University Neighborhoods Revitalization Plan CONCEPT DOCUMENT

Core Value #3: The University District shall be culturally and socio-economically diverse.

This is one of five chapters that address the intensity and density of development, residential homeownership patterns, availability of community services, access to job resources, and provision of services for students who live in the Neighborhoods. The University District has some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the City, with diversity expressed through broad ranges in levels of income, types of ethnicities established, dependency on community services, and lifestyles. Maintaining that richness of people and culture while meeting the requirements of a clean, safe, and economically stable community is a challenge.

Land Use and Zoning

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page

Through planning instruments such as land use designations and zoning, the city of Columbus can determine the use, intensity, and character of its neighborhoods. Recognizing the need to examine land use and zoning classifications, Chapter 5.0 sets forth some basic recommendations for improving the quality of life in the Neighborhoods and the economic vitality of the High Street Corridor. Positive adjustments to the distribution and intensity of land uses will affect everything from homeownership to parking.

5.0 LAND USE AND ZONING

A. Objectives

Developing a strategy for appropriate distribution of land uses that will support the larger goals of the Revitalization Plan is the underlying objective of this section. Successful adjustments to land use will positively affect everything from homeownership to stronger economic vitality on High Street.

Through zoning, which is the primary tool influencing land use, residential uses and commercial intensity around the edge of the university would transition to predominantly lower-density housing in the surrounding areas.

Recommendations are made to effectively induce development of new and more market responsive rental products in the East, South and North Campus Neighborhoods, while conserving existing housing making it more attractive for single-family home ownership and professional or graduate student rental.

B. Policies and Recommendations

Policy 5.1: The unique character of the University District is strongly linked to the varied and historic housing stock that contributes to the architectural character of the Neighborhoods.

Recommendation 5.1.1: Areas currently classified as either AR-4 or R-4 should be examined for downzoning in the following planning areas:

Weinland Park (east and west) south of East 11th Avenue

Indianola Terrace east of Fourth Street

Iuka Ravine/Indianola Forest

Dennison Place/NECKO including the newly added areas surrounding McMillen Place

Recommendation 5.1.2: In recognition of the need to conserve the architectural character of the area, FAR bonuses should be maintained for adaptive re-use of contributing structures within the East, North, and South Campus Neighborhoods.

Recommendation 5.1.3: A strategy needs to be developed for identifying, prioritizing, and removing non-residential properties, whose current non-permitted use conflicts with current zoning classifications.

Recommendation 5.1.4: The boundaries of the University Impact District should be expanded to ideally coincide with the boundaries of the University District, but as a minimum be designed to include areas most susceptible to in appropriate development given successful revitalization momentum and new investment in the District.

Policy 5.2: The University District Overlay has positively influenced the Neighborhoods by discouraging inappropriate development and providing incentives to rehabilitate older properties. The intent of the Overlay should be maintained and its ease of understanding for compliance should be improved.

Recommendation 5.2.1: A public relations program should be developed to communicate the objectives, intent, how to use, and the benefits of the Overlay to new homeowners, developers, and investors.

Recommendation 5.2.2: Technical assistance from sources such as the NDAC, The Ohio State University schools of Planning and Architecture, as well as the University Area Review Board should be available at no cost or low cost to single-family homeowners and purchasers who wish to renovate property or bring their property up to code but are unsure how to work with or interpret the Overlay.

Recommendation 5.2.3: To provide incentives for removing problem properties or creating new development consistent with the objectives of the proposed Mixed Use areas, aggregation of several lots should be considered at the project proposal level, provided new development emanates from High Street. In return for the right to combine lots, new development should provide increased levels of open space and parking.

Policy 5.3: To effectively attract new single-family homeowners to specific neighborhoods, problem properties, illegal conversions, and ‘de facto’ rooming houses will need to be rehabilitated or replaced with single-family housing.

