[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:07] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to the architectural review board and municipal planning commission for Thursday October 14th, 2021. This is a virtual meeting and it will be streamed live on the internet. Could you please call the roll? Mr. Rice,
[0:31] Mrs. Hulcomb?
[0:34] Mr. Faust, here, Mr. Schuster, here, Mrs. Heinz, here, Mr. Myers, here, Mr. Hoffman, and Mr. Colter.
[0:47] Here, thank you. Mr. Rice, could you please recite the pledge of allegiance for us?
[0:53] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which
[0:58] it stands, one nation under God, indivisible for the liberty and justice for all.
[1:03] Thank you.
[1:05] The meeting minutes of our last meeting were electronically sent out to all of the members
[1:12] of the board in the commission.
[1:13] There were from September 23rd.
[1:15] Do I have a motion to approve?
[1:19] Mr. Faust will move to approve.
[1:23] Thank you.
[1:24] Follow some papers say aye.
[1:28] I was the same sign.
[1:31] Okay, it's past.
[1:32] Thank you.
[1:35] Second.
[1:36] We need to be a little bit unusual in that we were,
[1:40] have fewer topics than what we normally do.
[1:43] But these are extremely important topics to see.
[1:46] We wanted to be sure to get adequate.
[1:48] amount of time for the presentations and the follow-up discussions and any votes that may take place as well as
[1:56] giving anybody the audience apple time to chime in and give us their thoughts and opinions.
[2:03] The first one that we have tonight is the Architecture Review Board.
[2:07] It's the regular agenda.
[2:08] It's unfinished business.
[2:11] It's the redevelopment of 1033 high street.
[2:15] It's application AR70-2020.
[2:22] Mr. Colzard, I need a motion to bring this off the table.
[2:27] All right.
[2:27] Thank you.
[2:28] Could I have a motion to remove off the table please?
[2:34] Someone.
[2:37] And a second.
[2:38] Excuse me.
[2:39] Thank you.
[2:40] All those in favor.
[2:43] Removing and putting it back on the table off the table.
[2:46] Say aye.
[2:48] Aye.
[2:49] Opposed the same sign.
[2:51] Okay. It's we are ready. Thank you. Mr. Colter, can we go ahead and also take off the
[2:57] Missile Planning Commission. I'm finished business for the for the PUD
[3:01] Pomegranate Plan. PUD 03220. Yeah. We'll need another motion for that. It's the Mr. Brown
[3:11] who's just stated is the Plan Unit Development. It's the Pool Limiteragant Plan. That
[3:15] 23 high-streets, PUD-03-2020, so could I have a motion to take it off the table?
[3:25] I'm happy hoping some moved.
[3:27] Thank you, and a second please?
[3:30] Right, second.
[3:32] Okay, all those in favor of taking this off the table please say aye.
[3:36] Aye.
[3:37] Aye.
[3:37] Opposed same sign.
[3:38] All right.
[3:39] They are both off the table.
[3:41] Thank you, Mr. Culture.
[3:42] I do want to turn it over at this point in time as you know.
[3:46] We're going to hear a presentation from the applicant updating us on the
[3:51] the submittal that's before you tonight.
[3:54] Once the applicant is finished, we will turn it over to public comments.
[4:00] Again, we have a couple of ways for public comments.
[4:02] We have those that were invited into the meeting that sent us an email request
[4:06] and then we'll have the emails that will read into the record.
[4:09] They'll be summarized and run into the record and post it onto the city's website tomorrow.
[4:14] So with that, I'm going to go ahead and pull up the screen real quick just with the email
[4:23] number for those that are watching,
[4:27] actually one second, sorry.
[4:40] So the email that, while we're listening to the presentation is planning at word-eaten.org,
[4:45] if someone wants to know and during that time, or myself, or can you go summarize those and
[4:51] read them into record, and again, they'll be posted online tomorrow.
[4:55] With that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Hart, who is the attorney for the applicant.
[5:02] Mr. Hart, we need to get you sworn in, please.
[5:06] Mr. Pauzy, could you turn the camera off, please?
[5:10] Mr. Chair, but we also need to swear at Beau Browley, like Wyatt, please.
[5:15] You can't all raise your hands.
[5:17] Do you swear the test of onions, you're brought to fight the truth?
[5:19] It's so sad, deal.
[5:21] I do.
[5:22] Thank you.
[5:22] All right, I'm Mr. Harkley, please hear us.
[5:26] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[5:26] We're going to start out today with Bob Brownlee from lifestyle communities, the applicant,
[5:33] with a brief introduction, and then I'll follow by walking through the updated concept plan.
[5:38] If that's fine.
[5:41] That'd be great. Thank you.
[5:44] Thank you, Tom. Thanks to the Planning Commission.
[5:47] I've just several brief opening comments before Tom will watch you through
[5:52] more detailed presentation on the plan.
[5:55] Just the submission and what we're seeking this evening
[5:58] is as indicated with the updated filing
[6:01] representing a revised conceptual site plan with the goal
[6:06] of gaining feedback on such topics as the revised
[6:10] mix of location of uses, the configuration
[6:14] of open space and open space amenities,
[6:18] and the adjusted connectivity plan and neighborhood engagement
[6:21] elements. With this concept plan filing, we are not asking for a voter recommendation at the stage,
[6:29] but rather requesting dialogue on the updated conceptual plan. On the presentations specifically,
[6:37] Tom Hart will walk you through a detailed description of the changes that we've made.
[6:42] What will become obvious during the presentation is that we listened and we have reacted to previous
[6:47] comments from both the city and the planning commission.
[6:51] On one other changes, we have increased park and open space as well as substantially improving
[6:58] the park space connectivity and access.
[7:02] So, there without any real guidance from the city or its representatives, we have taken
[7:07] the initiative to substantially reduce the residential density by approximately 20% as well
[7:15] substantially increasing the commercial space by approximately 40
[7:20] persons per sat. My was standing, I was standing to challenge you to
[7:24] retail and office environment in today's market.
[7:30] With the apartment reduction noted, I would like to take a moment and let you know that if we continue to have a strong belief that a large, residential presence is needed at this site, like most urban and suburban infill sites, residential density is a solution, not the enemy.
[7:50] Density creates economies of scale and critical mass vibrancy to support mixed use and stimulate the man for other key uses such as office, commercial restaurant, services and other retail.
[8:05] In fact, the success of such a mixed use development as cold for under the conflict relies on such a economy of scale, critical mass and density.
[8:17] So what next after this hearing?
[8:20] After gaining your feedback and direction on this revised concept plan,
[8:26] we will be better prepared to address the more technical aspects
[8:29] of the pending application, such as traffic impacts,
[8:33] storm water, utility adjustments and architecture.
[8:38] Finally, I would just ask that as a reminder,
[8:43] where the plan is conceptual, and we really view the purpose tonight as generating dialogue
[8:52] on this plan and the changes we made in order to better assess the need for further
[8:58] changes and next steps.
[9:00] We respectfully ask for the focus and comments on this conceptual plan rather than other topics
[9:07] that are not part of this filing.
[9:09] Thank you, and with that, I turn it over to Tom from more detail review of our revised concept plan.
[9:18] Thanks, Bob.
[9:19] And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening members of the Planning Commission.
[9:22] Thank you for your time and consideration tonight.
[9:25] I'm going to walk through, as both said, the revised concept plan and how we acted on the feedback we received from lots of different sources along the way.
[9:35] And as both said, we're focused on with this revised concept plan, more site access and engagement with the existing neighborhoods,
[9:43] more effective connectivity and use of Tucker Preser, and, you know, as both said,
[9:48] we also have a reflection here of reduction in density and increase in office and commercial components.
[9:55] When we go to slide six, Reagan, one of the first key goals to our plan changes is to improve access to
[10:04] Two in from is just a neighborhood and around the site, and make the site really part of the neighborhood not separate from it.
[10:12] And so slide six begins to show you a path and a greenway access.
[10:19] We really went to a plan that provides welcoming entries and pavilions and green spaces at all the neighborhood access points.
[10:27] So we've got parks, green spaces, and pavilions at evening street on the south at the beginning of Tucker.
[10:38] At Lairmore and Longfall on the North, as well as there's a trailhead pavilion, and it gets you to both the use path that Wesley.
[10:48] We opened up the site and added public gatherings faces at high street across from city hall with a connection to what is a significant linear green that runs east to west, it's about 0.81 acres.
[11:03] It leads to an internal neighborhood green to the west, about a half an acre that includes what we intend is a larger pervillion amenity.
[11:13] go to slide A.
[11:18] Again, the improved connectivity from neighborhood access and high
[11:22] street with this path system crosses both north, north, south, east and west. So the
[11:28] blue line are the multi-use path. The yellow lines are more significant. More
[11:35] internal paths and sidewalks that lead on to all parts of the site. One clear
[11:41] The goal of this revised plan is to drop pedestrians into the site and draw neighbors into
[11:46] the site.
[11:47] Again, another going back to the gateway green at Lairmer and Longfellow.
[11:51] It's about 0.64 acres.
[11:54] It connects to the south via the trail system through the whole site all the way to Tucker
[12:00] Preserve.
[12:02] This is what the purpose to get people moving inside the site and to get Tucker
[12:08] preserve, activate it as green space and also allow people to get to high street where we have
[12:14] gathering areas, activities and restaurants, go to slide 10.
[12:22] Another example of what we're trying to do to engage is high street engagement.
[12:28] We made that area more open, more pedestrian, really designed to drive the vibrancy we believe
[12:34] than that the site needs, it's more of an up front gathering area without door restaurants
[12:41] faces and activity at the street level.
[12:45] We're trying to establish that attractive European style outdoor plaza and bistro table
[12:52] setting when we look at us like nine real quick to illustrate that.
[12:58] We're looking for this, what would be a vibrant oasis along high street that's really part
[13:04] people's daily lives, both existing neighbors and future residents, or pedestrian gathering
[13:11] is what is emphasized, the pedestrian scale of pedestrian life.
[13:16] Another related goal of what we're trying to do on high street is to make it a key anchor
[13:20] for what we've heard about and had some discussions about with residents.
[13:26] The larger vision of the Worldington Mile concept, that concept in brief as we understand
[13:32] is to connect the old warranty tend to Wilson Bridge,
[13:35] road, and then loop around to the old tangy trail
[13:38] with the multi-use path loop and full of our structures,
[13:42] you know, in high street to really create a more pedestrian friendly environment
[13:48] to lessen the impact of traffic at the street level.
[13:52] And really to stimulate other development opportunities,
[13:56] redevelopment opportunities along the way in that key corridor.
[13:58] or we think this site could be a key anchor to that concept and really help launch what is
[14:06] a greater community vision of this world need to model concept.
[14:10] Could this slide eight, please?
[14:14] This slide gets into a little more of how we have imagined Tucker Creek to be programmed
[14:21] with an internal path system.
[14:23] Again, connecting the site to High Street to the existing neighborhood over by evening.
[14:30] And then into the site, to the north and the west, for perspective, and you can see it.
[14:38] We don't have to go to the slide, but later on, slide 14 shows the Tucker Creek acreage
[14:44] in relation to, for one example, the McPherson Commons down in the arena district.
[14:51] Tucker Creek's almost double the size of that McPherson Commons.
[14:58] And what we're trying to do is really...
[15:00] Activate Tucker and make it more usable. And I'll say, you know, the path system we have here is conceptual only, you know, when you're trying to activate a natural area, a wonderful area like Tucker, you'd be very, very careful how you locate paths inside that site, you'd be field locations. So you would be least disruptive as possible to the natural topography and the trees.
[15:25] But the point is we want to we believe that Tucker should be activated this way with this type of path system and other amenities.
[15:36] This would be an example where we would want and need to collaborate with the city professional staff to figure out exactly how to program Tucker, but this shows the R&T.
[15:47] But there is a separate multi-family or a green that's in the multi-family area and open
[15:55] space that you can see just to the north of Tucker, in the middle of the site, that
[16:02] again, another redundant connection, trying to get people from Tucker into the site,
[16:08] onto the other path systems, to the other green spaces, just another example of that connectivity.
[16:16] This slide, maybe we should go to slide 14 real quick,
[16:24] and I just want to talk briefly about the storm pond that's going to be required based on regulatory requirements to control volume of storm water, but it's on this western edge of Tucker southwestern edge.
[16:37] We would propose in our tent that you can't see it great on the scale of a slide, but to naturalize that pond as a water feature would look like a typical 1970 storm pond.
[16:53] It would look natural.
[16:55] It would be activated with the path system with benches around it.
[16:59] We'd have a significant welcome pavilion of right off the street that would kind of bring people in to
[17:06] to a nice water feature as they go as a focal point as they engage the Tucker preserve.
[17:15] And, you know, of course, a water feature like that with the proper safety features and done in a way that's nice and stays natural.
[17:24] There's another way to buffer existing homes from new housing, and that's another goal we have here.
[17:33] So overall, on open space, we have fewer open spaces than we did before, but they are more aggregated.
[17:41] There are less formal in terms of internal green spaces, but they do function for gathering, for active and passive use, and to get people connected and moving once they're in the site.
[17:54] The plan does create redundant pedestrian accesses and allows flow to the interior with the connected
[18:01] green spaces.
[18:05] We're trying to be welcoming, we're trying to facilitate gathering, and make this part
[18:12] of the neighborhood not, and not have it be set apart from the neighborhood, which is some
[18:16] of the strong feedback we got, not only from staff and this planning commission, but from
[18:22] community members and community meetings we all.
[18:27] Our second main strategy and what we're
[18:29] what we try to do differently this time is we try to mitigate height better and if you go
[18:36] with slide 7 Reagan.
[18:42] This slide with its color coding shows you know where the height is located
[18:48] in the interior portions of the site and we're talking about mainly the high street sub area.
[18:56] With the darkest blue being five story, the middle blue being four to three story and then so forth down in the color coding of blue.
[19:07] We placed most height on the site, in the limited portion of the site near high street, near existing offices and the institutional uses there there, where some height already exists.
[19:19] In a way from residential neighbors, you know, at the Lairmer, at the Lairmer, at the Lairmer
[19:25] at Longville areas, we move activities and height away from that same Longville Lairmer
[19:31] corner.
[19:32] Again, putting it toward high street closest to the other commercial buildings that are north
[19:37] of our site on high street itself.
[19:41] We tried to lessen the impact of garage height by wrapping it with residential and also by
[19:48] 20 trail connections and other green spaces near at the street level where the height is located.
[19:57] So people are focused on that level, on those green spaces and not the height above them.
[20:03] The five-story residential buildings face each other and are located away from other residential.
[20:10] The east-west linear green that runs between the five stories, the two five-story buildings,
[20:20] reduces the canyon effect with space along with that green active area on the street level.
[20:28] On the north, again, the gate-way green we've located at Longfall, Lairmer,
[20:34] and the trails of the pedestrian level are also used to buffer height from existing residential.
[20:39] In the middle of the site we have we have graduation from five stories to four near the existing
[20:47] institutional of building the office conference center use immediately to the south.
[20:54] Generally, heights also mitigated by the engagement of a street level use as light retail,
[21:01] like service like office, like restaurants, in that plaza area along the high street along
[21:08] high street opening.
[21:11] Hyde is just not as noticeable when people are engaged in
[21:14] street level activities or in a green space or active
[21:18] on the ground.
[21:21] We also put planned intense uses like volleyball,
[21:26] a pool, restaurants, away from existing residential.
[21:30] So they're shielded by buildings.
