WESTERVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 21 S. STATE STREET WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2013 MINUTES

Chairman Paul Johnson opened the January, 2013 Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers at 21 S. State Street. Other members present were Council Member Diane Fosselman, Brian Szuch, Amy Koorn, David Berger, Gerry Domanik, and Dave Samuelson. Staff members present included Bassem Bitar, Lisa LaMantia, Chelsea Nichols, and both Kyle Stroh and Caitlyn Nestleroth with the City’s Law Department.

Chairman Johnson led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR

Chairman

Mr. Szuch nominated Mr. Johnson. Mr. Berger seconded the nomination.

Seeing there were no other nominations, Mr. Domanik moved to close the nominations.

Vote: 6-0

Vice Chairman

Mr. Domanik nominated Mr. Szuch. Council Member Fosselman seconded the nomination.

Seeing there were no other nominations, Mr. Johnson closed the nominations.

Vote: 6-0

APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 17, 2012 MINUTES

Council Member Fosselman moved to adopt the December 17, 2012 minutes as presented; Mr. Domanik seconded the motion.

Yeas: Council Member Fosselman, Mr. Szuch, Mr. Domanik, Ms. Koorn, Mr. Berger, Mr. Samuelson, Chairman Johnson

Nays: None

Motion Passed: 7-0

Chairman Johnson explained the procedures to be used in tonight’s Public Hearing.

Ms. Nichols swore in Staff and all those wishing to speak before the Commission.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PC 2012-17: REQUEST FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TEXT OF A 95-ACRE TRACT (APPROXIMATE) FROM R-4 - MULTI-FAMILY, PID – PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND O/I – OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL, TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED AT 198 SOUTH CLEVELAND AVENUE; APPLICANT: RICHARD BRAHM & CATHERINE CUNNINGHAM FOR RSTLNE, LLC.

Mr. Bitar stated this item has been on the agenda before but he would like to provide a brief background for both the members of the audience and the new Commission member since he has not been part of the previous hearings. As they may recall, the parcel in question is uniquely situated between Chase, St. Ann’s, the area closest to Otterbein University, and Uptown Westerville. It is 95 acres. When the application was filed it started out as one parcel even though it is split by Cooper Rd and a portion of Collegeview Rd. It has several unique features in that it has parts of Alum Creek running across the eastern boundary of the parcel. It has Otterbein Lake just to the north outside of the parcel. It contains areas of floodplain and floodway; the blue on the map is the floodway and the orange is the floodplain. The difference is the floodway is the area you cannot touch, period. The floodplain you could with certain restrictions. He stated they can also see there is a stream that feeds Alum Creek on the southwest component of the site that is also encumbered with a floodplain.

Mr. Bitar stated most of the parcel is also within in the Source Water Protection Special Overlay District, which has certain additional requirements that limit the amount of chemicals you can store within any one building because the groundwater there also feeds the drinking water system for the City of Westerville. There are some additional provisions that apply because of that designation.

Mr. Bitar stated it is a very unusual parcel in that the three components of the overall parcel are in several different zoning districts. The southern portion is currently zoned R-4, Multi-Family Residential. The majority of the site is zoned PID, Planned Industrial, which is the same zoning along Collegeview at this point. Then there are two pieces at the northwest and southwest that are zoned Office-Institutional. With this application, the intent would be to rezone the entire 95 acres into one zoning district; the Planned District (PD) which is the all-encompassing zoning district within the Planning and Zoning Code. That district allows you to establish multiple uses; you establish the development standards that go along with those uses, and it becomes a de facto zoning code for that particular development.

Mr. Bitar stated as they know, the process is usually a two-step overall process. The first process, which is what they are doing right now, is the preliminary development plan. It is more or less a conceptual approval that looks at the overall site. It does not mean that any component of this project is set in stone. Pretty much everything they see on the map except for the potential for a skilled nursing facility is conceptual at this time.