Recommendation 5.3.1: A task force of neighborhood representatives, city of Columbus Code Enforcement Officers, and the City’s Attorney office need to identify and prioritize problem properties and work to remove or upgrade the worst offenders.

.Recommendation 5.3.2: Campus Partners, working with funding from the city of Columbus, The Ohio State University, and private banking institutions should acquire the worst problem properties (as identified by the proposed Task Force in Recommendation 5.3.1) and facilitate their rehabilitation to single-family homes, if appropriate, or completely remove them.

Recommendation 5.3.3: A Transfer of Development Rights program should be explored within an area identified to focus new development and provide private sector incentives to remove problem properties

Policy 5.4: Successful revitalization of High Street will require developing clear thematic centers for marketing and identity, and connected by varying land use strategies to focus intensity of new development and business activity.

Recommendation 5.4.1: Develop activity centers that act as ‘anchors’ for High Street revitalization at 11th Avenue and High Street, 15th Avenue and High Street, and Lane Avenue and High Street.

Recommendation 5.4.2: Form a committee of community and City representatives to identify a limited number of sites from 5th Avenue to 9th Avenue that can accommodate larger format (5,000 to 30,000 square foot users) retailers. Priorities and incentives should be given to ensure redevelopment of current sites that have eroded the street wall or contain a series of non-contributing structures. Create specific design criteria for each site that protects adjacent residential properties, preserves the urban character and maintains the street wall of High Street while not precluding the viability of new development in these locations.

Recommendation 5.4.3: Develop a Mixed Use area that extends 425’ from the centerline of High Street into the Neighborhoods from East 12th Avenue to East 16th Avenue (this is consistent with Mixed Use Area II, shown in Figure 12: Land Use Concept). Ground floor commercial uses should be permitted for up to 200 feet east of Pearl Street as a transition into the Neighborhoods. In general, commercial uses east of Pearl Street should not be allowed until:

after the successful revitalization of High Street,
improvements and widening to Pearl Street have been made from 12th Avenue (north side) to 15th Avenue (north side)

Recommendation 5.4.4: Explore ways to stimulate retail concentration in the identified activity centers for long term viability.

C. Setting and Current Issues

Historic Context: To understand the current issues surrounding zoning, it is important to also understand the area’s zoning evolution. Zoning was first applied in 1928, when the majority of the District was already constructed. At that time, 37% of the area was zoned for high density housing at 36 dwelling units per acre. Most of this density was located in a band between Summit and Fourth Streets, which carried the trolley lines to and from downtown Columbus. Surprisingly, the current East Campus Neighborhood was zoned with the area’s lowest density at 9 dwelling units per acre.

In the mid-1950s, with the rapid growth of the university and the need for additional housing, the majority of the Neighborhoods were upzoned to AR-4. The process of institutionalizing density drove up underlying land values and led to property price escalation. As homeownership became more costly, existing homes were either demolished to make way for higher density apartments or converted to rooming houses. The rapidly increasing density and lack of accompanying amenities were exacerbated by a lack of coordination between City zoning, building inspection, and permitting functions, which allowed landlords to renovate and construct properties using marginal construction practices.

Since that time, the city of Columbus has taken several actions to prevent these problems. In 1978, the permitting and zoning functions were combined in the Department of Regulation. Areas south and southeast of the campus were downzoned in 1979 and 1980 from 36 to 17.4 units per acre. This was done to reverse the rate of single-family home demolitions, and to create underlying economics that would once again allow affordable single-family homeownership. While the downzoning and departmental restructuring provided some relief, these actions failed to fully solve the community’s land pricing and appearance problems, partially due to inadequate enforcement.

Due to the limited improvement afforded by these changes, the University District Overlay was introduced in 1987 to accomplish four primary objectives: (1) reduce density; (2) increase parking; (3) improve compatibility of new development; and (4) bring about environmental improvement of the area.

FAR limitations were the primary tools of the Overlay and were used to change development intensities, increase parking ratios, and to initiate design review to lessen the degree of inappropriate development.

