Council Variance for split/duplex at 146 Walhalla

[Jeff Frontz]

Just a heads-up: the folks at 146 Walhalla are asking for several variances to allow them to split their lot and build a duplex on the newly created lot.

Details are available by following the link below or by visiting the Clintonville Zoning & Variance committee's meeting notice at https://mailchi.mp/ef2948776026/zoning-announcement-2025-12-06

Jeff

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <zonin...@columbus.gov>
Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 12:57 PM
Subject: CV25-112 - Council Variance Application Has Been Submitted

A Council Variance Application Has Been Submitted. Application #: CV25-112 Address: 146 WALHALLA RD Parcel ID: 010037715 To download the Council Variance Application: Click the “View Record” button below to see the application on the Citizen Access Portal. Click on the “Record Info” tab then select the “Attachments” menu item to view attachments. Click on the red titled attachment(s) to download locally. Updated documents may be submitted at a later time for your review. Please follow the process above to view and download attachments. VIEW RECORD If you have any questions, please contact the assigned Planner. If you need further assistance downloading the attachments, please email zonin...@columbus.gov or call (614) 645-4522.

[Agnes Ray]

I live a few doors down and hope they get approved. It would be a good use of the lot and is a very attractive design. The housing shortage is very real and a “not in my backyard” attitude obstructs efforts to alleviate the problem. Change is inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Walhalla Ravine" group.
To post to this group, send email to walhall...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to walhalla-ravi...@googlegroups.com
To read old messages, visit http://groups.google.com/group/walhalla-ravine/topics?hl=en
For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/walhalla-ravine?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Walhalla Ravine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to walhalla-ravi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/walhalla-ravine/CAGvwsDnXpLi3Tt3%3DeDLSC17x7vqu%3DivmCg6Lpcu%3D2jZdiS_wjw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nan Taylor]

I agree.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/walhalla-ravine/CAAuA6eZK5csxighPNCqyPg%2BKF3Pa4dWqNvOaRhKRa%2Bzutzu_4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[daveUngar]

I was out of town during the CAC meeting. I heard this was voted down, but I didn't get to hear why. Informally, I heard there was concern about sight lines around the curve, but when I drive through that curve and try to visualize how it would be different with a building on that lot, I don't see that as an issue. I'm not trying to see around both corners/curves when I drive through there - just one at a time.  And if the concern was parking on the curve (which is currently legal) then there should be a petition to eliminate parking on that curve whether there is a house there or not - Because that 'dangerous' condition of parking on the curve could occur at any moment if someone has a party or if someone just decides to park there for any reason.  

What were the other reasons given for not approving it?

[Donna Leigh-Osborne]

Hi Dave-

Here is a link to the Z&V meeting. 

Donna

https://youtu.be/dwnX4xAJO9c

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 21, 2025, at 4:13 PM, daveUngar <dave....@gmail.com> wrote:

I was out of town during the CAC meeting. I heard this was voted down, but I didn't get to hear why. Informally, I heard there was concern about sight lines around the curve, but when I drive through that curve and try to visualize how it would be different with a building on that lot, I don't see that as an issue. I'm not trying to see around both corners/curves when I drive through there - just one at a time.  And if the concern was parking on the curve (which is currently legal) then there should be a petition to eliminate parking on that curve whether there is a house there or not - Because that 'dangerous' condition of parking on the curve could occur at any moment if someone has a party or if someone just decides to park there for any reason.  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/walhalla-ravine/43d1349c-2a5d-45d9-b940-110888bcf215n%40googlegroups.com.

[daveUngar]

Thanks, Donna. Very helpful!

AI summary, if anyone is interested:

2. 146 Valhalla Road (8:34-47:04)
Application: To allow a two-unit dwelling on a split lot in a residential district.
Variances Sought: Six variances related to lot size, parking, building lines, and side yard requirements, with several proposed reductions to zero (8:54-9:38).
Applicant's Rationale (Cara and husband):

• The lot is uniquely long and skinny, and currently vacant (10:31-11:14).
• A two-unit dwelling (designed to look like a single-family home) aims to address the city's "densification problem" and could qualify for tax incentives for affordable housing (11:29-11:52, 15:01-15:19).
• The design incorporates sustainable principles like a solar array and permutable pavers for parking (12:08-12:24).
• They believe a home there might slow down traffic on the S-curve (19:57-20:00).

Committee and Public Comment Highlights:

• Concerns about Duplex vs. Single Family: Committee asked if a single-family unit was considered (14:20-14:26). Public members strongly advocated for a single-family home due to the residential nature of the area and small lot size (26:22-26:41, 37:57-38:08).
• Parking and Safety (Major Concern):

1. Applicants initially planned for parking but were told by the city to request zero parking variances (18:50-19:19).
2. Residents highlighted severe traffic and speeding issues on the S-curve, especially with a nearby daycare (19:42-19:55, 27:00-27:24, 40:21-40:35, 43:06-44:06).
3. Nicholas Gman, a licensed professional transportation engineer, presented an exhibit demonstrating critical stopping sight distance issues (29:01-31:04) and expressed doubts about DPS approval (31:27-31:31).
4. Concerns were raised about the proposed building and potential trees further obstructing sight lines (31:55-32:09) and the safety of pedestrians (32:03-32:09, 43:42-44:06).
5. Residents also mentioned existing parking issues and a future rain garden that could further reduce street parking (28:20-28:40, 39:16-39:27, 45:02-45:41).

• Variance Scope: Patricia Demarco argued that the requested variances were "substantial" and inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood and previously granted variances (34:40-36:39).
• Hardship and Profit Motive: The applicants stated the hardship was "no other good use" for the property and aligning with city incentives (22:50-23:03). Public commenters questioned the altruism, suggesting a profit motive (42:31-42:51).
• Community Impact: Concerns about renters not being invested in the community (27:44-28:02) and the proposed development altering the zoning map at the expense of the surrounding single-family area (46:40-47:04).

Request for Official DPS Response: Residents requested a written response from the Department of Public Safety regarding parking and safety impacts (40:08-40:16).

[Jeff Frontz]

I was quite surprised that the application packet didn't include the official write-up from the department of development (that includes input on the proposal from all other city departments).  Maybe that's because this is [primarily?] a council variance (they're requesting a lot split, which will create a[t least one] non-conforming lot).  I'm trying to get more info from Steve Hardwick on that.

Jeff