Mr. Bitar stated the applicant has divided the site into three sub areas. The Cleveland Avenue frontage is Subarea One, most of the middle of the component of the site is Subarea Two, and then the easterly

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 3

portion (especially easterly of Cooper Rd but including a pocket in the middle) is Subarea Three. The applicant has also outlined what the intent of each subarea is within the text. Subarea One for the most part, especially south of Cooper Rd, would include some retail uses but would also allow office and perhaps even residential if it is on upper floors of otherwise nonresidential buildings. The area to the north would have the same use standards except that because of traffic concerns, the amount of retail would have to be limited within that component.

Mr. Bitar stated the middle portion of the site, Subarea Two, would accommodate colleges, universities, as well as senior housing and office types of development. He is just giving an overview because there are a lot of different uses in there. It also allows for residential on upper floors. He stated he should mention that Subarea One also does include colleges and universities as permitted uses.

Mr. Bitar stated Subarea Three would have multiple uses but the main concentration would be residential in nature.

Mr. Bitar stated Staff had provided the Commission with a staff report in December because they had anticipated this was going to be on the agenda in December but it got put on hold and now they are seeing it again. One of the main changes that have happened since December is that Otterbein University has now acquired about 25 acres that are outlined in yellow on the map. This is the acreage on the north side of Cooper Rd from Cleveland Avenue to the line separating Subareas Two and Three. Staff forwarded some information to the Commission earlier today verifying that Otterbein has joined the applicant as a co-applicant in this application. The lot split that was granted as part of the sale to Otterbein was on the condition that they still continue to look at the whole 95 acres as one development district. That would be the intent. As Commission members may have also seen in the correspondence from Otterbein, they have asked that a vote not be taken tonight. He will leave that to the applicants to explain further.

Mr. Bitar stated as he goes into the details of the application they are going to hear him say the word “if” a lot because it is a conceptual plan. He thinks if the components of the plan do actually fall into place, this could be a very exciting development. It is a little bit different than most of the large acreage developments that they usually see in that it is within walking distance to a lot of other existing walking amenities. So, from a staff standpoint they are hoping to see something that does make that connection, especially with Otterbein’s involvement now and the possibilities to connect to their campus. As they will probably explain, Otterbein does not have immediate plans for that. They will probably be looking at doing a feasibility study for the components that they purchased. There is not even necessarily a commitment that all of this will be college use. His understanding is that they would start by looking at the areas east of Collegeview Rd. The Cleveland Avenue frontage and other parts would be looked at as future components.

Mr. Bitar stated as they know, the main emphasis for this application was the skilled nursing facility and that is the one entity that is on board and they are anxious to move forward so they can present the final development plan and be under construction in the near future. They have had several discussions before about the location of the skilled nursing facility and whether the location they have proposed in the middle of the site is the most appropriate. Staff has looked at different types of scenarios. As the

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 4

applicant explained back in October, they feel strongly that this is the location they would like to be in. From a staff standpoint they have come to be comfortable with that idea as they understood more about the functions of that facility and the intent to work with Otterbein’s nursing program, the relationship to St. Ann’s and some of the medical office buildings in the general area. One of staff’s previous concerns was whether it had any issues with it being an introverted use and whether the synergies or adjacent uses would work with that particular use at that location or whether it would be better to put it in a more serene environment near the lake or the creek. Again, based on the feedback staff has received, staff is comfortable with the general location.

Mr. Bitar stated the one thing Staff had highlighted from the beginning was that they wanted to see this as being a different type of environment; a mixed-use, walkable environment. While the plan was nicely laid out before, it was mostly buildings and pavement. Staff felt from the beginning that a common greenspace in addition to the recreation area along the creek were both very important components. When they were thinking that the location of the nursing facility could be shifted, Staff’s thought was that the common greenspace would be in the middle of the site and the different uses would benefit from it and it would be an exciting area. As they looked at it with the skilled nursing at the location that they have chosen (and there is some topography and view corridors there) where the greenspace is shown right now made perfect sense. The thought process at the time was that there would be green space that would afford the view corridor as you drive down Cooper Rd and the original thought would be that it would be open all the way towards the creek with a view of the trees. The applicant is showing that but they are showing what could conceivably be a clubhouse for a residential development on the east side of Cooper. Staff does not have an issue with that as long as if and when that happens, the architecture is exceptional and terminate that view corridor appropriately.