Current Land Use: The following table summarizes the major land uses within the University District, based on the GIS analysis conducted during the initial phases of the Plan’s development. The land use by acreage and percentage demonstrates the significant variances between Planning Areas:

Zoning Categories: Today, the University Neighborhoods are zoned primarily for residential and commercial uses. Currently, the predominant zoning designations in the area include C-4, AR-4, R-4, R-2F and UCRPD. In addition to these designations, other zoning categories (AR-1, C-1, M) from the City of Columbus Zoning Code apply on a limited basis. . The most relevant zones are described below going from most to least dense.

AR-4--Apartment Residential District: This zoning designation provides for a variety of uses but focuses on high density apartment developments. Subdivided dwellings with three or four dwelling units are also allowed. Most of the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods and sections of Indianola Terrace, as well as small pockets immediately to the north of the study area are zoned AR-4. This is also the only residential zone that permits the Rooming House use.

R-4--Residential District: This zoning allows primarily for single family dwellings with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, approximately eight dwelling units per acre. R-4 zoning also allows for the subdivision of buildings with three or four dwelling units per building. Multiple dwelling developments located on a lot of roughly one half acre or more are also permitted. Weinland Park East, Weinland Park West, Necko/Dennison Place and sections of Indianola Terrace and Iuka Ravine are zoned R-4.

R-2F--Residential District: This zoning provides for single family houses on lots of 6,000 square feet or greater (approximately 7 dwelling units per acre) and two family dwellings, commonly called duplexes. Iuka Ravine and areas to the north of the study area are zoned R-2F.

C-4--Community Scale Commercial Development: This zoning designation allows for a wide variety of commercial uses geared toward providing commercial services for a large community. Residential units above commercial uses are also allowed. High Street is predominantly zoned C-4.

LUCRPD--University-College Research Park District: This zoning designation is designed with a broad mixture of permitted land use types and development standards tailored to meet the needs of a large educational, research complex and its surrounding environment. The majority of The Ohio State University’s property is zoned under this classification.

M-Manufacturing: This zoning designation permits limited manufacturing facilities and other uses permitted in commercial districts, with the exception of residential uses.

Figure 10: Current Zoning (simplified)

Infrastructure: The University District is fully serviced by utilities including gas, electricity, street lighting, water, telephone, and cable television. The providers of these services are:

Natural Gas:	Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
Electricity:	American Electric Power (AEP)
Street Lighting/Electricity:	City of Columbus Electricity Division
Water:	City of Columbus Water Division
Sanitary and Storm Sewers:	City of Columbus Sewerage and Drainage Division
Telephone:	Ameritech
Cable Television:	Warner Cable

The primary area of infrastructure concern is stormwater and street lighting. As more surfaces become paved and the amount of natural and man-made retention capacity is reduced, increased flooding is imminent. Combined sanitary and storm sewers are found throughout the majority of the study area, exacerbating the stormwater capacity and storage problem. Stormwater discharge capacity is reduced in three specific areas where reinforcement sewers may be required to prevent flooding:

Oakland Avenue from Williams Street west to Olentangy River – 36" and 42" sewers experience varying capacities due to differing pipe sizes and slopes; and

Indianola/ Woodruff Avenue – 72" sewer; capacity is reduced due to change in pipe slope.

While combined sewers in all areas seem to have adequate sanitary sewer capacity in times of low or no storm flow, some are inadequate for current storm sewer criteria utilized by the city of Columbus. The following table illustrates the capacity problems within some neighborhoods and the need to separate stormwater and sanitary sewer or increase capacity to meet existing residential densities.

