Panel declines action on rezoning for 4901 Central College Road, asks for site exhibit

The Rocky Ford Black Look Accord planning panel on Oct. 16 reviewed a conceptual rezoning application (Z25-029) for 4901 Central College Road but took no formal action, asking the applicant to submit a simple site exhibit showing proposed screening and basic measurements.

Mosley Lynamore of the City of Columbus planning staff presented the application and said the request is to rezone the property to Columbus C2 ‘‘to conform existing office-scale commercial uses’’ and that staff supported the request as a conformity-based mitigating factor despite the Accord’s rural-corridor guidance. Lynamore described the site as a one-story office built in 1972, about 2,300 square feet on roughly 1.4 acres with accessory buildings and parking.

The applicant, speaking through a presenter representing the owners, said the property has been used as office space since 2004 and that the current owner is selling to an environmental consulting firm that ‘‘wants to just use the space as is’’ rather than expand or operate as part of the nearby church.

Panel members pressed staff and the applicant on long-term implications: whether adjacent parcels are annexed, whether a future buyer could split the lot, and how Columbus’ pending citywide zoning rewrite (referred to in discussion as Title 34 and later rezoning phases) might change allowable uses. Lynamore said C2 as described is limited to office uses ‘‘and does not allow retail of any nature’’ and noted that when the new zoning code is adopted properties are generally grandfathered unless a building is demolished and rebuilt.

Several members said their principal concern was the effect on the corridor character if the property later were developed more intensively, and repeatedly asked whether the panel could recommend a more limited district (an LC2) or attach conditions. Committee members also requested clarity on the screening requirement: the code language read aloud during the meeting requires screening ‘‘within 20 feet of all residential zoning classifications.’’ The applicant said the buyer has budgeted to fence the perimeter (excluding the road-facing front) and prefers plant-based screening, noting the code allows plantings to reach required screening over a period of years.

Rather than vote on the conceptual application, the panel asked the applicant to provide a modest exhibit — an auditors-map screenshot or simple site drawing with measurements and an illustration of the proposed fence and landscaping showing the 20-foot screening band — so members could better visualize whether the rear portion of the lot would allow future development. Staff said that an exhibit of that level (not a formal engineered site plan) would be sufficient for the panel’s review and that the applicant may email measurements and a simple exhibit; the panel would then revisit the case before forwarding a recommendation to city council.

The applicant and the panel agreed there was no action that night. Next steps: the applicant will submit the requested measurements/exhibit to planning staff, and the panel will review the materials at a subsequent meeting prior to any recommendation to council.