Mr. Bitar stated with that come several different issues that need to be resolved, as the applicant would tell you. One of them is storm water drainage. As they see on the map, there are multiple ponds to handle that. One of the ponds does end up being within the greenspace area. Staff does not have a concern with that. If designed nicely it could be an amenity to the site. The other issue - and that is a change since the December meeting – is that based on previous agreements with City, the applicant had proposed to include a portion of the floodplain (which is also wooded right now) within the development area. So the previous proposal included some residential buildings in there. Now, they have agreed to keep all development outside of the floodplain and the Text commits to dedicating approximately 9 acres of land that includes basically the area from the center line of the creek to just outside of the floodplain where there are already existing utility easements. It comes out to around 9 acres that would be dedicated to the City for preservation of open space.

Mr. Bitar stated there were some questions that Staff has received about the extent of the buffer between the area that the applicant is promising to provide and the buildings being proposed. Since they are following the easement line, it is not as if they could simply say it is a 50 foot setback or 30 foot setback. So, based on some of the Commission’s questions, Staff has prepared a graphic that shows the blue line as the flood plain, the yellow line as the existing bike path, and the pink line as the buffer area they are proposing. It varies from about 25 feet or so from the bike path on the southern end to maybe about 80-90 on the north with varying degrees. The distance from the floodplain is generally larger in most spots. Staff is overall satisfied with that but with a couple of concerns. One is

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 5

the three conceptual building they are showing on the east side may be a little too close so they would like to add some language to the text that at such time that they come in for the Final Development Plan and there are buildings shown as this concept implies, that Staff would have the opportunity to examine impacts on Alum Creek. He thinks the Parks & Recreation Department would tell them their concern is pollution. There is a levee there so he does not think they will get direct storm water drainage into the creek but there may be pollutants and other items that may be a source of concern.

Mr. Bitar stated the other issue Staff has with that is the Text also indicates that while they would be providing that to the City, they would maintain a 25 foot easement where they can access that area for grading, for construction, and for maintenance. Staff would like to see that all happen outside of the buffer area. Again, the intent is to protect the creek so they would like that language amended. Otherwise, Staff is at least appreciative of that land being provided for preservation.

Mr. Bitar showed an overlay of the plan on an aerial photo with an outline of the floodplain. He pointed out that it conceptually shows a parking lot within the floodplain near the southwest corner of the site. Staff would like to see that area preserved as well. They are committing to staying out of the tree line to about a 50 ft setback from the stream itself, but Staff would like to see that increased to protect the water that goes into that stream, which also feeds Alum Creek.

Mr. Bitar stated in going back to the central greenspace, Staff views that as an important element to this development. If it is the urban environment that Staff is envisioning, then that could really be a great amenity. It is conceivable that at some point if that materializes that the City might be interested in acquiring it or accepting it as a public park. At this point the City is reluctant to do so because with no development and no guarantees, it would probably be simply transferring maintenance responsibility for the pond and the open space to the City. The applicant is also hesitant about providing greenspace without having an association at this point. So the Text as written states it “may” be provided and that it is a “potential” park. Staff would like to see that as a component of the development. The open space on the east side not withstanding, Staff does think that a development that has that amount of building on it would benefit from this type of open space. Staff would like to see a commitment that this greenspace would in fact be created. Obviously it would not necessarily be constructed (as everything else) until there is a final development plan associated with the area around it. They do think also, depending on what Otterbein decides to do across the street (if it is academic buildings, student housing, or anything of that nature) that it could be a great amenity to them as well. As a matter of fact, one of the features they had discussed as part of this concept is a focal point that would terminate the view or at least highlight the view down Collegeview across Cooper. He can easily see if there is an Otterbein-associated use that it would be something also exciting that could signify the University’s presence there as well. So, Staff would like to see that happen.