Neighborhood	Indianola Terrace	Iuka Ravine Indianola Forest	South Campus	East Campus	Weinland Park-East	Weinland Park -West
Area (Acres)	150	105	90	145	127	80
Population /Ac	29.1	31.6	37.8	41.6	17.5	28.7
Units / Ac	11.6	13.4	19.2	15.7	8.5	15.3
Sanitary Sewer Demand (cfs)	3.45	2.62	2.62	4.54	1.93	1.79
Storm Sewer Demand (cfs)	291.90	204.30	175.10	282.20	247.10	155.70
Combined Sewer Demand (cfs)	295.35	206.92	177.72	286.74	249.03	157.49
Combined Sewer Capacity (cfs)	147.60	349.70	84.80	410.20	77.70	145.00
Capacity Surplus (Deficit)	(147.75)	142.78	(92.92)	123.46	(171.33)	(12.49)

Notes:

1) Population data from 1990 Census.

2) Sewer capacity based on analysis generated by Burgess and Niple using current city of Columbus design criteria of 2-year storm frequency, average C factor of 0.7 for the area, and a 5-year storm frequency to be contained within the system.

3) Densities calculated are gross.

The table portrays the lack of stormwater capacity in areas such as Indianola Terrace and Weinland Park. Although reducing densities in these areas will have a limited effect on this problem (as the primary strain comes from stormwater not sanitary sewer), a reduction in high density uses and an increase in open space would help relieve some of these constraints.

D. Programs and Concepts

Downzoning: In 1979, much of the University District was downzoned to protect existing neighborhoods and limit inappropriate development. With the adoption of the second University District Overlay in 1992, the area was effectively downzoned again. While the underlying zoning classification in many areas is still R-4, the Overlay’s FAR limitations effectively creates densities more consistent with the R2-F classification. The recommendation for further downzoning is meant to formalize what the Overlay has successfully started, while at the same time increasing the desirability of these neighborhoods for new single-family ownership. The reduced zoning will assure buyers their property values will be preserved.

The University District Overlay: The University District Overlay, administered by the Development Regulation Division with design review executed by the University Area Review Board, will continue to play a valuable role in improving the University Neighborhoods. The Overlay’s design standards are intended to foster appropriate design integrity of the area. While the Overlay is generally an effective tool, it could be improved in three ways:

Public Information and Assistance - Greater public information and education regarding the Overlay and its requirements should be made available. Currently, many land owners or potential developers misunderstand the roles, functions, and purposes of the Overlay. As such, a perception may exist that the Overlay is burdensome to potential new development, thereby discouraging new investment in the area. While the Overlay does impose additional requirements on development, over the long term, it will play an important role in stabilizing and preserving the Neighborhoods. This in turn will provide better returns to investors who respect the intent of the Overlay.

To communicate the merits of the Overlay, the City and Campus Partners should engage in a public education campaign. The campaign should target property owners, developers, and real estate professionals active in the area and could include fact sheets that outline the major points of the overlay, as well as simple illustrations to demonstrate development consistent with the overlay.

Secondly, additional technical assistance should be provided for individual property owners and neighborhood groups in developing appropriate solutions to renovation and rehabilitation problems in selected lower income areas. This service could easily be provided as an outreach program of The Ohio State University’s Architecture and/or planning programs or through the Neighborhood Design Assistance Center.

Thirdly, the boundaries of the University Impact District put many structures most worth saving at greatest risk. Assuming that the revitalization effort is successful in reducing crime and increasing the attractiveness of the area, inappropriate development will be drawn to those areas with the least amount of review and the lowest cost property. This includes a significant portion of the Weinland Park and Indianola Terrace neighborhoods. The design review process should be expanded to at least include these critical areas, and more ideally expanded to coincide with the University District as a whole so that the integrity of the entire area is maintained.

Two tier design review - With implementation of the downzoning recommendations and new incentives for new development or rehabilitation, there may be the need for two levels of design review.