[21:32] And again, close to high street.
[21:33] You can see the, this probably not the best slide for this,
[21:37] But on between the commercial building at high street and the dark blue residential building
[21:44] and the northernmost part of the site, that's the location where we have the pool and the volleyball
[21:50] courts and the active outdoor recreation activities.
[21:55] Another major change is, as Paul alluded to as the mix of our uses, we have less apartments
[22:03] and more commercial office, we're going to slide five.
[22:08] The reduced apartment density is 19% at both set from 540 units to 420 units.
[22:16] This is the number one comment we received from all of our meetings, and we acted on it.
[22:21] I'll see acted on it with a significant reduction.
[22:24] Office where footage is increased and proportioned to that apartment unit.
[22:32] In terms of office and commercial, the plan is updated from 85,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet for office and commercial.
[22:42] We listened to the city staff leadership who requested more economic impact and jobs in and income tax at the site.
[22:50] We believe this adjusted plan is in line with the
[22:53] compound plan goals about city jobs and income tax needs.
[22:58] We also believe this expanded jobs base in this plan will help support the greater
[23:05] food, restaurant service and entertainment uses and to build more that 24-7
[23:11] live-ward play environment makes you sight that we're trying to accomplish.
[23:15] But we do want to be clear that we agree with city staff's focus on that employment and tax
[23:22] base goal and the campaign goals and this site needs this exceed as an office and commercial
[23:28] hub and support the city's tax base.
[23:31] That's what we intend, that's what we want, that's what we agree with.
[23:34] We do however see getting there, probably differently than your professional staff.
[23:40] And that is, we don't see a site here that automatically
[23:46] screams out to the market, class A office.
[23:50] We think nothing around this site really supports that notion,
[23:54] but best evidence of that is in fact that the site
[23:57] hasn't delivered that use in a decade plus.
[24:01] The class A office environment and employment environment
[24:04] in today's market must be created, must be created.
[24:08] This site doesn't exist in a vacuum, as far as what works for suburban and fill and other mixed
[24:14] use type development, any city today has to be competitive and flexible to attract
[24:20] a fulfill employment tax needs and what are in your account plan as goals.
[24:26] This site has to have that critical mass and value to the market of a vibrant, live work
[24:32] environment to attract the attention of employers and to accommodate what today's employees want
[24:39] and need in terms of living close to work, working at home, and the type of environment that they see.
[24:46] Anybody can look at other successful infill projects across central aisle really any major
[24:52] city, and it's density that drives urban and suburban infill, that's what attracts employment
[24:59] uses today, and it tracks employees.
[25:03] In this late densities, what pays the bills?
[25:07] It pays for upscale architecture.
[25:09] It pays for buying open space and protecting natural areas,
[25:13] setting them aside for community use.
[25:16] It pays for regional path infrastructure
[25:18] and other community facilities.
[25:21] Pensities, the key strategy to keep housing pricing
[25:24] reasonable today to the market and meet people's goals
[25:28] of affordability, diversity, and opportunity in housing, density pays the bills.
[25:36] You have to slide 10, please.
[25:42] This might be a little hard to see, but what we did is it's a blow up of that high-street
[25:48] area, commercial or commercial area.
[25:53] What it does it shows you how we're locating the restaurants and other activities at the street
[26:01] level LC has, life stock communities has their goat restaurant that opens up on the street
[26:08] level to the street plaza, right at high street.
[26:11] We would expect to attract other restaurants to create, you know, synergies and addition
[26:16] of the goat, other food, coffee, and beverage use of users, and users.
[26:21] Other logical end, other end users with the medical office uses, health and wellness services,
[26:26] personal care, yoga, fitness, professional services, entertainment.
[26:30] And that we tried to show with our color coding and the engagement of high street in the
[26:38] area where those uses would be and how they'd be aggregated and really to energize
[26:46] that opening from high street into the site.
[26:50] Slide 10 also shows our garage locations in the gray, how they're wrapped, and then how
[26:57] traffic would access them and the goal here is to keep traffic, you know, accessing from
[27:04] high street to keep it out of existing neighborhoods and to keep it out of the interior
[27:08] of the site and mainly utilize high street.
[27:14] I can walk briefly, briefly, through our character slice and I'll just reference them.
[27:20] We don't have to spend much time on this, but slide four, maybe ready, and you can shoot
[27:26] over real quick and see how fast you are.
[27:30] Again, this shows the high street character in the middle images and town homes and single
[27:34] family character on the sides of what look and feel we're trying to create at that street
[27:40] level.
[27:41] Slide 8.
[27:43] This depicts some of the open space character and the trails we try to show some pavilions
[27:51] that we think would work, but could actually, and be on the substantial nature.
[27:57] Again, we have these located in the site openings to the neighborhood to attract people
[28:03] into welcome people into the site and get them on the green systems.
[28:08] Slides 9 and 10, again, you know, the concept here is to show that European beastro vibe,
[28:16] that vitality of the outdoor restaurant spaces
[28:20] in the nice weather, shops, places to meet,
[28:23] coffee, wine, beer, small plates for dinner.
[28:27] It's a place for after work and after a stroll,
[28:30] it's a place to get a glass of wine,
[28:33] which that sounds kind of good right now.
[28:36] So I'd love to tell you the town home
[28:39] and flats, character, and architecture,
[28:42] and streetscapes.
[28:45] Again, we're at a concept plan, a level that we're asking for feedback on.
[28:50] We will be prepared to move forward with details like architecture.
[28:57] This company has a very strong track record of pulling off lots of different types of architecture
[29:01] for the local need and the vernacular and the history of a community, and so we feel
[29:08] That's a strong suit of ours as a company.
[29:12] And we will, we will, we will be ready to all of our sleeves.
[29:16] We understand Warlington's architecture.
[29:19] But this is the kind of the character that we would be shooting for and ready to get
[29:26] into detail on after the concept plan.
[29:29] It's like 13,
[29:33] again, just some of the single family character and street scheme with some
[29:38] of the, um, both the family across the street, and then I already talked about it for 14,
[29:44] which is the Tucker Creek area.
[29:47] Well, I'm going to close my presentation and, um, that, that is an explanation of our update
[29:54] concept plan. Again, incorporate many topics that you can see from
[30:02] We're asking the planning commission for a collaborative approach and dialogue on the site. This is a very complex site. Obviously, this issue has been around for many years. How to plan
[30:21] and finish and develop and build a site. We want dialogue and collaboration at this level with you as a commission.
[30:31] and with the community to get to a baseline of site planning that then we can move on and take
[30:38] care of the other key issues, the technical issues, the architecture, traffic, stormwater,
[30:44] and so forth. That's what about tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration.
[30:50] And members, we look to answer questions and have dialogue at the behalf of the chair.
[30:55] Thank you. All right. Thank you. Before we get into questions and comments from
[31:01] and commission members. We had put it out in the public that they could register to the
[31:11] speak this evening. We have had 10 people sign up. We're going to go through those in the order
[31:17] in which they signed up with City staff and the first three were representatives of Ward.
[31:24] So, if Mr. Bates is on the line, if you want to head it off, as the first speaker for
[31:31] award, could you please tell them?
[31:34] Yes.
[31:34] Before we turn it over to Mr. Bates, I did want to remind the board and those listening
[31:39] tonight, Mr. Hard alluded to it.
[31:42] I know with what they submitted, you know, last year to this year, you know, it's a big
[31:47] difference in the amount of materials that were submitted.
[31:49] I think one of the reasons why I was to look more broader and scope more at the 50,000-foot level looking down instead of getting into the detail because I think if we're not able to get into the discussion, you know, the broader topic discussions of our residential density and height and housing types,
[32:09] are mix of land uses, green space and park land, and these traffic connection comments,
[32:16] you know, and bike pedestrian, that it kind of negated even spending the time and money on
[32:21] their part and or the city's part of looking at that level of detail and so we get these broader
[32:26] topics. So I did want to remind everyone listening that, you know, that's kind of our goal tonight
[32:33] is those broader topic discussions before you get into the nitty gritty detail of what you would
[32:38] typically see the Architecture Review Board planning commission on ultimately city council
[32:42] reviewing. There's much more details needed. But again, you know, it's the broader topic,
[32:47] but it, you know, as it stands today, staff's recommendation was for the denial,
[32:54] just based on the existing laying news plans that we have before us.
[32:58] But I'll turn over to Mr. Bates. I just wanted to not let everyone think that they just
[33:02] submitted a minimal amount. It was kind of thoughtfully that way.
[33:06] All right. Thank you.
[33:07] Mr. Bates will need you to state your name and address for the record and get you sworn in place.
[33:13] Sure. Michael Bates 6560 even Street or Think Tenile.
[33:20] Do you swear the testimony or broadcast the truth? That's a sad deal.
[33:24] Yes, I do.
[33:25] Thank you, sir.
[33:27] Well, we're actually.
[33:29] Actually, Alan Shearer is going to give the word statement here, but I'll go in and give my personal statement as a property owner.
[33:38] I'm letting the property.
[33:41] How long do you want to do it?
[33:44] So my personal statement is as I appreciate
[33:49] Lifestyle's presentation.
[33:50] I also think the staff at an excellent job of detailing
[33:54] the process of mindlessness of the proposal.
[33:57] What has me concern, though,
[34:00] is there still no evidence, even though the presentation
[34:03] by Lifestyle said they had community engagement.
[34:05] to my knowledge there's no community engagement. We had one meeting between lifestyle and the
[34:11] word folks back on the previous proposal and then since then it's been totally quiet and what
[34:20] I wanted to remind a commission specifically and I said this in my email to the commission
[34:25] because we have a model now of community engagement. We saw it with Stafford Village, we saw it
[34:30] grantee place, you know, we've seen it with the Worthington, uh, sorry, the, uh, the New
[34:38] Worthington site, the former holiday insight, and even the high north project. So I guess
[34:43] I would expect that, uh, lifestyle would have that same level of community engagement, especially
[34:48] considering their, their proposed density plan, which I still think is, is way too dense. So with
[34:56] with my personal comments I'll be quiet and turn over to Ellen so she can
[35:01] give our group statement. Thank you. All right Ellen could you give your name and
[35:06] sadness for the record please so we can get you sworn in. Yes my name is Ellen
[35:11] Cher. I'm at 1-1-2 East New England Avenue. Do you swear the testimony you're
[35:17] you're about to place the truth, so say I do.
[35:20] Yes, I do.
[35:21] Thank you.
[35:24] So, Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development,
[35:27] Ward is entering a statement into the record of tonight's meeting.
[35:34] And this is this follows.
[35:37] This is the third time, the third time is not a charm.
[35:40] So, the third time lifestyle communities has approached the city of Worthington with a high rise.
[35:46] high density development plan for UMCH and once again their plan is meeting substantial
[35:52] community opposition. The problem is they keep presenting the things people don't want.
[36:00] There is little substantive change in what L.C. is now proposing. 600 residential units
[36:06] with two persons per unit would mean 1200 new residents or the equivalent of 8.5% of
[36:15] to its total population of 13,700 squeezed into the 25 acres that are available for residential
[36:23] use. Included are 420 apartments in four and five-story towers. There is no provision for affordable
[36:32] housing. It's all at market rate.
[36:37] There's precious little green space in that 25 acres and
[36:40] But as there is broken up into peace-male segments, most of which are walled off by the
[36:46] buildings that would be constructed.
[36:49] There is no sense of greater community engagement here.
[36:53] This is strictly a private proposal.
[36:57] Traffic is always a concern for Worthington residents.
[37:00] How will they feel about 1,362 vehicles on the property?
[37:06] Board supports responsible commercial development along high street as a revenue generator for the city.
[37:13] But Echoing City staff, we are concerned that only the residential and retail portions of the project would get constructed without the commercial office needed in the high street mixed use zone.
[37:25] Especially since residential development is always a cost.
[37:31] It is now abundantly clear after three tries that LC's business model requires high density with the preponderance of apartments.
[37:42] UMCH on the other hand is a beautiful open jam near the center of our city. These two visions of what might be are not compatible.
[37:51] Once UMCH is paved over, it's gone for good.
[37:56] What's needed now is to reject LC and their plan
[37:59] and move to a discussion of how UMCH can become a resource
[38:03] for the entire community to enjoy.
[38:06] This is LC's third strike and they're out.
[38:11] Thank you.
[38:14] All right, thank you.
[38:18] Mike, do you know who the next speaker for ward will be
[38:21] is that going to be bad for us to be somebody else?
[38:24] No, it should be bad, yes.
[38:27] Okay.
[38:30] That, if you can please state your name and address
[38:32] for the record, please then we'll get you sworn in.
[38:40] I don't know that I saw her join the meeting.
[38:45] Yeah, I'm going down the list.
[38:46] I don't see her on that she has even joined.
[38:50] Mike, is there anybody else from Ward that is going to speak?
[38:55] No, not to my knowledge, thank you.
[38:56] Okay, next on the list is Maggie Sutton.
[39:02] Maggie, if you're there, you could unmute yourself
[39:04] and state your name and address for the record, please.
[39:07] And we'll get you just one in.
[39:09] Hi, Maggie Sutton, 2-5-0. I gave that to you.
[39:14] Do you swear the testimony about your applies to the truth?
[39:16] If so, say I do.
[39:18] I do.
[39:19] Thank you very much.
[39:21] Hi, thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
[39:24] This is now the third time that I'll see has come to the city
[39:27] with the proposal, each one no better than the previous.
[39:30] This new proposal is being met with the same or even more opposition from the residents.
[39:36] They do not want high rise high density housing on this property.
[39:40] The research studies have shown that development projects would density higher than 50 units,
[39:46] having negative impact of crime in the area.
[39:49] Residential units or adult would project projects with less than 50 units,
[39:53] do not have a negative impact in crime on the area.
[39:58] Increased crime is not what any working can
[40:00] raise at once in our city.
[40:03] Additionally, Elsie's plan was not in conformity
[40:05] with the comprehensive plan update in 2014.
[40:09] This plan holds four between six to 14 dwelling units per acre,
[40:13] which is still too high in my opinion,
[40:15] but I digress.
[40:16] Elsie's proposal is to put over 37 dwelling units per acre.
[40:21] This comprehensive plan indicated no more than three stories, L.C.'s plan has up to five.
[40:27] And even if L.C. promised to decrease the dwelling units per acre and keep the height to three stories,
[40:33] as has been done many other times in Worthington with developers, give the developer an inch,
[40:37] and they come back and ask for a mile.
[40:39] And they're usually granted that additional length.
[40:42] I don't trust that L.C. would keep their word and all the guarantee we would be looking at hundreds of apartments that are many stories tall,
[40:49] not once the majority of the residents want.
[40:52] The history of the land dates back over a hundred years,
[40:55] when it was purchased by the United Methodist Church
[40:57] and used to house an orphanage.
[40:59] Their mission was to strengthen our community
[41:01] by providing care, nurture, and treatment
[41:04] for hurting children and families.
[41:06] Here we are, a hundred years later,
[41:07] and L.C. wants to come in and build apartments
[41:09] on this historically significant land
[41:12] that is almost directly in the heart of Wellington.
[41:14] The residents do not want that.
[41:16] just look at the number of yard signs surrounding that property that endorse candidates in this year's
[41:20] city council election that will not support what LC is proposing. To preserve the history of the land,
[41:26] it's critical that it continues to strengthen our community by providing for children and families.
[41:31] I implore you for please deny LC's current proposal. Thank you.
[41:37] Thank you. Mr. Redanauer,
[41:43] you're still muted.
