The Columbus Common Council on Sept. 2 voted 8-0 on first reading to rezoning the property at the southeast corner of Middle Road and Rocky Ford Road from CN (neighborhood commercial) to RM (multifamily residential), clearing the way for a proposed 87‑unit assisted‑living and memory‑care facility by Dover Development to proceed to a second reading.

Jeff Bergman of the planning department described the site and the planning analysis. He said the property has been designated neighborhood commercial since the 1970s but staff and the department's prior studies had identified it as a promising infill site that could suit either multifamily residential or neighborhood commercial uses. Bergman told the council the comprehensive‑plan goals point in both directions: encouraging a diverse housing supply and also supporting neighborhood‑serving commercial locations. He noted the planning commission recommended approval, with an 8‑2 vote, while the planning staff's formal recommendation to council was unfavorable based on the desirability of holding out for neighborhood commercial at that corner.

Bergman said the applicants indicated an assisted‑living and memory‑care facility is the intended use. He outlined constraints and neighborhood factors: the lot would require a type C buffer along the south property line (a total setback of 25 feet and intermittent landscaping) where it abuts single‑family homes in the Cedar Ridge area; part of the eastern side of the site is affected by a Hawk Creek floodplain that crosses Trestle Drive; and primary vehicular access proposed would be from Middle Road with a secondary access from Trestle Drive. He said nearest neighborhood goods are roughly a half‑mile away at Rocky Ford and Central, with larger grocery and commercial services about three‑quarters of a mile to a mile away along U.S. 31.

Nick Dwyer, a representative of the applicant (referred to in the transcript as "Door Development"), described the proposed project as an 87‑unit facility for assisted living and memory care. "A majority of those would be for assisted living," Dwyer said, adding that units are configured as individual apartments (mostly one‑bedroom, one‑bath) with some two‑bedroom units for couples; memory‑care areas would be secured and also comprised of individual apartments. Dwyer said the project would be private‑pay and that the applicant is vertically integrated: the developer also operates and manages similar facilities in about 50 locations in the Midwest. He said the company hopes to break ground this year if rezoning and approvals occur in time, otherwise in spring.

Councilmembers asked about density and use differences between CN and RM. Staff noted RM includes specific residential density standards (the planner cited a maximum of 25 units per acre in RM districts), while CN does not set a comparable residential density cap because its primary uses are commercial. Council discussion included concerns raised earlier at the planning commission and from members of the public about Trestle Drive's condition and floodplain impacts; planning commission testimony was generally supportive at that body’s hearing.

The first reading was moved, seconded and passed on an 8‑0 vote. The council scheduled the matter for a subsequent meeting for second reading and final action. No final site plan, construction timeline or funding commitments were approved at the meeting; staff noted access and floodplain constraints that the applicant must address in the development review and permitting process.

The council received no extended testimony in opposition during this meeting; the planning commission record, however, included public comments both supporting the rezoning and urging caution about site access and local infrastructure maintenance.

The item will return for a second reading where the council will consider final approval following any additional staff or applicant refinements.