Detailed review should occur for new infill as well as major renovations and change of use for existing development. The intent should be to ensure that investment is done in a manner consistent with the long-term vision of the Neighborhoods. The existing design review process should be adequate for this level of review.
A simpler, more administrative review process should be provided, along with University Area Review Board assistance, for the average home-owner. The audience should be homeowners trying to upgrade their property but lacking the means for extensive renovation, professional design services, or expensive materials. The intent of this review should be to facilitate upgrading individual properties without making the review process punitive.

Finally, commercial design review should be added to the University Area Review Board’s responsibilities.

Elimination of Non Permitted Land Uses: In several cases, uses at particular sites conflict with current zoning classifications. In most cases, these establishments are auto body shops or limited commercial facilities operating in residential areas. This situation clearly presents a land use conflict and degrades the character and investment potential of specific blocks.

For land uses that are clearly not permitted and have a significant negative effect on the adjoining properties, every avenue should be explored to have them removed. Options includes legal review for their removal where legal grounds exist; establishing an amortization schedule agreed-upon by the property owner and the City; outright purchase of the property using funds from the Problem Property Fund. (See Residential Revitalization for more information.)

However, it is important to note that with the adoption of the 1979 area downzoning, and the 1987 and 1992 University District Overlay many current residential properties may be non-conforming by current standards but are still legal and permitted as existing uses. Therefore the intent of this recommendation is to remove noxious uses that have a negative impact on surrounding properties, but should not be construed as a recommendation to force removal of residential properties that exceed current FAR limitations.

Redevelopment Incentives: The existing system of FAR bonuses for renovation could be expanded to reward property owners who assist with meeting other community goals such as increased off-street parking or recreation and open space facilities. The precise bonus to the designated Mixed Use Areas will need to be developed based on an analysis of need and contextual conditions, but the current FAR bonus of .2 (used for adaptive reuse of contributing structures) may be a good starting point.

The critical element of these bonuses would be that the amenity provided has to demonstrate lasting benefit to the neighborhood. Consequently, simply increasing the amount of open space would not qualify, but the aggregation of open space into a pocket park with recreational facilities should warrant increased FAR or variances in side and rear yard setbacks (not front setback).

Transfer of Development Rights: Another option would be to explore a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Under such a program, a designated Receiving Area would be defined to allow development of additional housing over and above that permitted by the Overlay or underlying zoning, as long as the additional housing was made up of ‘bedrooms’ bought from problem properties in the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods. If properly developed and managed the program will shift some population to the designated Mixed Use areas while upgrading rental products and helping to de-densify many congested blocks. The proposed Contributing Areas (those areas from which bedrooms can be ‘bought’ and the proposed Receiving Areas (those areas to which bedrooms can be transferred) are shown in Figure 11: Transfer of Development Rights Area Boundaries.

Figure 11: Transfer of Development Rights Area Boundaries

To illustrate this concept, a forty bedroom ‘people packer’ purchased and removed along 14th Avenue would permit a developer to build an additional number of bedrooms (estimated at 50% of existing or 20 bedrooms) over and above the density permitted by the current Overlay, but only in the receiving area. The site left over from the purchased bedrooms could then be redeveloped or converted to pocket parking or open space. If the site is to be redeveloped, it can only be redeveloped to the density permitted by the existing Overlay, and the new number of bedrooms built would have to be subtracted from those transferred.

This concept will aid in the removal of problem properties by unlocking some of the economics of illegal conversions and large properties whose values are based on cash flow. This in turn could also facilitate the de-conversion of ‘defacto rooming houses’ back to single family houses. Concurrent with the removal of problem properties and improving the economics of changing properties back to single family, the program will help to focus new units in the designated Mixed Use areas where amenities and transit alternatives can be more cost effectively delivered.

The success of this concept is closely tied to identification of a realistic ceiling based on market demand and carrying capacity of the area.. Identifying the correct retirement ratio to reach an equilibrium of supply and demand is implicit in generating quality construction that is economically viable. Consequently, further study and recommendations will need to be developed before a TDR program could be officially adopted.