[41:47] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[41:49] If you can get your name and address for the right answer.
[41:53] My name is Chet right now and I live at 3.9.8.
[41:57] Hygate Avenue in Worlington and I'm a proud Worlington resident for 30 years.
[42:04] Do you swear the testimony? You're about to recognize the truth?
[42:07] So say I do.
[42:08] I do.
[42:09] Thank you.
[42:12] Well first of all, I want to thank the ARB and MPC for giving me this time and allowing me to speak tonight.
[42:19] I appreciate the opportunity.
[42:22] I also want to thank everyone that sits on the ARB and MPC.
[42:27] Committees, both groups, have a very, very difficult but important job to do in your work is very much appreciated by the citizens of Orlington.
[42:39] So, what about the most recent LC site plan for the children's home?
[42:45] I guess I would have to echo the previous.
[42:51] Any times are we going to listen to LC come back at us with essentially the same old plan.
[42:58] It's the same song, it's the third verse.
[43:01] I can almost sing it to you or sing it in my sleep.
[43:08] There are not significant changes as they profess in their presentation.
[43:12] And I feel, but by looking at the current LC plans and the one previous that they presented,
[43:21] I think it's very evident that the LC company is just not listening.
[43:26] They are not listening to the citizens of Oregon.
[43:30] The current LC plan still has too high of housing density, and that would be greater than
[43:37] any other area in the city of Oregon to.
[43:40] The plan has too many apartments in multiple high-rise buildings that are inappropriate and out-of-character
[43:49] for Worlington in its central core.
[43:53] Also, their plan ensures little regard for the vast majority of Worlington's residents' desire
[43:58] to have significant community green space. They even said in their opening plan that they've reduced
[44:04] the amount of green space, but they've aggregated. Well, aggregation is fine, but don't take it away.
[44:09] need to add more green space.
[44:20] Looking at the LLC site plan, kind of reminds me of the long
[44:24] ago Wendy's commercial, where they touted and asked the question, where's the beef? I look
[44:31] at this site plan and say, where's the green space? Okay? There just isn't the green space
[44:38] that the vast majority of Western residents would like to see. This is a large site. It's
[44:44] 40's plus acre site. It's 25 acres for residential property. Why can't there be more green space?
[44:52] There can't. It's just that they're not listening and they're ignoring the recommendation and wishes of the vast majority.
[45:00] I ask that the members of the ARB and MPC remember that you are in a position to represent the people in the city of
[45:09] where the ten not the LC company. I don't believe that most people in where the ten are anti-development. I really don't.
[45:19] However, I believe that the majority of people in where the ten are anti-bad development and the current plan by LC is a bad development plan.
[45:28] The newest LC plan is bad for many reasons.
[45:32] First of all, it will crowd or already over crowd in schools.
[45:37] We have a lot of reasons for kindergarten.
[45:40] We also have people that have a great amount of difficulty getting their children into care
[45:45] after what will, in addition of hundreds and hundreds of children due to this situation.
[45:52] Also with the current LC plan, there will be increased traffic along Lairmer,
[45:57] evening and long fellow streets. They will turn these streets into what were once nice quiet
[46:03] residential streets in the high traffic streets. And these are streets where children walk and
[46:08] cross every day to go to school. And we need to keep that in mind. Also, for any of you out there
[46:15] that turn, that travel down 161 and have to turn north on even street to go to your home or your business
[46:22] or take your children to a firm school, just remember what all of this increased high-density
[46:29] housing is going to do to that turn. I myself have had to do that for years, and I right now,
[46:35] sometimes, have to wait through multiple lights to make that turn north on the evening street
[46:39] from 161 with high-density housing on the children's home site, it will become a nightmare.
[46:47] Also, the current LC plan, if approved, will cause the people of Wellington to lose a once in
[46:55] a lifetime opportunity to create reinspace and add to the character in charm that's already
[47:02] present in order to
[47:06] work that LC plan, if approved, would be at the expense of the people
[47:10] of Wellington, just so that the LC company can make more money.
[47:14] And please remember, not one single apartment has to be built on this site for LC to make a significant amount of money.
[47:22] They will make millions if not one single apartment is built and they know that.
[47:28] And you have multiple residents in this city that are familiar with large scale, real estate developments, they know that.
[47:35] And I hope the ARV and MPC people also appreciate that.
[47:40] And last of all, if I was a teacher, I'm not.
[47:45] But I had some great teachers in my lifetime.
[47:47] If I were a teacher and the LC company
[47:50] was one of my students, and I gave them an assignment
[47:53] to come up with a site plan that was appropriate and supported
[47:56] by the majority of people in Worldington,
[48:00] if that was the assignment, I gave the LC student,
[48:02] I give them an F on this assignment.
[48:06] And I think I would also recommend that the LC student
[48:10] be evaluated for a learning disability, because I think they have one.
[48:15] The LC plan is bad.
[48:20] Please reject the plan and vote no for LC.
[48:24] Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[48:27] Thank you, sir.
[48:28] Going on down the list, Brad Davis, are you with this this evening?
[48:34] If you're on mute and staging name and address for the record, please,
[48:45] Going down the list,
[48:52] Mr. Davis, I don't see you, so we'll pass. Michael Ball, can you please unmute yourself in the station name and address for the record?
[49:02] Okay, it's Michael Ball, 925 Robbins away.
[49:07] And do you swear the testimony about to fire the truth?
[49:12] I do.
[49:14] Thank you, sir.
[49:14] Well, I just have two points on a question.
[49:20] Again, thank you for this opportunity to speak.
[49:24] My wife and I support the idea of a mixed use development
[49:29] at this medical insurance home from her site.
[49:34] I think that we understand that in order for commercial development
[49:41] And to be successful, you need density in order for our shops downtown Worthington, in order
[49:50] for them to be successful, we need shoppers, we need people here, we need people shopping
[49:56] and going to the restaurants.
[49:59] So for me, density is not a bad word, I think density is a very good thing.
[50:04] I think it is the engine that will allow this project to happen and will allow working
[50:11] to continue to move forward because we are able to attract great businesses, great jobs.
[50:20] On a personal note, just my reaction to the plan that's been shown, Beth Ann and I
[50:28] And I certainly ready to give up our federal four bedroom home and I would love to have a patio home on this site.
[50:38] So, you know, I would be delighted if all of the single family home housing went away and it all became patio homes
[50:45] because I know that I won't be the only one in Worthington that wants one of those. So we need a lot of them.
[50:53] And then finally a question that I have is just, and maybe you can respond to this, maybe you can't.
[51:02] I just, I'm curious as to what the development and planning process should look like.
[51:09] We have heard a lot of criticism tonight of the plans submitted by L.C.
[51:16] And I'm wondering, you know, what is the collaborative process that the city, you know,
[51:25] invisions that allows the city's point of view, their goals and aspirations for what's
[51:32] going to be helpful for the city to be able to be communicated and worked with the developers
[51:41] so that the developer is moving in the same direction.
[51:46] It seems awfully time-consuming for a developer
[51:50] to come up with a plan and then attend a meeting
[51:55] and get some input and then go back and read
[51:59] another plan and then come back again.
[52:02] I just, is it possible for there to be a more collaborative
[52:07] work environment where the city is working sort of hand in glove with a proposed developer for this site.
[52:17] We understand that this site is a potential potentially $200 million investment in our city.
[52:26] How can we make this?
[52:30] The collaborative process.
[52:35] Mr. Brown, do you want to answer that question?
[52:37] Sure, I can start with this. And I know that our council liaison is also on the line also. I think with this one,
[52:47] the history that I've been around for the eight years here and with the life of this that we felt the discussion
[52:52] need to play out in public and not behind closed doors that I think there's been a large fear and discussion that
[53:02] city staff or boarding commissions were meeting with developers and you know trying to offer
[53:09] some guidance which is always great but that with this proposal or this site being so sensitive
[53:16] that it needed to play out in public where everyone had the opportunity to hear comments and
[53:22] offer the guidance as we would move forward.
[53:29] Make that's the same process procedure that we've
[53:33] on some of the larger developments within the city,
[53:35] working until the last three or four years.
[53:38] We've really encouraged the developer,
[53:41] whoever it is to get out and meet with the neighbors,
[53:45] and get that input so that instead of coming into a meeting tonight,
[53:50] we don't hear a whole lot of positive from the neighbors.
[53:54] They kind of have those discussions
[53:55] and they kind of come to some conclusions from the developer
[53:58] and the neighbors so that when it does come forward
[54:01] In a public vendor, many not everything is worked out, but we're closer to a solution.
[54:08] The issue with this one is, this is the third time around with lifestyles.
[54:15] And I'm not sure we're any closer now than when we were in 2015 when we looked at their first plan.
[54:22] And a lot of regards, I like the plan in 2015 better than this.
[54:28] But I personally agree with you, I do want to see the site develop, but I want to see it develop,
[54:35] sensibly, and sensitive to neighbors and to the city.
[54:38] So it has to be a collaborative process and has to be a public process,
[54:43] but it starts where, whether it were lifestyle or the previous developer to try to come forward with a plan,
[54:51] they have to meet with the neighbors and have those open discussions.
[54:55] Do you see that as being a simultaneous process where they're meeting with the community
[55:03] simultaneously with meetings with city members in order to move the project forward?
[55:10] It can be.
[55:12] It has been in the past.
[55:16] Lifestyle has made a couple of presentations to city staff that I've attended.
[55:23] It just trying to get some direction, but it comes back to the same thing, we haven't, and this is my personal view.
[55:32] I haven't seen the progress in the plans that have come forward today based on the comments that, you know,
[55:41] not just I've had, but that other people staff that have had people that in the community that have had with the other two presentations that have come forward.
[55:50] So, it's just been just one last question and that is that it seems to me that a lot of
[55:58] the crux of the matter is a here is what is the ratio of apartments necessary to support
[56:08] the maximum commercial and office space that we can get. Obviously, commercial is sort of
[56:16] that draws people, but it's not a big money maker for the city. Office buildings are a big money maker for the city.
[56:24] So there is a ratio that says in order to support that amount of office space and commercial,
[56:31] you need this much apartment building. Whose responsibility is it to come up with that ratio?
[56:37] Is it lifestyle communities? Do we listen to what they say?
[56:41] Or is that something that the city knows?
[56:43] and the city could say to the developer,
[56:47] this is sort of what we're looking for.
[56:48] This is what we think will work because we want the maximum
[56:52] office space on this site because that's going to generate the revenue
[56:57] that allows the city to do all the things that the city needs to do.
[57:01] The tax dollars are certainly extremely important to say,
[57:05] you know, from the payroll taxes for the office space.
[57:10] That's first and foremost.
[57:12] In terms of number of units that you come up, that in large part is based on the type of investment they want to make.
[57:21] It isn't our job to help developers make money.
[57:25] It's our job to make sure that we have a development that comes in that works for them, for the community and for the city.
[57:33] So, can I point you to a book and give you a formula?
[57:37] Now I'd be crazy if I tried to catch you,
[57:39] but as well as I too.
[57:41] It's a given take process.
[57:44] And that's what we're trying to do.
[57:46] We just haven't seen a lot of it yet.
[57:48] I think the one thing I would add to Mr. Colter's comments also
[57:52] is in working with, you know, the applicant over the years.
[57:56] I mean, we've given guidance on what we would like to see,
[57:59] space-wise, square footage, and tenant. So we've given that direction. There are definitely studies
[58:06] that can be done if LC did a study. You're just saying this is what it would cost. We would probably
[58:11] take that study and then have our consultants review it. Just to make sure we're not just listening
[58:17] to someone else's information without doing our due diligence. I think it's a balance of all those
[58:23] different uses and needs that need to be on the site.
[58:27] I think when you look at the comp plan, it does call for mixed use development, but I think
[58:32] it's looking at the true mix of uses, but one of the common themes throughout that
[58:39] comp plan has been with increased density, there needs to be increased open space and that
[58:44] the residential should be subordinate in a lot of these areas.
[58:47] So I think it's going to need to be that balance, and those key talking points that I referenced earlier that you need to be drilled down before we get into greater discussion and more details of your stormwater and traffic and architecture that we've got to hit these big things first to even move the pendulum towards a direction to move this forward so it's not another decade from now we're having the same conversation.
[59:16] Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and your thoughts.
[59:21] All right. Thank you. The next on the list that I have is Paula Ryan. So Paula, if you are, I see a name on there.
[59:31] So if you could unmute yourself in stage of name and address for the American, we'll get to sworn in.
[59:36] Good evening. I'm Paula Ryan and I live at 1035, Bluff Way Drive.
[59:42] Do you swear that testimony, you're brought by the truth?
[59:45] It's so sad to do.
[59:46] I do.
[59:47] Thank you.
[59:50] Just a couple of points.
[59:52] I support an LC development on this site.
[59:56] Not this particular plan.
[59:58] I will remind you.
[1:00:00] Signed this group that the population of central Ohio is expected to grow by 1 million people by the year 2050.
[1:00:10] And that was done in a study by Morpsey. So if you need to see the data, feel free to google that and find it on Morpsey's website.
[1:00:17] So, wording to just completed a very extensive visioning process, identified some very key components for how we want to move our city forward.
[1:00:30] So, what I would encourage this group to do is understand that our population is going to grow significantly.
[1:00:38] How is Worldington going to take advantage of that, capture that, what can that mean to our city in relationship to the visioning plan?
[1:00:48] I'm not sure we're thinking enough about the visioning plan in these discussions, and I would encourage everyone to think about those two things, the population growth and the visioning plan.
[1:01:00] Secondly,
[1:01:04] I would very politely like to understand where Ms. Sutton got her statistics,
[1:01:12] because I believe she said that any development over 50 units has an increase in crime.
[1:01:20] There are developments being built all over this area that are larger than 50 units.
[1:01:26] For example, and I know we don't want to be a bridge park.
[1:01:30] Crime has an increase in bridge park.
[1:01:33] So I think using crime as a crutch is the wrong solution.
[1:01:40] I think the collaborative approach is something we really need here and I understand that there
[1:01:44] have been many conversations and I really appreciate the questions that Mick asked in the way
[1:01:49] that Mike and Lee responded to those.
[1:01:53] I think my question would be to take it a step further.
[1:01:59] Is there a way for words to just generally to look at what is density, what does that mean to our community?
[1:02:06] Here's a density level that's going to be acceptable for us.
[1:02:10] And I don't know how you determine that from A to Z.
[1:02:13] What is acceptable here?
[1:02:17] Because this isn't, this is not the first time density has been brought up.
[1:02:21] and density's going to continue to be brought up as a development issue.
[1:02:25] And I think as a community, we need to have the answer to that,
[1:02:28] rather than just let developers, in a sense,
[1:02:31] keep coming back with a new plan without giving them
[1:02:35] very specific directions.
[1:02:37] So I don't know if that's a possible thing,
[1:02:39] but I would encourage, as well, the group to think about
[1:02:42] defining what is good density for Worthington.
[1:02:46] And I think that's all I have tonight.
[1:02:48] Thank you.
[1:02:49] All right. Thank you. Ellen, I know that you gave this statement on behalf of Ward, is there
[1:02:57] anything that you would care to add on your own personal thoughts?
[1:03:07] You're muted. There you go.
[1:03:09] Okay. Well, I sent the city a letter as an individual resident and I'm not in this surrounding.
