get away with anything you want) and (2) the burden should be firmly on the applicant to demonstrate hardship.

    For example: what proportion of buildings in the area 70ft tall? That’s insane. They want to reduce green (remove shade trees) — what unique features of the lot prevent including shade trees? Yes, there are existing properties with insufficient perimeter yards, but — again — zoning standards like that are the clear codification of a planning vision with which the proposed property is goofily out of step.

    More: The Applicant wants to reduce the lot area requirement by over 50%. There are legitimate, viable uses of the lot that wouldn’t require that. Being unable to realize your particular proposed vision in a way that’s compliant with code is, in itself, no argument in favor of the variance. “This would be awesome,” “it’s an ugly gravel lot now,” “density is awesome — don’t you like Paris?” and/or “neighbors’ property values will increase,” could all be individually or jointly true and still do not bear on the criteria for granting/denying variances.[/i][/u] In principle, that is — people seem to get seduced by these arguments all the time.

    #4 on the statement of hardship fails the condition “will not be contrary to … the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code.”

    Variances are (or should be) for ensuring justice to lot owners or users who would be disproportionately constrained by the letter of the zoning law, not exemptions to the spirit of zoning by granting special handouts to those bold enough to demand that the law be bent for them.

    #558197

    Coy
    Participant
    #558198

    citywalker
    Participant

    I didn’t make it to the Thursday meeting but I went to the Site meeting the prior Saturday.

    I originally thought the lady who was rude and condescending to at least one speaker, was an employee of the development company, but she turned out to be a member of the commission. Later, either she, or another woman on the commission, cut the meeting short preventing me and others from speaking. Something about “we’ve been standing outside for awhile and it’s cold out here”. It’s amazing that a full-grown adult who has taken the responsibility to be on neighborhood commission hasn’t learned how to dress appropriately for the weather.

    I felt like that meeting should have been run to have a discussion about the 8 zoning variance requests instead of the generally if-you-are-a-local-business-owner-or-seem-to-be-excited-about-those-high-rents-speak-as long-as-you-want style of meeting it turned out to be.

    #558199

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    I support this development, but it seems like the neighborhood review process was flawed at best. The commission sounds generally unprofessional and poorly run.

    As it’s likely more and more projects will be proposed for this area in the coming years, I really hope they can get it together and act in a positive manner to mediate concerns between developers and the neighborhood. IMO, proposals that go through commission reviews in Downtown and the Short North are routinely and significantly improved by the process.

    Maybe additional training by the city, or better screening of appointees/candidates would help with that goal. Some other area commissions could also use a dose of the same treatment (*Clintonville*).

    #558200

    Coy
    Participant

    The utterly arrogant chairwoman, Kathleen Bailey, also claimed to have walked the businesses on Parsons and asked for input but didn’t get much. What she didn’t reveal is that she went at 9am on a Saturday and apparently only spoke to about 2-3 people.

    What’s also vexing is that the commissioner for the actual area affected abstained from voting, after nearly everyone who spoke against the project were from within spitting distance of the proposed development.
    Clearly he doesn’t want to keep his job…

    #558201

    Graybeak
    Participant

    Someone seems to have a sense of humour about it though…

    The variance application, which is a sworn affidavit signed by Woods, lists Dunder Mifflin Ltd, Woods 122OTE LLC, and ACD 122 Parsons LLC as entities

    #558202

    Coy
    Participant

    Board of Zoning Adjustments Meeting, Tuesday, February 25th at 6pm at 757 Carolyn Avenue (just East of I-71 between Oakland Park and Cooke Rd.).

    #558203

    NDaEast
    Participant

    Graybeak said:
    Someone seems to have a sense of humour about it though…

    The variance application, which is a sworn affidavit signed by Woods, lists Dunder Mifflin Ltd, Woods 122OTE LLC, and ACD 122 Parsons LLC as entities

    I saw that and cracked up.

    #558204
    Mr.Compton
    Mr.Compton
    Participant

    Did anyone have an update from the BZA meeting last night on how the vote went? I assume it was tabled but would love to hear if anyone attended and what happened.

    #558205

    SusanB
    Participant

    According to Bobby Silver on FB:

    The zoning board has tabled the discussion until the developer can resolve issues with the community and more importantly decrease the amount of variances requested.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 140 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: