Planning commission backs rezoning, prelim plan for 122‑unit Hill Road apartments despite resident pushback

The Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission on March 10 voted to recommend that City Council adopt a zoning map amendment (ZM25-001) and a preliminary development plan (PDP25-001) that would rezone roughly 25–26.7 acres along Hill Road in the Green Gate area and allow construction of 122 apartment dwelling units.

Staff presented the revised application and told the commission the applicant had addressed prior staff and commission comments. Planning staff said the applicant had increased internal pedestrian connectivity, committed to private streets with no on‑street parking, provided five sidewalk connections to Hill Road and committed to a minimum 21‑foot driveway depth for each unit. Andrew Moore, planning staff, told the commission “staff is recommending that the preliminary development plan 25‑001 also be recommended to city council for adoption.”

The applicant’s attorney, Craig Moncrief of the Planck Law Firm, said the development text had been revised to add design detail referencing Chapter 11.98 of the city code (residential appearance standards). “What we’re committing to is a minimum of 5 enhancements for front walls, 4 for rear walls, 3 for side walls,” Moncrief said, adding the project will plant about 449 trees and limit parking‑lot lighting to 12 feet high.

Under the proposal the parcel would be rezoned from the existing PRD text approved by Ordinance 52‑01 (2001) to a new PRD that allows multifamily at a density the applicant describes as 6.03 units per acre. The applicant described site features including two full access drives to Hill Road, roughly 8.5 acres of gross open space (reported in the submittal as about 34 percent net), a clubhouse and pool, a freestanding maintenance building, and a mix of 2‑, 4‑ and 6‑unit building types with architectural variations intended so adjacent buildings do not match exactly.

Commissioners asked about traffic and utilities. Staff said a traffic study was submitted, reviewed by the city engineer and under review by the county; staff confirmed the county recommended a southbound left‑turn lane be provided for safety where the primary access aligns with Greengate Boulevard. Staff said Morpc (Mid‑Ohio Regional Planning Commission) growth rates and local development projections were used in the study’s 10‑year horizon. Stormwater and final utility design issues will be addressed at final development plan and with standard engineering review.

More than a dozen residents spoke at the public hearing, nearly all urging denial or changes. Speakers who live on Hill Road and adjacent neighborhoods cited current congestion, vehicle speeds, debris and tire damage on Hill Road, annual flooding/runoff concerns, and potential impacts to property values and schools. Kenny Orr, a Hill Road resident, said of adding the complex to his neighborhood: “Would you want a 22 apartments next to your house? Simple as that.” Several speakers noted the parcel’s prior approvals and said they had expected assisted living or a lower‑density product when they bought nearby homes.

The commission’s discussion noted two categories of deviations the applicant requested in the development text: (1) density (the PRD base recommendation cited by staff is 4 dwelling units per acre; the applicant requests up to about 6 units per acre) and (2) two appearance‑standard deviations tied to the 2‑unit building types (reduced front‑porch depth and a shallower roof pitch). Commissioners and the applicant discussed whether the porch and roof‑pitch items should be revisited before final design review.

The commission voted to recommend approval of the zoning map amendment ZM25‑001 to City Council (motion by Gooden; second by Deeds). Roll call recorded six yes votes (Donahue, Gooden, McDonald/McDonough, Palsgrove, Wildenthaler, Deeds); one commissioner (Ritchie) was noted as excused/absent at 7:29 p.m. The commission separately voted to recommend approval of PDP25‑001 with an added recommendation that the developer review roof elevations and porch dimensions before submitting the final development plan (motion by McDonald; second by Gooden). The commission also voted to table a related variance application (VA25‑001) at the applicant’s request until the April meeting.

The recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are advisory; City Council is the final decision‑maker. If council adopts the zoning map change and PDP, the project will return to the commission for final development plan review and required engineering checks including stormwater. County review of the traffic study remains in process and staff said any required roadway improvements would be coordinated with the county and included with final approvals.

The applicants present included attorney Craig Moncrief (Planck Law Firm), Jason Kulick (Stark Enterprises) and Brian Burkard (CEC). Staff told the commission the proposal generally aligns with the city’s February 2023 community plan, which identifies the area as appropriate for multifamily development, and said the revised development text attempts to meet the intent of Chapter 11.98 residential appearance standards.

City Council will receive the commission’s recommendations; the council hearing dates were not set at the commission meeting. The applicant’s variance VA25‑001 was tabled to April at the applicant’s request.