[1:03:19] immediately at surrounding area 2, 10, 33, high street, but what is done there will affect
[1:03:27] the entire city and I've seen that throughout my lifetime and this would be probably the
[1:03:34] biggest sort of the 270 inner change. This will be the biggest change I would see if
[1:03:43] LC were to develop it and I do think it would have a devastating effect in so many ways.
[1:03:49] and they have not engaged with the residents and I question, you know, how serious they are because they don't seem to listen and come back, the way they arranged the walkways and, you know, Tucker Creek and we all know that Tucker Creek is something that they can't develop anyway.
[1:04:19] So, the arguments that people say that we need the density, we need affordable housing.
[1:04:27] Well, I don't have what we need the density as Paul Ryan mentioned.
[1:04:34] You know, that's a good question.
[1:04:35] What does constitute a density in Worthington?
[1:04:40] But we don't need, they're not offering a affordable housing.
[1:04:47] They're not offering diversity, they really are, and it's, you know, for, I mean, profit
[1:04:55] is their main goal.
[1:04:56] They don't have an underlying or even a part of making affordable housing available.
[1:05:04] So arguments that will get diversity in affordable housing is untrue, and I think that should
[1:05:12] be acknowledged.
[1:05:15] So, there's a lot to talk about, but that's all I have to say tonight, and I appreciate
[1:05:20] your coming back to me.
[1:05:21] Thank you.
[1:05:22] Thank you.
[1:05:24] The last speaker that we had that had pre-wrested was Mr. Posey.
[1:05:30] So if you want to unmute yourself in the stage of name and address for the record, we'll
[1:05:34] get you sworn in.
[1:05:36] Hi.
[1:05:37] My name is Josh Posey, and I live at 238 High Gate Avenue.
[1:05:42] Do you swear the testimony?
[1:05:43] You're about to surprise the truth?
[1:05:45] So say I do.
[1:05:46] I did.
[1:05:47] Thank you.
[1:05:50] So thank you very much to the FBC and ARB for letting me put a few comments out there tonight.
[1:05:59] You know, I've been pretty much a lifelong resident in Worthington my whole wife.
[1:06:03] And before I moved here at the corner of Beating Street in Highgate, I lived my folks moved to Green Bar
[1:06:09] court built the house on Green Bar Court in 1981. So I feel like the UNCH site has been
[1:06:16] either in my side yard or front yard my whole life. Just a couple things. You know there's
[1:06:23] an old saying that you know with you know reasonable people with reasonable issues can come up
[1:06:29] with reasonable solutions and I you know I just think that you know I do think LC does need to
[1:06:36] talk to the residents a little bit more, but it also, I think the residents have to be open-minded,
[1:06:42] that LC has to be able to, to, to, to what a business as well. And, you know, I just
[1:06:49] think that, you know, we, if everybody can get together, but we have to move forward on this one way or
[1:06:55] the other. And if that requires a little bit more green space to accommodate the folks, but, but
[1:07:03] else he should have the right to try to do something here.
[1:07:07] But in order for them to do that, they are going to have to do a better job of reaching
[1:07:10] out to the neighbors and to the community to get their input.
[1:07:16] Besides that, we need development in Mordington.
[1:07:19] We need places, we need additional places to live in Mordington.
[1:07:22] We need more tax revenue in Mordington.
[1:07:24] We need more jobs in Mordington.
[1:07:26] You know, other suburbs around Columbus have been able to make
[1:07:30] You know, concept work, and I don't think we should be any different from that. You know, not everybody's going to get what they want, but I think there should be a goal of compromise by not only the residents, the city of Wilmington and LC, and with that, that's all I've got. That's my two cents from almost a lifelong resident here at Wilmington. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[1:07:56] That covers all of the speakers that had reserved space for the seeding before I turn it over to other members of the Board of the Commission, I wanted to make a couple real quick comments.
[1:08:10] And Mr. Brown, this is a dark and certainly correct me if I miss it.
[1:08:15] We have had well over 400 email responses.
[1:08:20] The vast majority of those probably share some of the comments that you heard this evening.
[1:08:26] There are also having people who are in support of developing this site as an excuse.
[1:08:34] There's also people who want to believe it as a park.
[1:08:38] So it's kind of all over the place.
[1:08:40] But I just wanted to let everybody know that the members of the Board and the Commission do need the emails.
[1:08:45] we do take those into consideration with our thoughts and and how that
[1:08:50] initiate the other comments that you may hear later on.
[1:08:56] Can we have anybody email us in since the beginning of the meeting this evening?
[1:09:04] I think we did get one email in.
[1:09:07] We have a couple of emails. Also, before we do that, Mr. Colt's very
[1:09:12] Mr. Wright now has his hand raised so he may want to speak again and there are two other
[1:09:19] colors on the people that are part of this meeting that I wondered if they wanted to speak
[1:09:26] Mr. Sherman and Mrs. Fair. So we'll just give them a quick opportunity.
[1:09:40] I just want to say we'd also like to comment on some things that I consider misinformation and you know, I know you're having residents now comment twice.
[1:09:51] We would like to chance to comment and rebut some of the things that have been said.
[1:09:55] You will say a lot too.
[1:09:57] Yeah.
[1:09:58] We won't forget you.
[1:10:00] All right.
[1:10:01] Mr. Redner.
[1:10:01] Yeah, thank you for giving me additional time.
[1:10:06] I would just like to have a question in maybe a statement.
[1:10:10] One is, is there a limit on the number of times that LC can come back
[1:10:14] at us at the city with what is essentially the same plan that they have all the long?
[1:10:21] Is there a limit to the number of times LC or any body can come back to the city?
[1:10:27] Anyone has the right to if they want to change something on their property or go through a process?
[1:10:31] They can come through, make application, go through the boards and commissions.
[1:10:37] The board has the opportunity to approve, approve modifications, table, or deny applications.
[1:10:43] And there's a waiting period if it was denied to come back.
[1:10:46] But it could be a groundhog day.
[1:10:49] There's an unlimited number of times that you can be approached by the same company.
[1:10:54] Yes, sir.
[1:10:54] Okay, the other thing is just a simple statement, you know, when you listen to L.C. and you
[1:10:59] listen to some of these other speakers, they tout how wonderful the developments are in
[1:11:04] communities around Worthington such as Bridge Park and Dublin, Arizona for Arlington,
[1:11:10] Grand U, actually, well, you know, I've lived here for 30 years, I'm very proud of Worthington
[1:11:16] and the people here in the city here and I love this community and what I would say to people that
[1:11:23] think that the developments in Dublin and upper arms and
[1:11:25] grand deal back there are so wonderful.
[1:11:28] Go ahead and move to Dublin and upper arm
[1:11:31] lengthen and bexley and grand view.
[1:11:34] Leave Worthington and go to where you want to go because
[1:11:37] there are people practically scratching other people's eyes
[1:11:42] out to get into Worthington.
[1:11:45] Worthington doesn't have any problem attracting residents.
[1:11:48] You can ask any realtor in this city.
[1:11:50] houses when they go on the market are sold before the sign goes up in the yard and I
[1:11:56] think everybody here knows that. So if we have if we have such a city if we
[1:12:00] have a city that's that needs this development to be desirable why are all these
[1:12:06] people trying to claw and fight their way into our city right now without this
[1:12:11] development. I think that's something people should think about. We already have a
[1:12:15] city. We don't need LC's development to be a great city. We exist right now and we're a
[1:12:21] great place to live. Thank you very much. All right thank you Mr. Sherman I understand that
[1:12:28] you may be on the line
[1:12:32] if you are. Okay if you could you're on mute it obviously if you can
[1:12:37] state your name and address for the record please we'll get you sworn in. My name is Joe Sherman
[1:12:42] I reside at 6603 McBernie Place and here in Wellington.
[1:12:48] Joe, do you swear the testimony you're brought to fight the truth?
[1:12:50] So sad deal.
[1:12:51] I do.
[1:12:52] Thank you, sir.
[1:12:54] Thank you.
[1:12:54] I appreciate this opportunity.
[1:12:56] I wasn't prepared to address.
[1:12:58] I did send an email to the ARBNPC.
[1:13:02] And I stated it very, very simply in the beginning that I come to you as a resident.
[1:13:06] I also made reference that I also had the pleasure and the privilege to serve on the vision
[1:13:13] and committee.
[1:13:14] And I did read through the proposal and the concept plan for the future and as I stated
[1:13:20] I was very disappointed and frankly underwhelmed because this is nothing more than a rehash
[1:13:26] of what LC presented in 2015 and 2020.
[1:13:31] I really feel strongly as a resident that livestock communities should respect and respond
[1:13:35] to our needs as a city, not proposed a development with a four and five-story structures and
[1:13:42] an additional 600 residences.
[1:13:45] The long-term financial consequences of a high-density residential development is not an
[1:13:50] economic boom to the city in the long-term.
[1:13:53] This UMCH site should serve the long-term interests of the residents and not the short-term
[1:13:59] interest of a developer. LCS previous two submissions were soundly rejected by the
[1:14:06] community in 2015 at the WEC and in 2021 by a way of 300 plus residents speaking
[1:14:12] out in opposition and from my records only for in favor. Now I expect additional
[1:14:18] opposition will follow and response to this latest submission. Personally I feel that
[1:14:23] LCS largely ignored that our city needs to generate income tax revenue from
[1:14:29] multi-use development of the U.M.C.H. site, in the ten acres of land, along high street, already
[1:14:35] zoned for this commercial use. But most fundamentally, their business model is simply
[1:14:40] inflexible and incompatible with where the tens of needs and values. They simply are ignoring
[1:14:46] what the residents have said, what they said, what we want and expect. In my humble opinion,
[1:14:53] they are not at least been interested in where the ten is the community, but merely as a place
[1:14:57] the bulldobs.
[1:15:00] Literally, and figuratively, a lifestyle development into place. I also made mention in my email that as a refresher, I'd
[1:15:09] like to share with you one of the seven vision statements from the vision-worthington project that was brought up earlier.
[1:15:15] And that is simply the worthy ten's leadership is open, forward-thinking, and collaborative. As a community, we said that our elected leaders are known for listening and responding to the voice of its residents,
[1:15:28] and carefully considering actions that affect our community.
[1:15:32] All the while striving for consensus building by encouraging and modeling respectful public dialogue
[1:15:38] and demonstrating benefits for the common good
[1:15:41] and then making those hard decisions to further progress.
[1:15:46] With this in mind, I, as a resident, would ask you to explicitly deny
[1:15:51] as opposed to tabling the livestock communities proposal for UMCH
[1:15:56] And thereby creating the context where a city acquisition may become a possibility.
[1:16:04] I feel that our future truly rests in each other, and I think that the public engagement
[1:16:10] and collaboration could lead to a different kind of development, generating a lot of public
[1:16:14] spirit, and who knows this could possibly generate the cornerstone for the next phase
[1:16:20] of that vision and committee, the next vision and committee's work.
[1:16:23] I thank you for your consideration, and I wish best wishes on ARB NPC's decision.
[1:16:31] Thank you.
[1:16:32] Thank you, sir.
[1:16:35] Ms. Battalion said there was another person who was on the line.
[1:16:40] I didn't have Mrs. Fair was planning to speak, but she is part of the meeting.
[1:16:45] Linda, I just got no dismic dates. I just got no from Pamela that she's driving.
[1:16:50] She's not able to speak at the same time.
[1:16:52] So thank you so much.
[1:16:55] All right.
[1:16:55] Thank you.
[1:16:58] Nobody else has called in to speak.
[1:17:02] I'll turn it over to board members.
[1:17:04] Actually, Mr. Colter.
[1:17:05] Yeah.
[1:17:06] I'm going to jump in real quick.
[1:17:07] I did want to let you know, as of 6 o'clock tonight,
[1:17:10] we did receive 437 emails related to this project.
[1:17:16] As you mentioned, there are all over the gamut from one spectrum to the next.
[1:17:21] but we did receive the several emails while we were in the meeting and if I can go ahead
[1:17:26] just read those in to record. And again, these are going to be posted on the city's website
[1:17:32] tomorrow and we're summarizing them. The first one is from John Burns at 161 Tucker Drive.
[1:17:42] Basically, against the proposal for high-density housing on the site traffic, green space.
[1:17:54] So just wanted to let you know that.
[1:17:57] Again, the next one we received is from Sandra Boenstein, who lives at 495 Tucker Drive.
[1:18:05] Again, it's asking that the LC proposal be rejected.
[1:18:11] and again related to higher densities and green space and community support.
[1:18:18] So we do have that one and then we received,
[1:18:23] sorry,
[1:18:31] another email from
[1:18:32] a Fred Gabori, I apologize if I put your laugh, asking that, you know, vote against
[1:18:42] the current proposal for the MCH site, again, stating density, green space and kind of a copy
[1:18:54] count of the apartments. So we did receive those three emails while we were in our discussion.
[1:19:03] All right. Thank you. And those will be posted on the website tomorrow. All right. And I'm sure
[1:19:08] that will be the end of that.
[1:19:10] The egos that the city receives.
[1:19:14] So we'll open it up to board members.
[1:19:16] Mr. Chairman?
[1:19:19] May I, may I, it's time pardon.
[1:19:20] May I respond briefly first?
[1:19:24] Please.
[1:19:26] Just a couple of clarifications.
[1:19:28] First, the 2015 was never an official application.
[1:19:32] It was never filed.
[1:19:33] Never went through any official public hearing process.
[1:19:36] either, you know, with you as a board or planning commission or the city council, our last
[1:19:41] application, our only application on this so far was filed, last October, about a year ago,
[1:19:47] our last hearing on this case was this past January. And so, you know, we, it's this three strikes
[1:19:55] in your out thing, which by the way, that's not exactly, you know, constitutional law as it applies
[1:20:00] to land use three strikes in your out, but I digress.
[1:20:06] We were, we asked after January after we got your feedback, after we did a tremendous amount
[1:20:12] of community outreach in lots of different ways.
[1:20:15] We asked for specific feedback with the city professionals and with a couple of key city leaders,
[1:20:22] and we were told, Mr. Chairman, as you recall, you've got to go to planning commission
[1:20:27] for that.
[1:20:28] We're not gonna, we don't have the political will or the political capital to meet with you
[1:20:32] as Lee said behind course the orders and interact with you.
[1:20:36] We were told to go to planning commission.
[1:20:39] This is the first opportunity we've had for actual dialogue at planning commission to listen
[1:20:45] and to talk with and interact with planning commission members.
[1:20:49] Because that's what we were told we had to do.
[1:20:52] And so now the residents have commented and we hear the smootemen of Denayam, shut them down,
[1:21:01] three strikes around, that's a bunch of who we, that those are the facts, that's not reality.
[1:21:07] We're here, we did adjust our plan, we have 20% less residential in a lot more office.
[1:21:15] This site today, the site plan we turn into has 25% open space on 37 acres, 25% open space.
[1:21:24] To put that perspective, I mean there are some urban single-family codes that don't require 25% open space.
[1:21:31] And this is an incomplete site.
[1:21:33] And so it's just long, and it would be, I think, legally inappropriate to tell us,
[1:21:40] we're going to shut you down at a concept plan hearing,
[1:21:44] And we're going to recommend to dial before we've had the dialogue before we've had a chance to discuss what we have done how we haven't proved the site.
[1:21:53] And I'll say that the staff plan of the staff comment letter, the staff report, is full of examples of where we haven't proved the site.
[1:22:04] And staff made that clear on the record. They don't support everything, obviously.
[1:22:08] But the staff important has many examples of how we've improved the site and I did those in my presentation.
[1:22:16] In fact, your comprehensive plan for the site says it can have up to five stories.
