Weinland Park Community Civic Association

Housing Committee
Summary of Meeting of February 8, 2016
Matt Martin, committee co-chair, called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
RFP. Erin Prosser of Campus Partners reported she distributed the request for proposals (RFP)
on February 2 to seek interest in renovating two houses and constructing single-family homes for
homeownership on nine parcels. Campus Partners owns the properties as part of its Weinland
Park Collaborative portfolio of vacant and foreclosed properties. Responses to the RFP are due
back by March 1.
Commercial properties. Mr. Martin said review of commercial property development in
Weinland Park could be done by the civic associations Housing Committee or Land-Use and
Business Development Committee. He said the potential expansion of the Housing Committees
responsibilities will be an agenda item for a future meeting of the Housing Committee.
Property taxes. Mr. Martin reported the city and county are not in agreement on a moratorium
on property tax increases for houses that are improved through the Weinland Park Home Repair
Program. The city apparently supports the moratorium. The problem appears to be with the
Franklin County Auditors Office. Michael Wilkos said the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning
Commission should follow up on this matter to represent all of the persons who participated in
the program. Mr. Wilkos will contact the MORPC staff about this problem.
Parking. Mr. Sterrett said Diane Dixon remains concerned that North Sixth Street has a parking
problem, at least in part due to students living in a house with four, five or six people, each with
a motor vehicle. Ms. Dixon is interested in permit parking, but some committee members
expressed skepticism that permit parking would help with the situation on North Sixth.
Design review. Sheldon Johnson of the Greater Ohio Policy Center proposed to the committee
that he conduct a policy analysis of the concept of design review for Weinland Park. He
suggested focusing on design review at the committees March or April meeting, depending on
what may be on the committees agenda.
Rory Krupp explained the University Area Commission is pressuring the city to codify the new
University District plan as a result of the proposal for redevelopment of the Pavey block on High
Street north of Lane Avenue. This public controversy likely will speed up interest in design
review among the city staff and University District neighbors and property owners. Mr. Krupp
will provide more information on this matter in advance of the next Housing Committee
meeting.
As a prelude to policy analysis, Mr. Johnson asked committee members to suggest the problem
or problems that design review might solve. Among the comments made were:
The problem is property owners dont have appropriate control over what is done with
adjacent properties.
Weinland Park residents arent adequately represented on existing regulatory bodies.
1

The citys zoning supports single-family homes as the highest-value use of the property in
Clintonville, but the zoning supports higher-density housing as the highest-value use of
property in Weinland Park.
The problem is the market for properties in Weinland Park has grown rapidly in the last five
years as the crime problem has decreased. The neighborhood has a large number of rental
units for college students which affect mobility rates in Weinland Park.
The municipal government is not willing to serve the changing needs of the neighborhood.

The committee members discussed the possibility of creating a separate Weinland Park
Commission that would more adequately represent residents and focus on the problems of
Weinland Park. Robert Barksdale, chair of the Milo-Grogan Area Commission, said he would be
willing to consider Weinland Park joining the Milo-Grogan Area Commission.
Mr. Johnson asked for potential criteria to judge the effectiveness of solutions that might be
suggested, such as design review:
Allows for greater representation of Weinland Park residents.
Tempers the speed of decision-making for developers.
Improves the quality of development in the neighborhood.
Allows more public input in the development process.
Political feasibility.
Makes the neighborhood attractive for families.
Holds all residents and property owners accountable to be good neighbors.
Attracts people who wish to contribute to the neighborhood.
Can the solution be maintained over time? Sustainability. Not over-taxing residents.
Impact on the real estate market.
Mr. Johnson asked committee members to think about who are the various stakeholders in
Weinland Park. He wants to make sure that some stakeholders are not overlooked in the
discussion of design review.
Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.

Summary prepared by Steve Sterrett.