Council advances Lockpoint Village rezoning after public hearing, with conditions on roof pitch and porches

Canal Winchester City Council voted on May 5 to send a rezoning and preliminary development plan for a 25.87-acre parcel on Hill Road to the full council, advancing a proposal from Stark Enterprises to develop 122 attached multifamily units under a new planned residential district called Lockpoint Village.

The Planning & Zoning staff report presented the project as a rezoning of property currently covered by an older PRD text adopted in 2001 (Greengates) into a new planned residential district. The developer’s plan proposes 122 apartment units, more than the parcel’s prior base allowances, two Hill Road access points, an internal sidewalk network with at least five connections to the regional Hill Road sidewalk, recreational amenities including a clubhouse, pool and dog park, and more than 240 parking spaces laid out as internal garage, driveway and surface parking.

Planning staff told council the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning map amendment and preliminary development plan concurrently and recommended sending both to council with one condition: the developer should further review two specific deviations — the proposed 4/12 roof pitch (staff and the commission referenced a 6/12 standard in the Residential Appearance Standards) and a reduction in minimum front porch dimensions (applicant requests 5-by-8 feet versus the 7-by-10 feet standard cited in the appearance standards) before final development-plan submittal. Staff said the applicant has committed to preserve existing tree lines along the site’s east and south boundaries “to the extent possible” and that the preliminary plan shows a minimum of 30% open space measured against gross site area (excluding publicly dedicated streets and alleys), which staff said exceeds a 20% baseline in another zoning subsection.

Jason Kulick, director of development for Stark Enterprises, said his company has built similar built-to-rent projects in Florida and North Carolina and is expanding into Ohio. Kulick told council Lockpoint Village would feature modern interior finishes (stainless appliances, granite counters), 1–3 bedroom units, on-site property management, and that the company intends to hold the community long term. He said the team plans to preserve the on-site tree lines and to add roughly 449 new trees on the site in addition to any tree-credit for preserved buffer areas.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged the council to keep the property available for assisted-living uses rather than apartments, and to slow or reject dense multifamily development on that section of Hill Road. Speakers cited flooding history of a creek near the site, recent clearing on adjacent parcels (which staff said occurred off-site on a different parcel), concerns about traffic capacity on Hill Road, potential crime and property-value impacts, and worries about whether the project could later be used for subsidized housing. Residents asked for clearer detail on stormwater flows to the on-site pond and downstream into their yards.

Council and staff discussion focused on the two Planning & Zoning-recommended items. Council members asked whether the 4/12 roof pitch was primarily a cost choice and whether a 6/12 pitch would materially change building massing; staff explained the residential roof standard applies to single-family residential architecture, and the 2‑unit buildings in the plan trigger deviation requests because multifamily building standards differ. On porches, staff confirmed the applicant requests a 5-by-8 porch minimum while the residential appearance standard would be 7-by-10 for a front porch; Planning & Zoning asked the applicant to revisit that before final plan submittal.

Staff noted utilities (sanitary sewer stub and water on Hill Road) exist and that Canal Winchester and Fairfield County reviewed the project’s traffic study; the applicant also committed to construct a left-turn lane on Hill Road at the primary entry even though staff said turn lanes were not strictly required by traffic counts. The project design includes a 100-foot buffer on the south property line to preserve trees, a detention basin and sidewalk connectivity; staff said the plan shows the ability to meet Chapter 11.91 landscape standards and indicated the applicant’s landscape exhibit shows roughly 453 (staff said “about 453”) trees planted on site, while the applicant later said it would plant 449 additional trees in addition to credits for preserved buffer trees.

Council voted to move the ordinance (rezoning + prelim plan/text) to the full council meeting: the motion was made by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember McLaughlin; roll call showed the motion carried with a majority of council voting yes and one council “no” vote recorded. Per the planning commission recommendation and council discussion, the ordinance and text before final adoption should address the roof-pitch deviation and the front-porch minimums.

What happens next: the ordinance will appear on the council agenda for formal readings and a later final vote; Planning & Zoning and staff expect a final development plan that either narrows or documents the justifications for the two noted deviations (roof pitch and porch size). The applicant said if council approves zoning in concept, they would aim to break ground in spring 2026 and expect about a year from start of construction to opening of the first phase.

Speakers quoted and summarized here spoke during the public hearing and work session: Planning & Zoning staff (presenting the staff report), Jason Kulick, director of development, Stark Enterprises (applicant), and multiple residents who spoke during public comment. Several council members asked technical questions during the staff presentation and applicant remarks.

Nearby residents who testified asked the council to consider alternative uses (an assisted‑living facility was raised repeatedly) and sought stronger assurances on stormwater management, tree preservation, building materials and long-term property management. Council members and staff identified the specific items to be resolved before final approval and noted the PRD text is negotiable at council’s discretion.