[1:22:22] And it says that this is a site that should support density.
[1:22:25] It uses the word density and the site being dense.
[1:22:29] And, you know,
[1:22:30] Again, we stand by the fact that the best proof and the best evidence that residential has to drive modern mixed-use developments
[1:22:38] and delivery that tax and employment not that the city wants and needs. The best evidence of that are the projects all around central aisle.
[1:22:49] We're the ones who's not in a vacuum away from that market reality. I'm sorry for jumping in. I've normally would never do such a thing in front of planning commission numbers.
[1:22:58] But there was enough misinformation and lack of factual information that was provided.
[1:23:05] I felt like I had to do that. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
[1:23:08] Now, that's fine. I will take one exception of what you said that when we last met,
[1:23:13] you had been encouraged to go out and specifically talk to the neighbor, who grows specifically
[1:23:19] more. And when I check with forward two weeks ago, nobody had contacted them.
[1:23:27] I mean, I've done a lot of neighborhood outreach of my life, and I'm in a lot of jurisdictions.
[1:23:36] We had met with them previously, we had a lot of dialogue with them.
[1:23:41] We felt like we acted on some of the things they asked us to do.
[1:23:46] They don't see it that way at all.
[1:23:48] There's a time when, you know, being told that you should just go away and we don't want to deal with you at all is not productive anymore, Mr. Chairman.
[1:23:59] It's not productive.
[1:24:01] So, you know, I, you can take that as, as I say to them.
[1:24:07] There are people who want you to go away. I'm not one of those people.
[1:24:11] I think if you look at all of the individual board members as a whole or as individuals,
[1:24:17] we want to see that property develop that we want to see it develop sensibly.
[1:24:22] So that's what we're trying to get.
[1:24:25] Yes, sir.
[1:24:26] So I don't know that there's an underlying move to have lifestyle going by anybody on the board.
[1:24:34] I've not heard it from anybody either individually or as a whole.
[1:24:38] we just need to come to some better conclusions or better understanding of what's going to happen.
[1:24:46] So that's part of what this process is all about.
[1:24:50] So thank you with that.
[1:24:57] I believe I have read almost every letter or email that has been sent to the city.
[1:25:04] I feel at the strong objection over lifestyles that they're not listening to what the residents are saying has been the number one thing that has come out of here.
[1:25:18] And obviously all of us has been said tonight, it's all been said in the email that we're talking about the density, we're talking about the green space and traffic control.
[1:25:30] It's mostly talking about the apartments and I think that our residents are not comfortable with the amount of apartments that's coming into this area.
[1:25:46] And while we can't control who buys the land and our buildings, we can help control the use.
[1:25:53] So I think that as a realtor that has lived in Wilmington for over 40 years, this is an amazing piece of land, and I hope that the honors will come to some agreement with the residents with the city.
[1:26:14] I think Mr. Ball made great comments because what does it take to make this sustainable?
[1:26:24] But I personally object to the amount of apartments that are coming in here.
[1:26:30] We do need housing and people, as Mr. Ridd now are said, they are clawing in to get into
[1:26:36] where they tend and want to find housing.
[1:26:38] We do not have enough housing here to represent all phases of our life's lifespan.
[1:26:48] So I hope that we can come to a conclusion.
[1:26:52] I'm not against this project, but I believe that we have a long way to go to figure out what's happening.
[1:27:01] And that's going to where I am with it right now.
[1:27:04] I'd like to speak next.
[1:27:12] Can you hear me?
[1:27:15] Okay, Mike.
[1:27:16] This is Tom Rice.
[1:27:20] There's a lot set tonight.
[1:27:22] We've seen a lot of emails.
[1:27:23] There's been a lot of discussion.
[1:27:25] I've been on the board now for seven years,
[1:27:27] and we've been talking about it for seven years.
[1:27:31] You know, we're thinking it's landlock.
[1:27:32] We're not like that land or failure,
[1:27:35] or the western rail, or Fickerton,
[1:27:37] we're landlock.
[1:27:40] So,
[1:27:40] how we develop this is important.
[1:27:44] And I don't think it's necessary that we have
[1:27:49] against kind of build out just because
[1:27:52] the population and the greater metropolitan areas
[1:27:55] going to grow by a million people by 2025.
[1:27:57] I don't think we have to have all million people
[1:27:59] and so they're willing to.
[1:28:03] But we need to think about is that we have a responsible
[1:28:06] development here.
[1:28:08] And that we have great services in Oregon, and the cost of services is going to go up over time.
[1:28:17] We have great schools in London.
[1:28:20] The cost of schools is going to go up over time.
[1:28:22] So both of those elements are recipients of the development of this site.
[1:28:28] So I think we need to think about that and keep that in perspective.
[1:28:31] We can't make this a big park.
[1:28:34] We can't have responsible green space in pathways and so forth.
[1:28:40] That's all a part of good planning.
[1:28:45] I think residential housing is important.
[1:28:50] I think commercial development along high street is important.
[1:28:53] I think there's gotta be a compromise here that generates revenue for our schools,
[1:29:01] which is residential development.
[1:29:03] and revenue for our city so we can continue to get services we have.
[1:29:10] This property cannot be a big green park.
[1:29:13] That's absolutely insane, but it can be developed responsibly.
[1:29:19] I think life styles, if they listen to what they've heard tonight
[1:29:24] and for my fellow board members, and work with the city planner, our city manager,
[1:29:30] are city developer or city planner.
[1:29:37] We can come to a compromise.
[1:29:40] I don't think five-story apartment components is a good scale for this area.
[1:29:47] You can talk about that in the perimeter of other suburbs,
[1:29:54] like Dublin, the Bridge Park, that all works fine here,
[1:29:57] but this is almost in our historic.
[1:30:00] So, and it's a buddy, a lot of our residents who are all single family homes, and I can understand that the people not wanting five-store buildings looking down on their properties.
[1:30:14] And so I think the density has to be controlled with some reasonable height and I think
[1:30:22] the multi-use along high street is a requirement.
[1:30:28] I think their sensitivity, they brought to the table the night was increased green space
[1:30:33] and through space the site is a step in the right direction.
[1:30:40] Whatever we do here, there's going to be more traffic.
[1:30:45] There's no doubt about it, and there's going to be
[1:30:47] more wait times than some traffic lights.
[1:30:50] But that's a part of progress, and that's part of what we're going to have to kind of put up with when the sites develop.
[1:30:56] So I talked too long here, but I think there's got to be some behind-the-scenes conversations that it can be made probably that can come to a reasonable solution here.
[1:31:09] And in lifestyles, it's got to realize that they might not be able to make as much money as they might want to turn around on this project and still come away with some money in their pockets.
[1:31:24] And we all know developers are in this to make some money.
[1:31:27] I mean, that's what business is about.
[1:31:29] So it was have gone on too far too long here, but that's my perspective.
[1:31:34] Thank you.
[1:31:36] Next.
[1:31:38] This is Dave Faust.
[1:31:39] I'd like to expand a little bit on something that Tom just said.
[1:31:43] And that's about where women can fit in with the entire urban metropolitan central
[1:31:50] Ohio area.
[1:31:52] And one of the charges that we've been given by City Council and the community and one
[1:31:59] of the things that we've looked at very clearly or tried to look at over the years
[1:32:03] is how do we define where they do? What's our image? What's our look?
[1:32:12] And the thing we keep coming
[1:32:14] back to and working with city staff, the residents in city council, is that ideally what makes
[1:32:21] us unique is our village green, some of our older smaller buildings and what we've described is
[1:32:29] that unique New England village-like character of the community.
[1:32:34] That's what defines Worthington.
[1:32:35] That's what makes us different from the other surrounding suburbs
[1:32:40] and areas in Columbus.
[1:32:42] And I think the development that's proposed here
[1:32:44] would be a great defining feature if it were in the short North.
[1:32:50] I think it would work very well in parts of Arlington and Grand
[1:32:54] View.
[1:32:55] But there are other residential areas in Arlington and Grand View,
[1:32:58] where this would be at odds with the luck and the feel of those communities.
[1:33:05] And I kind of think that's what we're up against here.
[1:33:10] So what needs to happen, I believe, and I'm not sure it can happen with this developer
[1:33:15] or any developer, is something needs to come back before us that is so clearly based on
[1:33:23] scale, proportion, living conditions that are characteristic of a New England type environment
[1:33:30] of a village environment, that it has a wild factor, that everybody in the community
[1:33:36] including this board, and that the majority of the residents of vast majority of their
[1:33:42] are going, wow, this is wonderful, this is what we want to see.
[1:33:47] And that's the hell of a challenge and hell of a charge.
[1:33:49] And like I said, I don't know if there are very many developers who would want to jump in and do that.
[1:33:55] But if you want to get my involvement and my support for it, and I think the support of the vast majority of the community,
[1:34:05] that's what it's going to have to come back to.
[1:34:08] We've also, I would point out, seen some changes in land use ideas over the years.
[1:34:14] we're going through that right now and he's supposed to be a drug where the residents 10 years
[1:34:19] ago thought it would be okay to have a certain type of development now we're looking
[1:34:23] at ideas for different types of development. So things do change just because something was set
[1:34:29] five or ten years ago doesn't mean it's going to be valid now. But that's what we need to see
[1:34:34] as something that says New England Village. All right, thank you. Could like to speak next.
[1:34:47] I have to echo what Mr. Faust just said, but I also want to recognize some of the steps
[1:34:54] beginning steps that L.C. has, in fact, taken, and I appreciate those, because it does
[1:35:03] at least give me some encouragement that we can continue to work through this and ultimately end
[1:35:11] up with an outstanding project.
[1:35:15] One of the things that concerns me is in fact the apartments and in that same visioning
[1:35:22] statement that you mentioned before, it indicates very clearly that the residential portion
[1:35:30] should be subordinate to the commercial portions on the site and we have the exact opposite
[1:35:38] relative to those apartments.
[1:35:40] So, from my humble opinion, that to me means there has to be a significant reduction in the apartments.
[1:35:51] Because I'm also very concerned about sending that much additional traffic down residential streets.
[1:35:59] up particularly the evening street,
[1:36:03] Lairmer, where kids are walking to school and some of the streets don't have sidewalks.
[1:36:11] And so that is a tremendous concern to me.
[1:36:14] In addition, while I appreciate the fact that, as you said,
[1:36:19] that there's 25% green space,
[1:36:23] Unfortunately,
[1:36:28] that green space isn't significantly contiguous, and so, you know, even part
[1:36:33] of that Rush Creek area, or Tucker Creek area, is unusable space.
[1:36:42] I also think that, and I would strongly encourage you, as you look at the particularly
[1:36:50] the town homes and the single homes, one of the significant needs that we have as a community
[1:37:00] is housing for seniors who would like to stay in the community, but who really aren't
[1:37:06] interested in going up three flights of stairs. And I believe I looked at the town homes and
[1:37:14] downhomes are all three, three floors.
[1:37:17] So I would really encourage you to look at that
[1:37:21] and perhaps come up with a way to increase even more
[1:37:25] the number of homes that would be appropriate for me.
[1:37:30] So those of us that are getting a little over and at some point in time don't want to climb the stairs.
[1:37:38] I'm also concerned on the current plan about the extremely significant loss of trees.
[1:37:47] And you know, one of the things that we've always loved and I've been working to the resident for 38 years, but one of the things we've always loved are the large mature trees.
[1:37:55] And I think that's part of that whole New England look, and so I think that there has, as I think I've read through this, there are a tremendous number of trees that are going to be sacrificed.
[1:38:09] And yes, I know that some of those will be replaced, but of course, as is necessary, they will be replaced with very small caliber trees.
[1:38:19] and as we all know, unfortunately, that takes years and years to replace.
[1:38:25] So I would want to thank LC for making some of the adjustments that they've already made.
[1:38:31] I would say that that's a nice first baby step,
[1:38:36] but I think we require or would really like to see even more significant adjustments based upon that community feedback
[1:38:45] and on that visiting statement as well.
[1:38:48] Thank you. Thank you. Susan, you're the last.
[1:38:53] Yeah, I won't repeat everything that's been said, but two things to follow up on that.
[1:38:57] Mr. Schuster mentions. One, I don't think it's just seniors that don't want to do multiple flights of stairs per day.
[1:39:04] You know, families with young children and anyone moving in don't want to do that either.
[1:39:08] So I think that really understanding the diversity of housing product and how people use it is important.
[1:39:14] There was also mentioned that the City Council meeting last week I believe it was about central
[1:39:22] Ohio's economic segregation and I think that diversity in the housing product is important
[1:39:29] but as many of the emails have mentioned diversity in the economics of what this development
[1:39:34] will support.
[1:39:35] I feel very important as mentioned many times there's people banging on doors trying to get into
[1:39:43] and we can't make it economically impossible for new residents to come in. So I think that's important.
[1:39:50] As far as the green space, I appreciate the aggregation of it. Obviously that's a large thing for the whole community.
[1:39:59] But I do feel like it's really kind of hidden within the site. You know, you can't really see it from high street.
[1:40:06] can't see it from evening straight. It's really inside and behind green
[1:40:09] buyer court. So I think that yes, creating that linear green to draw people
[1:40:14] in is important. But there's also that aspect of being able to experience that
[1:40:20] wind traveling throughout the city. And lastly, yes, the trees, you know, a couple
[1:40:25] meetings ago. We listened to us and emotional story about one tree in the
[1:40:30] and the hundreds of trees that are projected here to come down is devastating.
[1:40:38] You know, we advertise that we're a tree city.
[1:40:40] This is a huge number of our trees, and that's truly the one thing that we cannot
[1:40:45] Replace or benefit from our lifetimes.
[1:40:49] And I think that the New England community and trees are a direct correspondence.
[1:40:54] So, as far as, you know, economics of the site, obviously it needs to work for everyone, I personally would like to see something that brings people here, you know, new, new young families, new homeowners and keeps people here after they're downsizing.
[1:41:13] So, those are my thoughts.
[1:41:15] All right, thank you.
[1:41:17] And if we heard from all the members of the board, I've given some of my views, I go ahead and go last.
[1:41:24] First of all, I'm very much in favor of good development.
[1:41:28] As an architect, as well as some of the other members of the board who are architects as well,
[1:41:33] we look forward to projects like that.
[1:41:35] We both have all of us, if they've seen projects that were not good developments,
[1:41:40] that they just didn't belong when they were.
[1:41:42] I'm not saying that this is one of those, it just needs to be very
[1:41:46] buckly carried out so that it works for everybody.
[1:41:51] The number of units is too many for me.
[1:41:55] Even at 420 and I appreciate the fact that Elsie came back and
[1:42:00] did reduce the number, I think they said by 20%, but it's still too many
[1:42:06] apartments and what's driving that is the five stories.
[1:42:10] I have a difficulty with a five-story building in that location, maybe right along high street where the commercial property is, but I'd have a difficult time with that as well.
[1:42:22] I think with where that piece of land is a five-story building is just too tall.
[1:42:28] So I'd like to see the impact if you took the two apartment building in so the state, and change us with five stories, the three stories, what is the net change in the number of apartments.
[1:42:39] maybe I can get more comfortable with that. The heights of villains I talked about, the usable
[1:42:45] green space, in my mind, and we have a number of people who have advocated just to take it apart,
[1:42:53] it's always been apart. Well, it never has been apart. It's just been a very huge piece of land
[1:42:59] that points in time to have been used as soccer fields and other things, but it never was a
[1:43:04] it was never zoned apart. But given that, when you talk about green space, to me, green space is
[1:43:11] usable green space. It's not just a boulevard, we got a lot of nice trees and landscaping going
[1:43:17] down with the streets on either side. It's something that you can take your child to it and play.