Mr. Bitar stated he wanted to show some examples. The first is an illustration provided by the applicant that shows a cross section in the pond. Staff thinks it could be a very nice amenity. It is a large space. It looks small because the area that they are looking at with these 95 acres is the size of Easton. This is a large area so he thinks that is important to keep that in mind as they discuss greenspace and open space. He showed aerial pictures of some places the Commissioners may be familiar with for comparison. One is McPherson Commons, the Arena District greenspace. He pointed

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 6

out the old Union Station Arch and stated you could see how the space being proposed here is even larger than the one in the example. They have the pond in this case that would take up about half of the space but it is still relatively equivalent to that. It is also larger than the middle component of Columbus Commons. It is conceivably a very nice amenity that should be looked at favorably.

Mr. Bitar stated that as he was preparing the PowerPoint presentation for last month’s meeting (before they realized it was going to be tabled) he happened to get the new issue of Urban Land Magazine and they had an article about a development in West Valley City, Utah. It includes a linear park with very similar proportions and about the exact same acreage that is being proposed here. There is a mixed-use development behind it and has a high density residential component on the other side of the road. In their case they have a hotel and some office buildings as well. Again, the scale of what happens around it makes it work. He thinks if the scale is not right then it does not work. When he says “if” that means there are a lot of things that have to happen to make that work.

Mr. Bitar showed another example from another community; a conceptual development with a linear park. Again, they can see that the scale of the buildings is what provides the backdrop for such a large place.

Mr. Bitar showed pictures of different water retention features and stated that there are different ways to handle water in an urban environment that Staff thinks would work.

Mr. Bitar stated if this does materialize, one of the suggestions that they had from talking to consultants that did the Arena District plan and several of these urban parks, is that there should be some sort of a roadway connector also on the south side of the greenspace that would provide for parking and access because that way, that space reads more as common space rather than a backyard space for buildings in there. It also allows the opportunity for buildings to actually have a front door that they can walk out to the street even if it is a private alley. That is a detail Staff would like to see if this materializes and goes to a Final Development Plan approval.

Mr. Bitar stated one of the other things in this development is the proximity to Otterbein Lake. This lake is below the existing grade; you do not see it from anywhere right now. It is somewhat forgotten until you get on the bike path. It could be a great amenity. The Parks & Recreation Department for a while had a plan to do a boardwalk around it with perhaps even a small shelter with a green roof. He knows Otterbein University, as part of their feasibility study, is looking at the Collegeview frontage so there may be some possibilities for lake access there.

Mr. Bitar stated however, with this development there is also an opportunity to work with the property owner to provide that type of public access. You are still not going to see the lake, but much like they were talking about with the greenspace coming off of Cleveland Avenue, Staff thinks there is an opportunity with the view corridor going up Cooper Rd - the north-south component of it. While you cannot see the lake itself, he thinks there are multiple things you could do to get attention. Also, it could provide not only public access but perhaps some public parking. The applicant has agreed to this concept. They are showing an easement with a possible view terminating vista. The Text limits it at this point to 25 feet. Staff would like to see that increased to include also some easements for public

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 7

parking, even if that is shared with some of the uses there; just something that you have a way to get there as a member of the public without on necessarily only having to find a place to get on the bike path and walk to it.

Mr. Bitar stated there are different ways to do things; there are some more elaborate things to get your attention and there are ones where you can take advantage of in that little median between the parking spaces to create something that tells you there is water. He showed many examples of different types of pavilions that you could do that maybe sit at the top at the hill and then you can get down to the water’s edge.

Mr. Bitar stated in going back to the Arena District, you have the greenspace there but you also have the view corridor that terminates with North Bank Park and that pavilion. It gives you something that tells you there is something going on there. You do not see the river when you are going down the street. He is not suggesting something of that level but even the little barn that is on the property could conceivably be moved there, taken advantage of, and remodeled in a modern fashion. He showed a Staff rendition of this idea. He stated this was based on some examples where these things have been done very successfully, and Everal Barn in Westerville is another example.

