Far Northwest Coalition

MAY 2003 FNWC MINUTES

FAR NORTHWEST COALITION ( FNWC )

FAR NORTHWEST COALITION
P.O. BOX 340285 COLUMBUS, OH 43234

May 28, 2003

The Far Northwest Coalition (FNWC) met for its regularly scheduled meeting at the Northwest Library. Members present of the FNWC Board were John Best, John Murley, Eric Goldsmith, Mark Gresham, Gail White, Mark Seeger, and Rich Herner.

The Minutes from the previous meeting held April 30, 2003, were approved as presented. John Best gave a short Treasurer’s Report. There had been no transactions the previous month.

Michelle Williams, the City of Columbus Neighborhood Liaison for Area 6, gave a brief code enforcement update. In Columbus, grass higher than 12 inches is a violation. The address of offending locations can be referred to Rob McNeal at 645-7910.

There was brief discussion about the Hard Road project, which is slated to start in June of 2003.

Patty Austin, a planning engineer with the City of Columbus, was our first feature agenda guest. Discussion quickly moved to the topic of the CARMAX site (our second feature agenda item) and the impact that it would have on traffic in the area. Two traffic studies have been in the works for the surrounding area.

One traffic study was originally commissioned by Farmers Insurance with the E.P. Ferris Company to investigate the feasibility of reconfiguring the Snouffer/Sawmill intersection to allow left turns from westbound Snouffer onto southbound Sawmill Road. This has not been finalized, and no decisions have been made.

A second traffic study related specifically to the Carmax application involves making sure that auto carriers will be able to get from Sawmill to the proposed site using Snouffer Road and Caine Road. Specific issues involve the ability to make the turns (at the intersections and at the Caine Road/Farmers Drive curve) and a possible widening and resurfacing of Caine Road. Carmax would be responsible for upgrading the intersections and Caine Road as a condition of their application if it is determined that improvements are necessary.

There was some discussion about the need for traffic studies that are of larger scope. Patty stated that comparable zonings (same or less density) do not trigger traffic studies. The Farmers study was voluntary and has no bearing on the acceptance or rejection of the Carmax application. The applicant would be required to meet any access requirements mandated by the city as a result of the second study.

George McCue and Laura Comek, representing Carmax, addressed several questions relating to the Carmax application. One concern related to the driving route of test drivers. Carmax has a policy of sending sales people with test drivers, and they agreed to look into coming up with a route that avoids surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Another question related to the failure of a previous application at a Morse Road site. Reasons included lack of compatibility with the Morse Road corridor plan, and proximity to Alum Creek. Another site on Morse Road is currently being considered.

Another line of discussion included concerns for how the additional traffic generated by Carmax would get to southbound Sawmill Road. Specific concerns included possible cut-throughs in the Lake Brook, Maple Brook areas. McCue offered to contribute a portion of the cost required for traffic calming. Directional signage to get motorists southbound on Sawmill Road from the site was also discussed.

John Best raised the issue of sidewalks and street lighting. While the developer was amenable to putting these in place at their property, they didn’t feel it necessary to pay for this upgrade along Caine Road.

That concluded discussion with the Carmax representatives on this topic, and the board then began its own discussion. There was general opposition to the projects on several fronts, and this was documented in the following motion:

It was moved and seconded to oppose the Carmax development for the following reasons:
1. The board preferred the use for which the property is currently zoned – a hotel.
2. There is a lack of resolution of traffic concerns. Specifically, there were concerns about increased traffic flow through residential areas as a result of the project. The language currently contains nothing about addressing these issues (traffic calming, directional signage, commitment to non-residential test drive routes, etc.).

The board voted unanimously to pass the motion to oppose the Carmax development.

There being no further business to come before the FNWC, the meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,


John Murley
Acting Secretary