[1:43:24] It doesn't have to be a two acre plot, but maybe it's a third acre. I live on a half acre on
[1:43:29] need street and a lot of the neighborhood kids when they're growing up used to use our backyard
[1:43:33] as a baseball park, which we thought was just great. So when I think of green space, it needs
[1:43:40] to be usable green space, not just something that you're driving on the street and it's a
[1:43:44] wire 10 foot or 15 foot street and it's got trees in it. I had mentioned before that the plan
[1:43:54] And as has had very little community input and not something that every project we deal with is extremely important.
[1:44:04] It's encouraged by city council, it's encouraged by city staff.
[1:44:10] We look forward to listening to everybody who writes who may call, we may not agree with everybody, but it's important for us to know that we do get that community input.
[1:44:20] But we're never going to get 100% of the people to fall in love with this project.
[1:44:24] That's not going to happen, but we need to get more than 10% that really like it.
[1:44:33] We've got to get closer to the middle.
[1:44:38] And the plan that was presented tonight, as an architect, it's very unimaginative to me.
[1:44:46] There's nothing that I'm looking at from a bird's eye view that just really there are a couple of things that I do like
[1:44:54] The entrance coming in out for high street that's somewhat mindy mental but it's a problem.
[1:45:00] I hope it for a project like this, so that I do like how that works, where you've got the larger pieces of property up against
[1:45:08] Amy Street on the west side. I like that. I don't like rectangles and squares when it comes to residential neighborhoods.
[1:45:19] When you look at where you can state, you have kind of a mix, and I think from the most part, it's a pretty good mix where you've got some current streets.
[1:45:28] you've got some callous acts, you've got some rectangles, and here it seems, and I understand
[1:45:34] it is primarily probably driven because of economics and construction that a rectilinear
[1:45:41] shape works best for that. The thing that I would want to have somebody take a look at is there
[1:45:46] opportunity to make that a little bit more vibrant, a little bit more exciting and just you turn
[1:45:52] back to your right and turn right, because it's something that can change.
[1:45:57] We've talked about the diversity of housing,
[1:46:00] Worthington is not known for having a lot of diversity in housing.
[1:46:05] We've had any number of people who didn't pass President of City Council
[1:46:11] who moved out of Worthington because he couldn't find some place for him to live
[1:46:16] in a home that was one story that was kind of like a...
[1:46:22] are used to work kind of, but that probably isn't the right word, or other people taking care of the maintenance.
[1:46:28] We just don't have a lot of that.
[1:46:30] In fact, I'm not sure that we have any of it within the city.
[1:46:34] Those are the kinds of things that, you know, I look at the town homes, and that seems a good application.
[1:46:41] Susan had talked about people who don't want to go up and down stairs.
[1:46:45] I'm very quickly reaching the stage of my life where as much as I like going up and down stairs,
[1:46:50] probably met a couple of years. It's going to be less going up and downstairs.
[1:46:55] My wife has already reached that point, so we need to take a look at it. Is there something here that could be more akin to that?
[1:47:05] So that's kind of where I'm at. We, or Kenny or Linda, have we had anybody else email us or try to call and where they can voice their opinions?
[1:47:18] Yes, sir, we have not.
[1:47:21] Mr. Chairman, may I?
[1:47:23] Yes, please.
[1:47:25] Thank you.
[1:47:26] I don't, I'm not real certain how I want to say this.
[1:47:32] And I certainly don't want to, in any way, be accusatory.
[1:47:35] I don't want anyone to be defensive about this.
[1:47:38] But there was a comment, Tom, that you made, that kind of peaked my ears.
[1:47:42] When you said you were here for it with really just a conceptual plan,
[1:47:47] looking for feedback and you didn't think it was appropriate for us to go ahead and act on
[1:47:54] your plan tonight given that presentation that posture is housed presented. Tom and
[1:48:02] Bo, I've met with both of you on multiple occasions. Bo, I've met with your predecessor.
[1:48:17] I believe
[1:48:17] We've tried to be very straightforward and blunt and direct and consistent in what I thought
[1:48:27] were being wanted from this development.
[1:48:31] So I believe that you have been given multiple opportunities with clear directive as to
[1:48:38] what we want, some of what you've heard tonight.
[1:48:41] And one thing that we have asked from you repeatedly, and we have never been able to get
[1:48:47] answer is what's the economics of this? When you first presented this project to us there was
[1:48:54] a certain number of apartments that has ballooned. Is that being driven by economics? Is that
[1:49:01] being driven by ask high and get low?
[1:49:07] You know we have been asked also asking questions that
[1:49:10] we have not been able to get answers to. So I think we have made it very clear to you for
[1:49:17] seven years, what it is that we want, and we've been consistent in that message.
[1:49:26] That's all I have to say, and I don't think the response.
[1:49:31] I thought we'd like the response, sir.
[1:49:34] Please go ahead.
[1:49:35] First, thank you.
[1:49:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:49:38] Mr. Myers.
[1:49:42] I don't think we are arguing that
[1:49:47] turning down a conceptual plan where we're trying to get
[1:49:54] feedback and clarity and direction.
[1:49:59] It's just very, very unusual, sir.
[1:50:01] It would be very unusual.
[1:50:04] And you feel like you've been clear and consistent.
[1:50:10] What's the number?
[1:50:11] What's the number of, what's the open space number?
[1:50:13] What's the density number that the city would find acceptable?
[1:50:16] You know, that's what we want to know, too, what's the number, you know, that's going to work in a changing market.
[1:50:24] I mean, Mr. Myers, think of how much the world has changed since 2015.
[1:50:31] And yet, you know, we're stuck in this mode where you've been telling us the same thing all along,
[1:50:37] which, you know, that hasn't been, I wasn't part of that, most of that history.
[1:50:42] But I know that over that period, the world is dramatically different.
[1:50:45] What drives development, what drives employment uses, what drives office uses is dramatically
[1:50:51] different.
[1:50:52] And what we're trying to convey, and I think we've been clear about it, is we're in the
[1:50:58] market.
[1:50:58] We honestly believe that it has to start with residential.
[1:51:04] There has to be that quantum, that threshold, that accounting is scheduled to drive a
[1:51:11] like this to get the city what it wants in terms of the economics and actually what's in the
[1:51:16] complaint and that does call for density. And so I do think that condition is different
[1:51:22] than it was in 2016 and even what was last year. I mean people that people that try to get a
[1:51:30] handle on the office market today to understand some landlords, people in the least business,
[1:51:36] aren't even sure they can legally collect rent until recently, I guess, and so, you know,
[1:51:44] I don't, I'm not, I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you that we've had dialogue,
[1:51:49] but nobody, nobody's ever said, yeah, this means this number would meet our complaint.
[1:51:53] This number of office and commercial would meet our needs.
[1:51:59] This number of residential would be acceptable.
[1:52:02] that is not concerned and we were told to come to this process to have dialogue on those key
[1:52:09] issues and start with the land plan. And so that is what that's what we tried to do and that is the
[1:52:15] conversation we have last. And Mr. Kulture, I would like to ask you a couple clarifying questions
[1:52:22] because your feedback, you gave us very specific feedback on this land plan and
[1:52:30] And one of the things you said, I think, to clarify was that, you know, you don't want to see five stories. That is in the
[1:52:38] complaint, but you don't want to see five stories. But you did say, you've got a fight or a little bit. I believe by saying that it might work, you know,
[1:52:45] if it was a whole, you know, limited to being a long-high street. And I just, I want to, you know, ask about that. But also,
[1:52:53] height is how we save open space, height limits the footprint of a building on the earth so
[1:53:01] that we can have more open space. So height is where it's acceptable where it could work,
[1:53:05] how we could work it in, is something that does help on the amoeba of getting more open space.
[1:53:12] And so, you know, that is the kind of thing we want to sit down if we can do right now. If
[1:53:18] that this is our opportunity to go to that point
[1:53:21] that if we have height, and by the way,
[1:53:24] we do have 420 single floor living with elevators,
[1:53:30] at least one in 20, some of our time homes are also flats.
[1:53:34] But every one of the apartments is single floor living
[1:53:37] with elevator service.
[1:53:39] But I guess my point, my main point, is height
[1:53:42] is also a solution where it can work.
[1:53:45] And did you say, as a clarifying question,
[1:53:47] I'm asking, did you say it might work a long-high street
[1:53:50] if it was limited there?
[1:53:53] Oh, qualify.
[1:53:55] I do not want to see five stories on the interior.
[1:53:58] I can't make that any more clear.
[1:54:00] I hope you understand that.
[1:54:03] We have looked at various scenarios for a long high street.
[1:54:10] Even at the country,
[1:54:14] high street stories, maybe they didn't make it
[1:54:16] out, I don't agree with it.
[1:54:18] It's not something that I would just cut watch, it's important.
[1:54:21] So yeah, if you came in with a five-story, it automatically agree and approve it.
[1:54:26] Part of it comes down to the architecture, part of it comes down to it.
[1:54:29] Does it really need to build five stories, part of it comes down to how does it fit in with the other properties up and down high street?
[1:54:37] I'm not in love with five story goings within almost the heart of Worlington's Mr. Faust pointed out when he was giving his considerations.
[1:54:49] This and one other property were linked to are the two largest single properties we have left to see development.
[1:54:56] Yours just has to be coming first. Yours is also more prominent with its
[1:55:01] Visibility on high street and visibility to the downtown square and everything that
[1:55:06] Anybody coming through for lunch and this is going to see.
[1:55:10] So, I would disagree with you that you have to have quite the density.
[1:55:15] the density, it's just too many numbers of apartments.
[1:55:20] That's why I raised the question a few minutes ago.
[1:55:22] If you took your five-story apartment buildings and you took those down to three stories,
[1:55:28] what's the number of apartments does that lead you and can you make that financially work?
[1:55:34] I don't know the answer to that.
[1:55:35] You have to answer that.
[1:55:37] You've got numbers that you're going to have to run that at some point in time you just
[1:55:41] said, you know, we just can't do anything here.
[1:55:44] I don't want to get to that point. I want to get to the point where we can work with the
[1:55:49] density. We need more comfortable with it. It doesn't have to be down as low numbers. I would like to be.
[1:55:54] I'm willing to compromise on that. But the first question is if you take those two five-story
[1:55:59] apartment buildings and you make them into three stories, what does that 420 become?
[1:56:04] is a 3A is a 360 what is that number so yeah I can I'm just I'm not in love with five
[1:56:15] story buildings and rather than to honor when you get along you know I'm pretty
[1:56:19] like what we recently looked at up on 270
[1:56:27] oh speak for myself just a chair but
[1:56:30] that's clear hopeful productive guys and a very much appreciated okay I
[1:56:38] I didn't do anything right.
[1:56:40] Oh, thank you.
[1:56:43] And I, you know, I just, my only comment in response is, you know,
[1:56:47] that's something that maybe we'll take a look at and we'll have to study.
[1:56:54] The other side of it is we, again, we have to also hit a mark where we are attracting the office
[1:57:02] and the restaurant and the services and the other dynamics.
[1:57:05] But that is the key to the attention here in that marketplace, in that business plan, how much we have to answer how much is enough to attract with the city once there in terms of that income tax and that employment.
[1:57:23] I appreciate that. I agree with that comment.
[1:57:25] Yeah. So, it's a get-in-taining.
[1:57:34] You know, the only other thing I'd like to ask about for myself is we tried really hard to have an open space plan that opens up the site to the neighborhoods.
[1:57:45] That was a very clear comment we got in our award meetings, in our other community meetings that were close-off.
[1:57:52] We put a green space on the perimeter and opened up parts of the site.
[1:58:00] I think the comment we've heard today is more about additional aggregation, but is that
[1:58:06] is opening up a site like that at those key entrances for pedestrians, is that something
[1:58:12] that you favor?
[1:58:13] Is that appropriate?
[1:58:14] Would we hit the mark on that part of that open space plan?
[1:58:20] Yeah, for me personally, I like the idea of opening it up, but I couldn't see an up detail
[1:58:26] to completely understand it.
[1:58:28] So the idea is good for me.
[1:58:33] I just would need to get more information.
[1:58:35] When you say you're opening it up, what exactly does that mean?
[1:58:39] I did appreciate the fact that you pulled the two apartment projects
[1:58:43] in a more away from the homes on the Long Call of Lairmer.
[1:58:50] Yeah, I'm closer to the high street out there.
[1:58:52] That was good.
[1:58:53] But it still just the height issue for me.
[1:58:56] You know, the fact that you've got a large number of homes in there are units that are one story.
[1:59:05] I like that.
[1:59:07] I couldn't tell from the land plan.
[1:59:09] What that was, that was good information for me.
[1:59:13] That makes me feel a bit more comfortable about it.
[1:59:17] So, you know, obviously there's work to do.
[1:59:23] Thank you.
[1:59:26] Does anybody else have any questions or comments?
[1:59:31] Yeah, this is Dave. I'll add one more specific since that seems to be something that's
[1:59:39] appropriate and desired. My specific is this. The proposed entrance or exit off of
[1:59:47] evening street, I would support that only if it were a call the sack that led to smaller
[1:59:54] or single family homes in that area, I will not.
[2:00:00] Any circumstances support a development that allows a way to cut through from high street over to evening street.
[2:00:08] If it's open into the center of that, I can't do that. I cannot get behind that under any circumstances.
[2:00:16] That's just one person. Let me be real clear on that one.
[2:00:20] And I think that the real issue there is if you look where even these three elementary school is you look where the sidewalks are along there.
[2:00:31] I live on even these three four houses down from the intersection 161 and Kathy I know it's just around the court.
[2:00:38] aiming street is just a huge traffic jam
[2:00:42] at certain times of the day.
[2:00:45] And you've got little kids running around,
[2:00:48] you know, the teachers do a wonderful job
[2:00:50] to watch them, the parents do a wonderful job of watching them.
[2:00:54] But we've got enough traffic on aiming street
[2:00:56] without opening it up to the entire development.
[2:00:59] So I think the idea that Mr. Faust is putting forward
[2:01:03] of having a road coming off into the development
[2:01:07] It can work if it's called a sec type situation where it's not feeding the entire development.
[2:01:13] It's the perhaps just that Southwest corner or just that western side.
[2:01:17] And I thought that we had talked about that in the past,
[2:01:24] but I'm not sure where it went,
[2:01:25] but it's not a completely new idea of that, yeah, I do appreciate your Mr. Faust to say,
[2:01:34] anybody else?
[2:01:37] I agree with that with the things through making it a call to set to you.
[2:01:42] I don't think that we should have cut through from high street or any of the businesses that are located in that area to be able to exit on high street or on evening street.
[2:02:02] I think the same thing applies to Lairmer, and so whether that ends up being a right turn only out of the developments so that they have to go out into high street, but it's the same issue with Lairmer.
[2:02:16] So whether they come out on the evening street or the good Lairmer, and they cut it over on the evening street, it's really the same issue for me.
[2:02:22] So I have tremendous concerns about running traffic through those residential areas.
[2:02:30] And to be fair to lifestyle, a final traffic plan has not been done or has been requested
[2:02:37] because we still have a ways to get through before it would make sense for them to do that.
[2:02:45] So, you know, I think a traffic plan certainly will be needed and required further down the road
[2:02:51] it not in the immediate future.