Mr. Bitar stated with that, he also thinks one of the concerns Staff has always had from the beginning (and it is a debate they have had going back and forth with the applicant) is the uses and the development standards within this overall area. As they know, the Zoning Code was written in 1973. It has been amended a million times. He does not think that if you go from one chapter to the other that there is always consistency there. So, when they have a Planned District that then makes reference to the uses in four other districts, and those four other districts make references to a bunch of other ones as well, it becomes almost impossible to really decipher what is permitted and what is not permitted. Based on the criteria in the Code (and to the applicant’s credit they were following the letter of the Code) they said the uses would be those permitted in the PD district with the exception of a few that they agreed would not make sense in this development. They also requested that some uses that are conditional in the Zoning Code be permitted but committed to meeting the development standards associated with those. Staff felt that was too confusing. If the Code changes next year it is going to be very difficult 10 years from now when they have one component of this development in for approval to figure out what they are relying on. So, Staff is suggesting that these uses be streamlined.

Mr. Bitar showed a suggested use table. He stated this is Staff’s idea of how the uses that they thought should be there could be listed. They know there are some issues that the applicant has with those. Staff felt that there are certain uses that are redundant. He knows the applicant has a concern about Staff eliminating “commercial center” for example, from the list of permitted uses. They felt it was covered with the retail and with the intent of this development to be a mixed-use development. Commercial center is intended to mean if you have more than two retail establishments in one building or on one parcel it gives them that distinct definition. A lot of times, they do not even remember that they have that definition. Again, they are trying to streamline the ills of the Code and suggesting these to the applicant.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 8

Mr. Bitar stated that as much as he would like to take credit for that format, there are many communities that have gone to the form-based code idea where, instead of focusing on uses, you focus on the form of the urban environment you are trying to create. However, in many cases, there are hybrid concepts that also involve use categories. He highlighted New Albany’s Village Center Code where they list permitted and conditional uses for each subarea. That Code also includes specific building type standards and other details. The reason he wanted to show it is because it also includes some overall additional standards that may require further clarification. Such standards can be added to the end of the use table. Something like this would provide the Planning Commission, for example, with the authority to determine that a certain use is in fact similar to one that is specifically listed. It could also acknowledge that there may be multiple uses within the same building. Staff believes there is potential for using this type of table for this development.

Mr. Bitar stated as much as Staff would like to, they are not suggesting here that they go to a full blown form-based code because in that instance they get into the exact building typology, how wide a street exactly is, how wide the sidewalk is, and you if describe the urban environment, the uses become secondary.

Mr. Bitar showed an example from Fort Worth Texas. They described, depending on the scale of the particular street, how wide it should be and had other references to water features and so forth in creating the intent for each sub district and how it relates to the street and the water. The standards then follow the intent of the graphic representations there.

Mr. Bitar stated if you create the right environment as a backdrop, he thinks that would help with the central park. He can easily see something like this being like the Victorian Gate development in the Short North where it is a backdrop to the park. That gets them into the density issue. Density has been an issue for as long as they have dealt with multi-family residential. He thinks from a Staff standpoint they have argued before that it is really how that density gets handled. You can have a very dense environment that does not feel that way because it is done right and then you can have a very low density environment where something about it does not feel right. If the development is done right, Staff has no concerns with density. The applicant is proposing 12 units per acre for Subarea Three. Staff is OK with that if it is done right. The applicant had alluded in the Text to certain things that they are saying they are doing already: that they are dedicating the parkland on the east side of the property, that they are providing right-of-way and other things. So, they are alluding to some of the standards that the Code has for density bonuses. Staff would like to make sure that they are all on the same page when they apply for a final development plan.

Mr. Bitar stated he provided the Commission tonight with a slightly different version from what they had included before about density; suggesting that Staff would accept density at 12 units per acre but making sure there are criteria that are reflective of Code standards that are included so that if and when they come in for final development plan, Staff can verify that they are meeting those criteria. The applicant is saying they would not dedicate the park today; they would dedicate it at such time that final development plan is approved. Those go hand-in-hand, so Staff feels that decision needs to happen at that time; that yes, 12 units per acres is acceptable but here are the standards much like anything else in the Text.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 9

Mr. Bitar stated along those lines as well, the applicant has asked for a waiver of the public use fees associated with Subarea Three. Again, Staff feels that should be determined at that time. They do not know how many units at this point and they do not know what the character is going to be. Also, they are saying they are dedicating the land and Staff trusts them but it all happens at the same time so they would suggest deferring until then.