Lot Aggregation: The current Overlay limits development of products that combine several lots into one single structure. The intent of this restriction is to minimize development of large apartment type complexes that would be out of scale with the rhythmic single family structure pattern that typifies the historic evolution of the area. However, in order to allow for the development of new rental products that can provide an appropriate level of parking and open space while maintaining economic viability, the designated Mixed Use areas should allow more flexibility for creative use of multiple lots.

By combining lots, new products can be developed that are economically viable while also providing new, valuable pocket amenities such as recreational sites, open space or parking. The intent of this recommendation is to encourage more flexibility at the time of site plan review for specific projects that meet the spirit and intent of the Overlay, while demonstrating benefit to the greater community by combining several lots.

However, it is important to note that the ability to combine lots, will be specifically limited to a the very small portion of the East, North and South Campus Neighborhoods designated as Mixed Use areas I and II.

Land Use Concept: Many of the previous concepts and recommendations are presented graphically in Figure 5: Land Use Concept (this is the same map displayed on page II-17, but is repeated here to assist the reader in understanding the recommendations). While the map is not intended to be a detailed land use of zoning map, it does show the limits of the designated Mixed Use areas, which are limited areas proposed to receive TDR’s and allow consideration for lot aggregation. The areas would also have the highest relative level of development intensity and activity when compared with other areas of the University District.

The land use categories portrayed include:

Mixed Use Area 1: An active mix of retail, office and residential uses, and the area most flexible in terms of zoning variances and site plan review. Projects would be considered on a site specific basis, and may make use of the Commercial Planned Development designation to achieve design concepts difficult to realize under existing zoning or the Overlay. Development incentives include receipt of TDR ‘bedrooms’ purchased from the designated Contributing Area, and lot aggregation.

Mixed Use Area 2: A transitional mix of ground floor pedestrian oriented commercial uses with residential units above to connect High Street with the neighborhoods to the east. Density would be limited to the FAR requirements of the Overlay, and commercial uses would only be permitted by variance based on a project specific basis. Development incentives include a commercial ‘bonus’, which would allow site specific commercial uses following review, but whose total square footage would not count towards the Overlay F.A.R. calculation. Another incentive includes consideration for lot aggregation.

Moderate intensity residential area with minimal commercial: Predominantly residential rental properties in either adaptively re-used contributing structures or new construction built in conformance with the existing Overlay. Limited commercial and neighborhood service providers, approved by variance on a site specific basis.

Lowest intensity residential area with limited corner store retail: Predominantly single family ownership units and limited small rental properties in renovated contributing structures such as duplexes or rowhouses. Limited corner commercial or carry-out facilities dispersed throughout the neighborhoods. All products rehabilitated in conformance with the existing Overlay.

Neighborhood Commercial Centers: Predominantly neighborhood and convenience commercial uses in adaptively re-used structures or new construction consistent with existing development patterns and proposed Design Guidelines.

Community Commercial: Combination of community commercial as well as destination retail/ entertainment, with office or limited residential uses on the upper floors. Adaptively re-use of existing structures or new construction consistent with existing development patterns and proposed Design Guidelines.

Figure 12: Land Use Concept (repeated)

Revitalizing High Street: One of the greatest challenges and most promising opportunities for the University Neighborhoods is the revitalization of High Street. The greatest potential for this corridor is a unique commercial district serving the University District, Ohio State’s student population and the city at large. Currently, the properties on High Street are not particularly attractive to the student market, nor do they provide sufficient diversity for the community. A revitalized High Street should be one of the initiating actions for the revitalization of the entire area.

The zoning of High Street should recognize the need for a variety of community-oriented commercial enterprises as well as facilities for offices, research and development, arts and entertainment, and university facilities. In addition, the zoning should foster transitions between the retail activity on High Street and the nearby residential areas. Also, land use planning and regulation should maximize the strengths of High Street and allow for concentrations of development and major activity centers.

Back to the Plan’s Table of Contents.

Back to the Campus Partners Home Page.