[2:02:57] Is there anybody else on the board of the commission or
[2:03:00] lifestyle or anybody out in the community that would like to offer any more comments?
[2:03:09] Okay,
[2:03:09] not hearing any. Mr. Hart, we need to know how you want to proceed with this. Do you want us to
[2:03:16] call for a vote? What does it do you want to do?
[2:03:21] Nice Mr. Chair, right? We would we would appreciate the
[2:03:25] table into a date, sir, so there's some certainty in terms of the next
[2:03:29] hearing. We might do feel like you've got substantive feedback tonight
[2:03:35] that we can and we would update the application. I think realistically with the
[2:03:41] holidays,
[2:03:44] you know, February, February meeting would probably make sense
[2:03:47] because it was a lot of fun with the holiday time.
[2:03:51] But we would appreciate the idea.
[2:03:56] And I'll date some of the technical information
[2:03:59] that goes with the plan, you know, for instance,
[2:04:02] the issue is what you need in my armor
[2:04:04] to take a look at those from the traffic traffic.
[2:04:16] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faust,
[2:04:20] you know,
[2:04:20] every time we've had a big development before us,
[2:04:23] and we've table it and the developer, not this specific developer,
[2:04:27] but in general, the developers have come back to us and with very minor changes and said
[2:04:34] we've listened to you, we've made all these changes here. They are and we're looking at
[2:04:38] 90 or 95 percent of what we looked at before. And I think we need something so entirely different
[2:04:46] here that I think to avoid that, I would recommend that's my understanding from staff that we have
[2:04:52] this right this decision that instead of tabling this we get it off the table and start
[2:04:58] fresh with a whole new proposal and I would recommend that we we vote on
[2:05:08] and I'm willing to
[2:05:09] make that proposal or the motion that's necessary if you choose to go that way.
[2:05:18] When the applicant has asked for it to be tabled or narrowly what would happen and Mr. Brown
[2:05:25] our correct, if I'm wrong, is we would ask for a motion to table and if we do not get a motion to table, then we would do a boat up or down.
[2:05:34] Yes, sir. The only thing I would ask if we do, if board decides to go, or the commission decides to go towards a table, we know the applications.
[2:05:44] The date, sir, and I think is needed, just we don't have this drag out for months or years for now.
[2:05:50] I understand what Mr. Hart is saying now, I think we originally had thought, you know, the first of January would be a great time to bring it back, but with the holidays
[2:05:59] If there's going to be some substantial work on this, I think the first meeting in February at the latest would be
[2:06:07] What you would want to look for
[2:06:10] If someone, if that ends up being the idea to take one, just look at that date, be February 10th
[2:06:18] I think, you know, as you said, you guys have the option tonight to, well I don't think we would have information to approve, but you have the option to table or to deny, and then if it's denied, it then goes on to counsel with the recommendation of denial.
[2:06:33] If you table I think we need to do it to a date certain so that we can get some of this information changed and get it out to the public as soon as we would get it, so that we can have substantial time to review.
[2:06:49] Sir, if we do not get a motion to table, we do do a upper-down vote, it ultimately goes back to council, is that what I'm hearing?
[2:07:02] Yes, sir, City Council has the final say, if you do a yes vote or no vote, City Council.
[2:07:08] Okay, fine, I'll say.
[2:07:09] All right.
[2:07:13] Does anybody on the board have any questions about what we've just talked about, tabling or voting up or down?
[2:07:20] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Foster, I would assess what is Zoom meeting and it's difficult to see who's saying yay and who's saying
[2:07:30] Nay, I would be appropriate to have city staff do all of the members if we vote to table.
[2:07:38] So we just are. They know how many there are each way for sure.
[2:07:43] Yeah, I would ask for an start with, we should try to start with the actual NPC application.
[2:07:50] Because of that one, for the table, it's kind of a given the Airbnb table, or if it goes to a vote, we at least have that one going first.
[2:08:01] All right, so they've had it again.
[2:08:03] I would do the planning commission case first, the PUD versus the Airbnb application.
[2:08:12] In the PUD is the zoning?
[2:08:14] Yes, sir.
[2:08:16] Mr. Chairman?
[2:08:18] Yes.
[2:08:18] I just want to comment for the record to be to be recommended for denial on a concept
[2:08:29] plan where we don't have the full application in front of you with all the technical
[2:08:34] details. And we talked to the city about coming to plenty of missions to have dialogue.
[2:08:41] To be denied recommended denial after that is it's not fair. It doesn't mean basic
[2:08:47] to process equal protection standards. It's not collaborative. There are citizens in your community
[2:08:54] that want us to have a collaborative process on this site, not going to stand out and
[2:09:02] send us packing on a concept plan. This is not consistent with that requesting collaboration.
[2:09:14] Well, I'm concerned that what will be interpreted here if it's table is that this board in this community
[2:09:21] fully support the concept with some minor changes. That's the way this over the years gets
[2:09:28] interpreted and that's why I suggested that we get it off the table and start fresh with
[2:09:35] the new proposals.
[2:09:39] That's just my experience on this board. If the rest of the board members
[2:09:43] choose not to do that, I understand that perfectly well.
[2:09:51] So at this point, I will ask for a motion to table.
[2:09:57] Do I have a motion to table?
[2:10:04] I don't hear a motion.
[2:10:06] So from there, we go to a boat either up or down.
[2:10:10] So we'll do the plan unit development first.
[2:10:13] It's redevelopment at 1033 high street.
[2:10:16] It's application PUD03-2020.
[2:10:20] do I have a motion please? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faust moves a three-quest by Thomas Sardon
[2:10:27] behalf of lifestyle communities for approval to rezone the property at 10-32 high-speed
[2:10:34] 47-larm revenue and 57-larm revenue for the legal description provided showing 37.843 acres
[2:10:42] As a planned unit development, as per case number PUD03, there's 2020 drawings, number PUD03,
[2:10:51] there's 2020, there's September 9th, 2021.
[2:10:56] You recommended the City Council for approval based on the planning goals of the city,
[2:11:01] the Dero Prince, and the land use plans, and on the findings of facts and conclusions
[2:11:05] in the staff memo and presented at the meeting.
[2:11:08] Thank you.
[2:11:09] Go ahead and a second.
[2:11:17] Cathy Holkins, second.
[2:11:19] Thank you.
[2:11:22] It's been moved by Mr. Faust, seconded by Mr.
[2:11:25] It's all come.
[2:11:26] Could you please call the roll?
[2:11:27] Mr. Colter, one thing before we do call the roll.
[2:11:30] As I do want to remind the board members,
[2:11:33] whether you vote yes or you vote no.
[2:11:36] You need to tie your recommendation or your vote back to what's outlined in the staff
[2:11:45] the mail and the the items we discussed and I need to reference why you're
[2:11:49] voting. So with that I'll make the roll call Mr. Rice. I think I've already
[2:11:55] said enough and enough has been said this evening. I don't think we're there yet and
[2:12:02] I vote no.
[2:12:07] Mrs. Holcomb.
[2:12:11] I'm gonna say the same thing. I feel that we need
[2:12:14] information to make this feasible. My vote is no.
[2:12:23] Mr. Faust, my vote is no because I think we need
[2:12:27] the development plan that really supports that New England village concept that the community
[2:12:37] has committed to push forward.
[2:12:44] And Mr. Culture.
[2:12:46] I vote now for the reasons I've given earlier, having to do what height the building's density of the green space is used in the diversity of housing.
[2:12:58] So that means the motion has failed.
[2:13:03] We'll go back to the architectural review board under the regular agenda for the redevelopment of 1033 high street.
[2:13:09] It's application AR-78-2020.
[2:13:14] Is there anybody who wants to have any further discussion?
[2:13:19] No, I don't have a question.
[2:13:21] Mr. Culture, Mr. Culture, I have a question.
[2:13:24] Since this was a conceptual discussion,
[2:13:26] we really don't have any of the information necessary.
[2:13:30] I think to make an architecture review decision.
[2:13:36] So I'm not sure how we handle that,
[2:13:38] But based on what we've seen, I guess I'm a little confused and need some direction.
[2:13:46] I think since the planning commission has recommended the denial of the overall rezoning
[2:13:52] of the property that once we go out to the BRB board, I'm not telling you how to vote,
[2:14:00] but it would make logical sense that if you denied the PUD, you would not want to approve
[2:14:07] the architecture because as you said it's it's not complete okay
[2:14:14] so do I have a
[2:14:15] motion to table
[2:14:20] not hearing one can I have a motion for the I am as it
[2:14:27] stated in the memorandum. Mr. Dennis Mr. Faust I don't think we have a written ARV
[2:14:39] proposal in there. But I would move. We can do it in general that in the usual language that the architectural design is going to do us for the current plans information at the city meeting and discussions be approved or be.
[2:15:00] Be approved.
[2:15:06] Do I have a second?
[2:15:08] Good night. Second, Tom Rice.
[2:15:12] Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Faust. Second, if I Mr. Rice, could you please call the roll?
[2:15:17] Mr. Schuster?
[2:15:19] No.
[2:15:20] Mrs. Height, my note is again based on the comments I made in the presentation.
[2:15:26] Thank you, sir.
[2:15:28] Mrs. Height?
[2:15:29] No. Okay, Tom, play this conversation.
[2:15:33] Mrs. Holcomb?
[2:15:35] No, based on that enough information.
[2:15:40] Mr. Rice?
[2:15:45] Low for all the reasons that we've talked about this all the time.
[2:15:49] Thank you, Mr. Faust.
[2:15:52] No, based on the reason stated for the PUD denial
[2:15:57] and Mr. Colter.
[2:16:00] Now only because that we did see some examples of the type of architecture that they're proposing
[2:16:07] and I saw some things that I did like. There are some things I didn't saw that I didn't like
[2:16:12] and we really didn't get into a deep enough community make a final decision. So that means this
[2:16:18] is failed.
[2:16:21] Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr Brown, but that's now going forward to City Council with
[2:16:27] ARB and NPCs recommendations and they will have the same where it goes from there.
[2:16:32] Yes, sir, the PD will now go on to City Council for final review or applicant has the opportunity to withdraw.
[2:16:44] Okay, board does.
[2:16:47] All right, thank you.
[2:16:49] So that concludes our business for the architectural review board under regular agenda.
[2:16:53] It also concludes our business for the municipal planning commission for unfinished business.
[2:16:57] We will now get into the architectural review board under the regular agenda.
[2:17:02] Again, for unfinished business, it's a new building at 6700 North High Street, it's application
[2:17:10] ARB 79-2021, and we will need a motion to take this off the table as that crack.
[2:17:17] We need to take this and the next two items off the table. They're all under unfinished business.
[2:17:25] for L.C.M.B.
[2:17:27] I don't know, Charles.
[2:17:30] One moment, please.
[2:17:31] Since these all have to do with the same property, can we do it under one?
[2:17:35] Though, or do we have to do this?
[2:17:36] If two cleaning commission members make the motions then yes.
[2:17:40] Okay.
[2:17:43] I heard Mr. Rice making motion.
[2:17:46] Okay.
[2:17:46] Gabba.
[2:17:50] All those in favor say aye.
[2:17:53] Opposed?
[2:17:55] Okay.
[2:17:56] Bear off the table.
[2:17:57] So we'll go with the first one, the new building at 6700 North High Street, its application ARB-79-2021.
[2:18:06] But we'll also be discussing the others too, so you would read us off the agenda.
[2:18:12] I would be happy to thank you.
[2:18:14] I'm a municipal planning commission portion on unfinished business.
[2:18:18] The first item would be amendment to the development plan for a new building at 6700 North High Street.
[2:18:24] It's application ADP 07-2021 and also in conjunction with there would be conditional use permit for driving bank at 6700 north high street.
[2:18:37] It's application CU 07-2021
[2:18:44] we are just now having our applicant team join in so I'll start my presentation and then they can
[2:18:56] Hopefully, come in when they need to speak.
[2:19:02] So if you recall, we already discussed this proposal to redevelop this southern portion of the site into LC and B Bank.
[2:19:18] At the last meeting, you looked at two different versions of a site plan.
[2:19:22] One had building at 50 feet, set back from high street.
[2:19:30] And the other was at 100 feet from high street.
[2:19:40] The couple members of the board expressed the desire to have it sit back at that 50 foot that back.
[2:19:52] And so that's what the applicant came back with
[2:19:58] on this proposal.
[2:20:02] And after some members of city staff in the community looks at it, they felt that maybe a
[2:20:12] good compromise position rather than going all the way back to a hundred feet would be to put
[2:20:17] it at 70 feet. So, at the last minute we asked the applicant to provide a site plan showing
[2:20:23] the 70-foot set back. I have it represented here with these blue lines and the green dots.
[2:20:36] I wanted to show you what this looks like. The fire department, of course, is very close
[2:20:42] to the right of way. And then we have FC Bank, just north of City Hall, that's at 70 feet.
[2:20:52] The other setbacks along the stretch of North High Street vary quite a bit.
[2:20:58] This is where it would be at 70 feet here.
[2:21:03] Also though a little bit further north we have CF bank that is at 50 feet and you can see
[2:21:11] not every building is right at 100 feet.
[2:21:14] We go a little bit further a little bit closer so there's a little bit of variety already
[2:21:19] on North High Street, it seems that a 70-foot setback would not harm the open feel of high
[2:21:28] street yet would bring them the building, maybe a little bit closer than the 100-foot
[2:21:33] setback for to give a little bit better pedestrian feel.
[2:21:38] So they're asking you to decide tonight, there are willing to put the building at any of
[2:21:45] three locations. And the parking is basically the same. They have preserved this rear portion
[2:21:54] of the site with the existing landscaping and trees, and there's a wall that exists there.
[2:22:00] That will remain as is, and they will be adding more landscaping along the rear.
[2:22:06] But the parking would basically look like this. At the 100 foot option, it changes a little bit in
[2:22:14] there's there are double base of parking on the north side rather than any behind the building,
[2:22:23] but that would be the the main difference.
[2:22:30] So, at the last meeting, we talked about they had a stone finish here and they have now changed that to brick.
[2:22:40] They've changed the style of the rail to be a little bit more, in keeping with the style of building.
[2:22:49] They have done some work to get the windows to be more in proportion with each other.
[2:23:00] I think the key is that some of these spots, especially at the corner columns, these need to be more vertically oriented to match the other windows that are along the building.
[2:23:15] And so that's the only tweak that I think we're still recommending with this windows.
[2:23:24] We thought that the halo lit sign was appropriate for this building.
[2:23:33] We do now also have specifications on the freestanding sign and there are a couple different
[2:23:42] options on that as well.
[2:23:44] This is as originally proposed and you can see it has two columns on the sides because of the overall size of this.
[2:23:55] It would be well over what the code allows.
[2:23:59] The style seems to be pretty complimentary to the building however.
[2:24:05] This is another option that was presented.
[2:24:09] And again, it's a little bit over what the code would allow for signage, but they've also
[2:24:19] agreed to reduce the size of this, keeping the base the size it is, but reducing the actual
[2:24:26] sign part so that it would meet the code, so it'd be smaller than this option that you see
[2:24:35] here. So it stepped in, feel like it was a problem to have this that's slightly over
[2:24:45] code. This one's probably a little bit bigger and a little bit more out of character.
[2:24:52] Or if it exactly met code and was smaller than this, that would be fine too. So maybe
[2:24:57] the board has a preference on that. The directional signs, they're only two of them, and
[2:25:02] do meet the code requirements. So we are fine with that. Also on this freestyling sign, they
[2:25:07] have agreed to also do halo lit letters. So that would match what is up on the building.