Mr. Bitar stated most of the other items he has are minor in comparison to those major ones. Setbacks are important. They have proposed relaxed setbacks along most of the internal roadways. Staff feels that those are perfectly fine with an “if.” If they are creating that environment he thinks the intent is to provide for buildings with front doors facing the street and so forth. There are some references in the text to the buildings, especially in Subareas Two and Three being encouraged to be built to the setback line but not required to be built to the setback line. Staff feels that establishing that street façade is important to this “if”/ this walkable environment. So, Staff would like the applicant to change the language to say they are required to be built to the setback line but maybe propose waivers that the Planning Commission can look at if there are mitigating factors rather than the other way around.

Mr. Bitar stated they are also proposing having entry features and he believes Otterbein is also interested in some sort of front door along Cleveland Avenue. Staff has no concerns with those other than wanting to see those as part of the final development plan even if it is a standalone final development plan because everyone needs to remembers that Cooper Rd is a public road so they need to make sure however this is designed that it does not give the impression that this is the entrance to a private development and that this is something that all works together.

Mr. Bitar stated there are some variances, if you will, to the sign code and to the landscaping code and to some of the parking elements. He is not going to get into those unless there are questions. Generally, Staff is comfortable with those.

Mr. Bitar stated there has also been some discussion about the connection to the property to the north. That is one where back when that property was approved for the shopping center many years ago, there was a provision to allow access in the future to a signalized intersection. There is no signal for the shopping center right now and there has been a history of accidents at its entry. So the intent was to allow for some possibility of having that connection. Staff has asked the applicant from the beginning, and they have accommodated that on a conceptual basis and they continue to think that is a concept. They do not know what Otterbein wants to do, and they do not know if it is not Otterbein then what somebody else might want to do. Staff just wants to preserve that ability and whether that actually happens there or whether there are some agreements whereby something goes out to Collegeview, it is just trying to secure a safe route for people to exit the shopping center. Again, Staff is not necessarily specifying where that has to be but preserving that opportunity.

Mr. Bitar stated the last thing he wanted to mention is that they do acknowledge there have been development agreements with the property owner since the mid 1990s when the road was permitted. Staff understands there were some rights that the owner had and they think what is being proposed and what Staff is asking for is fair based on those agreements. He thinks they are honoring the

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 10

development rights, just trying to make sure they are outside of the boundaries of the floodplains and natural features. He stated he should mention that there was a question before about the alignment of Cooper Rd and whether that should be adjusted to line up with Old Coach. The City’s consultants did a thorough study of that and concluded that the current location is the preferred location so he can answer questions about that as well.

Mr. Bitar stated with that, Staff is not asking the Commission to make a decision tonight. There are several issues with the Text that they think they need to resolve but they had provided some recommended conditions if they choose to move forward with this application and maybe provide the basis for some discussion. They modified the first one a little bit to make it clear that they want all grading, maintenance and construction to take place outside of the park area on the east side. Generally, the proposed conditions include the ability to examine the impact of the easternmost buildings on the creek, that the central greenspace be required, that the access easement to Otterbein Lake be increased to allow for public parking and related amenities, and that the Text be amended. One of the items in the text was that it would default to other standards that are in the Code at the time of adoption. Again, Staff is concerned if the Code changes then those may be irrelevant. So, what Staff is saying is that it should reference the Code that is applicable at the time of Final Development Plan. Staff is also proposing that the applicant include the land use table that Staff proposed. If there needs to be modifications then they can work with them on that. Also, the public use fee waivers are to be considered at the Final Development Plan. By the way, the density issue should be addressed as part of the table and supplemental standards as well. The entry feature is subject to final development plan approval.

Mr. Bitar stated one thing he neglected to mention is that there would be roadway improvements. The applicant has committed to dedicating certain right-of-way, but future road improvements will be subject to a development agreement so that they can make sure they all happen, determine who pays for them, and so forth. That development agreement will have to be approved by City Council.

Mr. Bitar stated lastly, the history portion of the Text needs to be fair to both the applicant and the City in terms of the development agreements and roadway improvements that was worked on. With that, he would be glad to answer any questions. He just hopes that the “if” happens at some point and they get a great development.

Chairman Johnson invited the applicant to come forward.

