Bexley commission approves landscape plan for 420 N. Cassidy with conditions on vines, irrigation and street trees

The Bexley Tree Commission approved the landscape plan for 420 North Cassidy, a mixed‑use redevelopment of the former senior center, with conditions requiring plant substitutions, an irrigation system and a forestry review of proposed street trees.

Consultant Walter (staff consultant) told the commission the plans show few high‑value existing landscape features but would produce a “net gain in canopy” as new trees mature. He flagged the proposed use of Virginia creeper on trellis structures as problematic, saying the vine “would do a little too well” on a commercial façade and could become “a real hassle” for maintenance crews. The commission’s motion required replacing Virginia creeper with climbing hydrangea or a noninvasive honeysuckle.

The applicant, Community Builders’ Senior Development Project Manager Bill Downing, said the project is part of a long‑standing concept in Bexley and includes 16 residential units at the Cassidy site and a permanent senior center as the commercial component. Pod Design landscape architect Alex Campaneshi said the design team accepted staff recommendations and “are on board with the recommendation for swapping out the Virginia creeper,” and confirmed the developer will irrigate both sites.

Why it matters: the Cassidy site is one of two lots for a two‑site affordable housing project; the landscaping decisions will affect street character, future canopy cover and maintenance responsibilities for the senior center and residential buildings.

Key facts and conditions

- The commission approved the landscape plan with conditions requiring: - Substitution of Virginia creeper on trellis structures with climbing hydrangea or a noninvasive honeysuckle. - Installation of an irrigation system covering planting beds and tree lawns. - Regular supplemental watering for newly planted larger caliper trees (the motion specified attention for 3‑inch caliper trees during establishment). - Return of cut sheets for benches and other site furnishings for later commission review. - Consultation between the developer, the City Forestry Department and the commission’s landscape consultant on whether honey locust is the best street tree choice along Columbus (the developer may substitute a species with Forestry/consultant approval).

Discussion highlights

- Plant selection and long‑term canopy: Walter reviewed species and quantities, saying the plan will likely produce a net canopy gain but urged attention to species selection and long‑term maintenance for tree establishment. - Virginia creeper concerns: Walter cited Ohio State University guidance and local maintenance realities to argue Virginia creeper can be overly vigorous; he recommended climbing hydrangea or noninvasive honeysuckle as alternatives. Pod Design agreed to swap species. - Street trees: commissioners debated honey locusts versus other species for the tree lawn along Columbus; the motion left final selection to the City Forestry Department in consultation with the developer and landscape consultant. - Irrigation and maintenance: Walter emphasized that commercial properties typically require irrigation for plant establishment; the commission made irrigation a condition of approval.

Action and vote

Commission member Jim Wilson moved approval with the conditions listed above; the motion was seconded (Charlotte). The vote was taken by voice; the chair called for ayes, and the motion carried.

Next steps and context

- Staff said the Cassidy application already has conditional use and variance approvals from bZAP and a positive design recommendation from the Architectural Review Board; the project will seek a certificate of appropriateness from bZAP and then submit for building permits. - The Cassidy site counts 16 residential units; the developer stated the broader two‑site project includes a second site on East Livingston (27 units) that was discussed separately at the same meeting.