Canal Winchester planning commission tables Hill Road rezoning and preliminary plan over design and deviation concerns

The Canal Winchester Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 10 unanimously tabled a proposed rezoning (ZM25001) and preliminary development plan (PDP25001) for about 26.7 acres on Hill Road, a property described in the packet as the Sedgwick property. The commission voted 5-0 to table the applications after City staff flagged multiple unaddressed deviations from the zoning code and missing details on architecture, pedestrian connectivity and site standards.

Staff told commissioners the filing seeks a new planned residential district for the site and a preliminary plan for a multiunit residential project; the staff report said the property is currently subject to a prior PRD zoning ordinance from 02/2001 that allows up to 44 detached condominium units and an assisted-living facility. “Staff is recommending that the zoning map amendment be tabled at this time as the applicant can show the compatibility of this rezoning with the community plan, relationship to pedestrian network, and more clarity on how this plan increases the public health, prosperity, and general welfare,” said Andrew, a city staff member presenting the application.

Why it matters: The rezoning would replace older, large-area zoning text with a site-specific PRD that incorporates more recent design and landscape standards adopted since 2001. Staff said the submission, as filed, did not justify multiple deviations from the current code and the 2023 community plan, particularly on pedestrian connections, residential appearance standards and minimum development standards for private roadways. The commission delayed a public hearing until the applicant provides a fuller, revised submittal.

Major staff concerns and findings

- Unjustified deviations: Staff said the applicant identified two deviations but staff found an additional seven unaddressed deviations and asked the applicant to explain why any departures from minimum standards produce a better development. These items are listed in the staff report (pages 4–5).

- Architecture and residential appearance standards: Staff cited the 2023 community plan and section 11-98 (residential appearance standards) and said elements shown in the exhibits—masonry wainscot, window/shutter treatment and garage orientation—did not meet the standards in all elevations. “The residential appearance standards would require that to be 24 inches or 2 feet minimum on all sides of a building that had vinyl siding,” Andrew said in his presentation, noting inconsistencies between the written development text and the graphic exhibits.

- Pedestrian connectivity: Staff said the concept shows sidewalks on only one side of private internal streets and limited connections to the community’s planned bicycle and pedestrian network. The plan shows sidewalk along Hill Road and a minimum two access points, but staff said the connectivity as submitted is minimal compared with the community plan’s priorities.

- Missing/unclear details: Staff said the preliminary development text lacked explicit internal street setback requirements, a full conceptual landscape plan (Chapter 11-91), finalized architecture commitments and engineering feasibility documentation for utilities and phasing. The Violet Township fire department raised questions about private roadway widths and on-street parking configurations that can affect emergency access, staff reported.

Applicant response

Craig Moncrief, an attorney with the Plank Law Firm representing the applicant, and Jason Kulick of Stark Enterprises told the commission they had provided revised documents the prior Friday and said outstanding items could be addressed. “I think most of these items can be addressed fairly quickly and easily,” Moncrief said. He said the applicant would update the development text to commit to items including glass in garage doors, a clearer phasing plan, additional sidewalk connections and a conceptual landscape plan.

Moncrief and Kulick stated the project is intended as a predominantly one-story apartment product with some six-unit buildings that include a limited second story for middle units, and that the proposal would seek to preserve existing tree buffers along the east and south property lines. The applicant said the plan would commit to a minimum of 30% gross open space (the PRD requirement is 20%) and that the submission shows about 421 on-site parking spaces; the applicant also said the traffic study supporting two full access points to Hill Road found no mitigation was required given nearby road projects.

Commission discussion and questions

Commissioners pressed for detail on several design points: the extent and consistency of the proposed architectural enhancements for buildings that face Hill Road versus those internal to the site, whether porches would encroach into setbacks, the degree to which vinyl siding versus masonry would be used, and the location and accessibility of the stormwater basin and pathways. Commissioners also asked whether schools had been consulted (staff said it was not known) and whether the applicant had met the community plan’s unit size guidance; staff explained older zoning from 2001 used different unit-size standards.

Outcome and next steps

The commission voted unanimously to table both applications so staff can review the applicant’s recent revisions and the applicant can supply the outstanding materials. Chair Joe Donahue said the commission would not open a public hearing at this meeting because the applications were incomplete; staff confirmed the public will receive a notice when the applications next appear on an agenda.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of Dec. 9, 2024 minutes — Motion carried (roll call unanimous). (Motion: Mr. Wilentheller; second: Mr. Palsgrove.) - Election of officers for 2025 — Joe Donahue, chair; Miss McDonald, vice chair; Mr. Deeds, secretary (each confirmed by roll call unanimous). - Zoning map amendment ZM25001 — Motion to table approved by roll call, 5-0 (mover: Mr. Deeds; second: Mr. Palsgrove). - Preliminary development plan PDP25001 — Motion to table approved by roll call, 5-0 (mover: Mr. Deeds; second: Miss McDonald).

What remains open: The commission asked for clarified, committed development text that resolves the identified deviations, a conceptual landscape plan demonstrating compliance with Chapter 11-91, specific residential appearance commitments tied to 11-98, clearer internal street setback standards, confirmation of private roadway dimensions for fire access, and documentation of utility feasibility and phasing. Staff said it will review the applicant’s revised materials and bring a revised staff report to a future meeting.

Ending

The commission moved on to other business and scheduled the next packet review after staff and the applicant complete the requested revisions. When the applications return for a formal public hearing, staff will mail notice to affected property owners and post the hearing on the agenda.