Catherine Cunningham, 145 E. Rich St in Columbus, stated she is an attorney with the law firm of Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter. She is the attorney for the applicant in this case, RSTLNE, LLC, which is the owner of everything but 25 acres that Otterbein University now owns. She stated David Fisher is here on behalf of Otterbein tonight. He will obviously address the Commission if he wants to. She would like to at least start out introducing everybody and wrap up the presentation on behalf of the applicant and address some of the issues.

Ms. Cunningham stated she will start with Todd Faris who is here. She thinks he will do an overall project review of what they have before them and supplement what Mr. Bitar said. She stated John

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 11

Gallagher is here; he did the traffic study. She believes the Commission received that and he will just do a general overview and answer any questions they might have on that. She stated David Bray is here and he is the Civil Engineer for the site. He is here as a resource and they do not really plan on having him make a presentation but if there are questions from the Commission they would like him to be available.

Ms. Cunningham stated after these gentleman speak she would like to follow up with what they say to talk about some of the issues Mr. Bitar raised and any other issues the Commission may have as they go along.

Todd Faris stated he is with Faris Planning and Design. As Ms. Cunningham said, he is the planner for the Kirks. He stated Mr. Bitar has done a wonderful job telling the Commission everything that happened since they last left here. They are still excited about it and have been all along. He just wants to go over some of the major changes that have happened that Mr. Bitar probably did not touch on that he thinks are somewhat important. From a traffic standpoint, they have had two exhaustive traffic studies with reviews by the City’s traffic consultants, so from a traffic standpoint this has been studied pretty well. It has taken a long time for them to get to this point. From those studies, it has become known that they need to give additional right-of-way along Cleveland Avenue. They are giving 30 feet on the south of Cooper Road, as well as 20 feet on the north side. That is partly for their development but also future expansion of Cleveland Avenue when that finally happens. They do not know the time frame of the ultimate expansion of Cleveland Avenue but that is what the 20 feet is for.

Mr. Faris stated also on Cooper Rd, it is a little wider pavement section at the front by Cleveland. They are giving 15 more feet on each side of that. That is to accommodate future traffic needs generated because of this development and growth in general. He thinks what happens is they end up with another additional turn lane in and turn lane out.

Mr. Faris stated they had talked before about right-in and right-outs off of Cleveland Avenue and had shown two of them; north and south of Cooper Road. Right now they are showing only one at the far south location; to do that they need to construct a median on Cleveland Avenue. Right now there is a center lane that allows that to be done so there is no expansion that has to happen. It can allow that to take place. That is what they are showing there and are committing to in their development agreement.

Mr. Faris stated they also needed to move the first intersection of Loop Road “A” - a full service curb cut - probably another 100-150 feet farther to the east just because of stacking in the future. There have been a lot of changes to this plan just because of these traffic studies. Which is great, that is why they do them.

Mr. Faris stated that is just some brief history on that, as well as still showing the vehicular connection to the north to accommodate people to the north to be able to get to the Cleveland Avenue traffic signal.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 12

Mr. Faris stated as far as environmental, they have made several commitments about the buffer to the south on the creek and maintaining that at 50 feet. That keeps them out of the trees and basically keeps them where it is being farmed today.

Mr. Faris stated they have a 9 acre parkland dedication at Alum Creek and that is pretty significant. They chose the easement line as a pretty easy marking. Following that pathway is not an easy thing to do but they all know where the easements are because they are recorded, they are there, and they can find them. They are easy to follow.

Mr. Faris stated they have also committed to 50 foot building and parking setback from the northern property line for any building or parking. The Parks and Recreation Department wanted some more breathing room around the lake. The Parks Department does not want to own it but they want to make sure the greenspace is there so the applicant has gone ahead and committed to increase the buffer to the north along Lake Otterbein.

Mr. Faris stated there is also the dedication of an easement from Cooper Rd to Lake Otterbein. He thinks that is partly for a view corridor as well as pedestrian and vehicular access. He knows there is some concern about the 25 foot easement. He does not think they have a concern at all if that goes to 50 or whatever is determined at final development plan because they do not know what it is going to look like and he does not think anybody else does right now; they just wanted it acknowledged. That makes sense for them and he thinks for the Parks Department.

