Kent City Council Votes Tonight on South Lincoln Rezoning Request

Tonight, will face what two of its members refer to as the most difficult decision to date in their public service careers.

Council’s land use committee will meet at 7 p.m. at City Hall to discuss a South Lincoln Street rezoning request made by Edwards Communities Development Co., a Columbus-based firm proposing a 596-bed apartment complex.

The company has requested council rezone parcels that, combined, total about 10 acres from R-3 to R-4, which permits denser residential construction. The R-3 zoning designation allows up to eight residential units per acre, while the proposed R-4 zoning would allow a maximum 32 units per acre.

The parcels – which formerly housed the buildings of Smith’s Greenhouse – are situated across South Lincoln from each other, less than one-quarter mile south of Summit Street.

A special council meeting to vote on the issue will be held immediately after the committee discussion. Numerous single-family homeowners from the South Lincoln area who are opposed to the rezoning request are expected to attend.

Heidi Shaffer, whose seat on council represents Ward 5, which includes South Lincoln Street, has spent a lot of time considering and talking about the request. “This is such a difficult decision – the hardest for me so far. I can see this issue from so many perspectives,” she said.

Erik Valenta, an at-large councilmember, agrees. “Every time I analyze it, I’m still undecided. There are so many things to take into consideration and both sides are vocal about it. It’s probably one of the hardest decisions I’ve faced on council thus far,” he said.

While Valenta says he is truly riding the fence on the rezoning, Shaffer is leaning toward rejecting it. However, she is hopeful that a compromise of some sort is on the horizon.

On Monday, Shaffer and Robin Turner, an at-large council member, met with about a dozen neighborhood homeowners at a resident’s home. While both council members had heard the residents’ concerns previously, Shaffer said the personal approach was beneficial.

“I came to a greater degree of understanding and think they have, too. We may not all see eye to eye, but most of them acknowledge the need to move beyond opposition – to look at what could be,” she said.

Some residents have expressed opposition to the rezoning due to potential traffic increases in their neighborhood, while others feared that council would rezone the property, then the developer could enlarge the apartment project’s scope.

Edwards Communities recently addressed the latter concern. Kent attorney Dave Williams, who represents the firm, asked council on Feb. 16 to delay its final vote on the issue until tonight, allowing the city law director time to review new information about the proposal.

The new information included letters signed by the five property owners Edwards would be buying out for the 10-acre project. The property owners agreed that if council approves the higher-density rezoning request but the project as proposed fails to come to fruition, then the land would revert to R-3 zoning.

Several council members point out the rezoning issue keeps getting complicated by talk of how much new property tax could be generated by the Edwards project and how it could help alleviate the off-campus housing crunch for students.

But during their vote, council members are supposed to focus not on the proposed Edwards development, but on the land rezoning request itself.

“It’s hard to separate them when you have a project in front of you,” said Wayne Wilson, an at-large council member who is in favor of the rezoning request.

“We’re supposed to be looking at what’s the best use for that land. When you go out and look at it, you question what else it could be used for. The land would be too costly to just put a few duplexes in, and you wouldn’t want a single-family home there. (Rezoning) makes good sense for that piece of land,” said Wilson

Turner agrees that the Edwards project is attractive, but believes he will be voting against the rezoning.

“I have not been immune to the (lure of the Edwards) project and how it appears and what it might bring to the city in revenue. But this is a land use issue,” said Turner. “The planning committee has some legitimate concerns about spot zoning, and what kind of a legacy it might create in regard to future development in the city. That creates a level of concern with me. It will be a close and difficult vote.”

Shaffer shares Turner’s concerns, along with those of residents in her ward.

“I am looking for a way that we can mitigate (residents’) concerns and also have more of a public planning process for student housing neighborhoods,” she said. “There are ways to approach this where everybody gives a little and everybody gets a little. We need to find a solution where the parties can live with one another in this situation – and feel heard.”