[2:25:21] This is the landscape plan. We did have a resident that pointed out that not all of the
[2:25:37] receive this revised document that we sent out by email to you, but this seems to be more
[2:25:45] appropriate also our city artist recommended different species of maple tree
[2:25:53] based on the soil that we have here. So they've made that change as well. This is the
[2:26:02] lighting plan. As you can see they're proposing lights around the perimeter and
[2:26:08] and a couple in the island of the parking lot and then some up on the front near the ramp and the walkway to the right of way.
[2:26:21] The parking lot lights are all this basic style.
[2:26:26] They will have shields on them so that the light source can't be seen from off the property and so that the spill of light doesn't extend.
[2:26:37] on the property lines. They are proposed to be 4,000 K and color temperature, which is the
[2:26:46] same that has been improved at other properties along North High Street and specifically
[2:26:52] bank properties.
[2:26:56] They originally were proposing poles that were 15 feet in height and they
[2:27:00] reduces to 12 foot high poles. The concrete bases will not be exposed, so we don't need to worry about
[2:27:10] them being painted. They'll just be in ground.
[2:27:15] This is the style of fixture,
[2:27:18] in pole that will be on the three light fixtures that are at the front along the front walkway of the building.
[2:27:26] So, a little bit more decorative,
[2:27:31] and then this is what's proposed for those corner features near the entrances and to match on the south side as well.
[2:27:42] They do have a couple wall packs on the back that should be pretty unuptrusive,
[2:27:48] and then they would have these lights up in the canopy that's both the drive through lanes.
[2:28:00] So that is the new information, I think we talked about before that the drive through, which requires the conditional use, is there's plenty of room for stacking on the site that it shouldn't cause any sort of issues or problems and that there are appearances needed for the placement of the new building,
[2:28:29] which is closer to the front if you go with the 50 or 70 foot set back and closer to the south side then the code would allow.
[2:28:46] So you could talk about placement of the building and then also the options for the free standing sign that would be helpful.
[2:28:54] All
[2:28:58] right. Thank you. Do we have an applicant with us tonight?
[2:29:10] Is anybody from the bank on? If you are on the
[2:29:15] ourselves? Yeah, do star six. The station name and address for the record please.
[2:29:31] Does it sound like our applicant is with us yet?
[2:29:34] So if they join us, let's go ahead and have the discussion. So board members, questions or comments?
[2:29:50] Anybody?
[2:29:50] Yeah, I was one of the ones that raised question last time about to set back with all the
[2:29:59] woneries.
[2:30:00] Nice trees. We have running up and down high street and I would rather see 70 than 50. I think it creates a little more consistency along there and it may help set the precedent that will assist us on future projects.
[2:30:20] Anybody else?
[2:30:23] I agree. I think it's kind of a happy medium between them and helps mitigate some of the really large setbacks.
[2:30:30] Yeah, I tend to like the 70 feet because I think it gives the opportunity to put some nicer
[2:30:35] larger trees perhaps in the front.
[2:30:41] Does anybody have any thoughts on the sign and the two options for
[2:30:46] the sign and this is to our percentage?
[2:30:53] Well, what are the options that she said they're comfortable with? There's the one that actually meets code.
[2:31:00] We don't have a picture of the option that meets code. It's slightly smaller than that second option.
[2:31:06] I showed you that it doesn't have the pillars on the sides.
[2:31:10] Yeah. Oh, sorry.
[2:31:14] Comment on the one which the kind of two pillars on the side.
[2:31:19] It makes me think of the one that we just went through at the former Wendy's,
[2:31:22] where if and when the building changed one day and the brick gets filled in.
[2:31:28] So why would you choose the one where we don't have a fill in issue a couple decades on the road?
[2:31:34] That is the reason for that.
[2:31:36] That is the reason for that.
[2:31:36] That is the reason for that.
[2:31:37] That is the reason for that.
[2:31:38] Someone will remember the brand.
[2:31:40] Or look at the minutes now.
[2:31:41] That's my only talk on that.
[2:31:43] Other one is, you know, if and when the box of the sign were to change.
[2:31:46] Think kind about that building.
[2:31:47] I was your architect.
[2:31:53] All right.
[2:31:53] I tend to agree with that comment.
[2:31:56] Any other questions or comments?
[2:32:00] Mr. Gantar, we have emails from in or is there anybody on the line that would like to speak about this project?
[2:32:06] We have not had any emails come in, I don't think anyone's on the line waiting to provide any comment to you there.
[2:32:15] All right, thank you.
[2:32:16] Did anybody from the bank were you able to dial in or...
[2:32:21] I have not seen a man unless they're on the phone.
[2:32:25] They can press star 6 to join the meeting.
[2:32:29] If they have the link, I was in communication with them, not a couple hours ago, and they were planning to join the meeting at nine, and I don't know what the problem is.
[2:32:42] Weather conditions.
[2:32:43] But they're willing to go with whichever setback you want, and whichever signs.
[2:32:49] All right.
[2:32:50] There are other issues after trying to.
[2:32:53] Board members any other comments before somebody makes a motion.
[2:32:59] All right, could I have a motion,
[2:33:06] please? Mr. Rice?
[2:33:13] I'm also, I'm also going to prove the 70 foot set back and I don't have a problem with either sign. What can I have the option?
[2:33:23] All right, do I have a second?
[2:33:29] Bows for a second. Thank you.
[2:33:33] I've been moved by Mr. Rice, saying that by Mr. Faust, there was an amendment for the 70 foot set back and to give the bank the option of either sign.
[2:33:43] as long as they're met with staffs, recommendations,
[2:33:49] could you please call them all?
[2:33:51] Mr. Colt, I just also would remind everyone since this is, over to the AirB first, sorry.
[2:33:56] I'll say where we get to the minimum to development plan.
[2:33:58] We just need to remember there's variants associated with that.
[2:34:03] Um, with that, this is Holcomb?
[2:34:07] Yes.
[2:34:08] Mrs. Hines?
[2:34:09] Yes.
[2:34:10] Mr. Schuster?
[2:34:11] Yes.
[2:34:12] Mr. Rice? Yes. Mr. Faust? Yes. And Mr. Culture? Yes, that's passed. Now moving on to municipal planning
[2:34:24] commission under unfinished business. The first thing that we will address is the amendment
[2:34:28] to the development plan. It's for a new building at 6700 north-high street. It's application
[2:34:34] to 80p 0, 7 batch, 20, 21, is there any further discussion that we need to have on that?
[2:34:41] I would just highlight the variances again, that's for placement of the building in the required
[2:34:48] front and side yards, that's the south side, and it will be if you're seeing that you're
[2:34:57] of the sign-with-out-the-side columns, but the one with the plain brick base that is
[2:35:04] a slightly larger than what code would allow.
[2:35:10] Any further discussion?
[2:35:17] Can I have a motion please?
[2:35:29] Mr. Rice, you still wear this?
[2:35:31] I'm looking forward to asking it.
[2:35:33] Thank you.
[2:35:35] The amendment to the development plan motion that could request by William Arbelly,
[2:35:39] architect for an amendment to development plan, approval to construct a new building for LCNB at 6760700 North High Street S for Case Number ADP 07-2021 Drawings Number ADP 07-21
[2:35:56] twenty twenty one dated October the 14th twenty twenty one to be recommended to the city council for approval and based on the planning goals of the city as reference in a land use plan
[2:36:06] the land use plans and the findings affecting the approaches of the staff memo and
[2:36:11] and presented at the beginning and also a 70 foot we're going to agree on a 70
[2:36:15] foot setback and the sign without the columns is that what we're saying or without the
[2:36:24] columns.
[2:36:27] Is that correct? Yes, man. Correct.
[2:36:32] That there will be a variance for the size required.
[2:36:35] Okay.
[2:36:37] All right, do I have a second?
[2:36:41] Bows full second.
[2:36:43] Thank you.
[2:36:45] It's been moved by Mrs. Holcomb as amended.
[2:36:48] And the second by Mr. Faust.
[2:36:49] Could you please call the roll?
[2:36:51] Mr. Race.
[2:36:54] Yes.
[2:36:55] Mrs. Holcomb?
[2:36:56] Yes.
[2:36:57] Mr. Faust?
[2:36:58] Yes.
[2:36:58] Mr. Colter.
[2:37:00] Yes.
[2:37:01] It's past.
[2:37:01] Thank you.
[2:37:03] We'll move on to the next item for the bank.
[2:37:05] It's conditional use permit for a drive-in bank at 6700 North High Street.
[2:37:10] It's application CUs 07-2021.
[2:37:14] I don't think we need a lot of discussions as we talked about this for several meetings.
[2:37:19] We know what it's going to be.
[2:37:20] So could I have a motion please?
[2:37:22] Unless anybody has something, they want to say.
[2:37:26] Now Mr. Chairman, sir.
[2:37:30] Mr. Rice seems to have a lot of background noise every time he comes on. I would go ahead and did his place and make the motion to read the three-quest by William Belly Architect for a conditional use permit while a drive in bank of 167 Northeastern, as the case number C is 07, 2021, drawings, number C is 07, 07, 2021, dated October 14th of 2021. The approach based on the planning goals of the city is referenced in the land use.
[2:38:00] plans and the findings of fact and conclusions and staff on low and presented at the media.
[2:38:06] Thank you. Do I have a second?
[2:38:08] Kevin Hawkins.
[2:38:13] It's been moved by Mr. Cast.
[2:38:14] Second, my Mrs. Hawkins. Could you please call the roll?
[2:38:17] Mr. Rice.
[2:38:19] Yes. Mrs. Hawkins?
[2:38:21] Yes. Mr. Faust?
[2:38:23] Yes.
[2:38:24] Mr. Colter.
[2:38:25] Yes. It's past.
[2:38:26] Thank you, everyone.
[2:38:29] That includes all of our business and the unfinished business for municipal planning
[2:38:34] commission.
[2:38:35] We'll now move on to municipal planning commission for new business and, surprisingly,
[2:38:39] it's a subdivision.
[2:38:41] It's preliminary in final class,
[2:38:43] 6700, or a high street.
[2:38:45] It's application SUV 007 and 08-2021.
[2:38:53] So this original parcel has nine taxing parcels,
[2:38:57] But because all of them were under common ownership in 1971, under our code, we have considered that this as all-one parcel.
[2:39:09] So what they are asking to do is take this larger parcel that you see here and divide it into two separate lots.
[2:39:17] lot one is made up of two parcels that are down on that south end for LCND and then lot
[2:39:25] two would be the rest of it. So seven other lots and this is what the final plot looks like.
[2:39:32] Both lots meet our code requirements for a lot with EMLOT area and so we think this is a good way to
[2:39:47] get this cleaned up, and they know they want to be able to transfer this parcel to LCNB.
[2:39:57] So that's the main driver behind this.
[2:40:00] All right.
[2:40:03] I assume the bank isn't with us yet.
[2:40:06] Mr. Myers, the property owner, I believe this is in the call.
[2:40:12] Mr. Myers, are you with us?
[2:40:18] I tell
[2:40:21] someone, I must be Scott Meyer.
[2:40:25] Well, this is Bob Meyer.
[2:40:30] This is Bob Meyer.
[2:40:32] And I am on telephone.
[2:40:34] I haven't been able to get in on my iPad.
[2:40:37] So I think I have maybe the problem with the bank representative as well.
[2:40:42] But I'm down on the Gulf Coast.
[2:40:44] I thought it might be in my geographic dilemma.
[2:40:49] But I'm here by telephone.
[2:40:51] All right. Well, I don't know if you've heard the other parts of the municipal planning
[2:40:57] commission in ARP that we've already talked about, but all of them have passed so far.
[2:41:03] So the only thing that we're left is the subdivision.
[2:41:07] But everything else is.
[2:41:09] I have been able to hear that.
[2:41:14] And we also, Dan O'Hare is perhaps on the telephonic line, and I believe our engineering
[2:41:21] represented it as well, and Drew Myers, I believe, is telephonicly, but I think they all
[2:41:27] had some difficulty getting into the Zoom conference.
[2:41:34] Let's see if any members of the commission have any questions that we may need clarification on.
[2:41:40] I think when did it a pretty good job of describing issues
[2:41:43] as it currently is today and in what everybody was working
[2:41:46] to get towards?
[2:41:48] So does anybody on the board or the commission
[2:41:51] have any questions for Mr. Myers or any of his other folks?
[2:41:59] Now, okay, not here in any questions, Mr. Gantar,
[2:42:03] have we had any emails concerning this application this evening?
[2:42:06] We have not received any emails, sir.
[2:42:09] Okay, thank you.
[2:42:10] Not here in any questions or having any emails?
[2:42:14] Could I have a motion please?
[2:42:17] Mr. Chairman, I'm with a three-quest by Advanced Civil Design Inc.
[2:42:21] For approval to submit sub-divided property at 6,700, North High Street, as for case number,
[2:42:27] SUV 07-2021, Drawing Sumber, SUV 07-2021, dated September 30th, 2021.
[2:42:35] We recommend it to the City Council for the approval based on the Penningles of the City
[2:42:40] Yes, reference in the land use plans and the findings affecting conclusions of staff memo and presented at the meeting.
[2:42:46] Thank you.
[2:42:46] Do I have a second?
[2:42:51] Pause for a second.
[2:42:54] Thank you.
[2:42:55] Fiddle by Mrs. Hulcomb.
[2:42:57] Second by Mr. Faust.
[2:42:58] Could you please call the roll?
[2:43:00] Mr. Rice.
[2:43:02] Yes.
[2:43:04] Mr. Faust?
[2:43:06] Yes.
[2:43:06] Mrs. Hulcomb?
[2:43:08] Yes.
[2:43:08] Mr. Colter.
[2:43:10] Yes, it's past.
[2:43:11] Mr. Myers, you were successful tonight for everything that you've requested, so we look forward
[2:43:15] to the development of the project in the L.C. and moving across the street.
[2:43:22] Well, thank you all very much, staff and everyone. You've all worked very hard on this. There's been a
[2:43:28] lot involved and I thank you all very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.
[2:43:34] That concludes all of our, yes, sir. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I will say all
[2:43:38] the limited development plan with variances and the subdivision will need to go on to city council
[2:43:45] so it'll likely go to city council at their November
[2:43:49] chronicle the dates real quick
[2:43:52] possibly their November 15th
[2:43:55] meeting at the earliest or their December 6 meeting but hopefully their December or their November 15th meeting
[2:44:02] okay is there anything that they need to submit or is it just
[2:44:07] getting all the paperwork, and that would be good to go.
[2:44:11] All right, thank you.
[2:44:13] That concludes all of the business of the municipal planning commission for new
[2:44:16] business.
[2:44:17] Is there anything else to come in front of the board or commission tonight?
[2:44:22] Yes, sir.
[2:44:24] All right.
[2:44:24] Could I have a motion to adjourn, please?
[2:44:28] So moved.
[2:44:29] Okay.
[2:44:31] Okay.
[2:44:31] It's been moved by Mr. Faust.
[2:44:33] Seconded by Mr. Solcoming.
[2:44:34] All those in favor say aye.
[2:44:37] All right, we are adjourned.
[2:44:39] I just wanted to thank anybody for the discussion that we had on lifestyle.
[2:44:44] Hopefully they got some clear information.
[2:44:47] And it'll be up to City Council where they want to go.
[2:44:51] Thank you, everyone.
[2:44:53] Thank you.