Mr. Faris stated they reemphasized view corridors they started off with before. They brought those into the Text so they are a requirement and are not just shown on the plan; they are in there.

Mr. Faris stated there is also the inclusion of the central 3.7 acre space. That is a big item that has changed with this plan as well. They also brought into the Text the commitment of sidewalks on all sides of the streets as well as Cleveland Avenue.

Mr. Faris stated they had the long linear pond in the center before and they have now extended the ponds along Cooper Rd to the south with a small portion remaining in the park/open space in the center. They have decreased that pond in the center from the last submission. They did not have the hearing but that was probably the last submission they saw. They brought that down in half and it makes that center open space more useful for a park.

Mr. Faris stated there are many other issues they have addressed and they have gone over them before. These are such things as lighting standards (he thinks they have honed in on those), and the signage (Mr. Bitar has brought many things to their attention and he thinks they have addressed that). They also firmed up their landscape plans and brought in standards from the State Street Development Standards as well as the Polaris Parkway development guidelines. They have also committed to bicycle and pedestrian elements and public art; all the things to help create this as a pedestrian and people scaled environment. That is what the whole attempt of this is to do; to bring things back down to the people scale. Right now everything is so suburban and they want it to become not urban, but people scale.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 13

Mr. Faris stated as far as the mix of uses; it has really not changed any. Mr. Bitar has the matrix and they think it is a great idea, they just need to come to some resolution as to what they call things because they do not want to omit something inadvertently from the Code that is allowed today just because they didn’t say “shopping XYZ” that allows two uses in a common building and then in three years from now they cannot do that because that is a shopping center. So, they will have a little discussion with Mr. Bitar to clean that up.

Mr. Faris stated one of the other areas of concern that were brought up is that one of the standards that pertains to the multi-family that is carrying forward from R-4 standards is the requirement of 2.25 parking spaces per unit if you get to 12 units per acres. From a practical experience, the more units you get, the less number of parking spaces you need per unit, not more. What they find in developments of that type is that 1.8 or 1.9 is sufficient. They are fine with 2 and that is typically what they strive for anyway but 2.25 is bringing in unnecessary pavement for Code’s sake. It is really not practical from what they have been seeing.

Mr. Faris stated one of the major issues of concern is that the central open space is being seen as a “what if” from the Parks Department. It is a big commitment from their standpoint to have four acres sitting out there that they do not know if the City is going to be responsible for it or if they are going to be responsible for it. What if the development looks like this or what if it doesn’t? There is a lot of what ifs in that 3.7 acres that is in effect a million dollars worth of land and that is some of their prime land that is in there. They do not have a commitment from any side as to what is going to happen there. He knows that is a point they still need to look at and what happens in that area to make sure it is right and that it works for this development.

Mr. Faris stated Mr. Bitar touched on potentially bringing in another street on the south side of that open space as well. He looked at that originally. Not that he thought it was an improper idea, but from an engineering standpoint in how they do intersections with a curved radius on that and how they come back on the other end; it just does not make a whole lot of sense geometrically. It is basically 160 ft wide Blvd with two-way traffic on both side. He does not know how that works. It is a little confusing. What he thought is if there is a good potential for shared parking between private and public entities with these developments that are around there that people could use it as a park. When people are using the park things they probably are not happening adjacent with the offices so to him he sees that as a more viable solution than adding more pavement to this plan.

Mr. Faris stated with the Staff conditions on the easement for the grading maintenance on the park, he does not think they see that as a permanent easement. Obviously they would see that for grading. He does not think they are talking 6ft of fill but if they are establishing that as their line that they are not doing anything with, he thinks there needs to be some flexibility to have some change of grade with that. That would be a temporary easement during construction. After that point they would not need it anymore. However, maintenance from their standpoint would be somewhat important to keep in case there are some issues. It would be how they access the side of a building or a parking lot that is there. It would be just so they can get on that property. That is the reason for that in the language. They wanted to maximize the space that the Parks Department has and at the same time they realized there

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 14

is a real need for the applicant to deal with their property and their project. He supposes they could move the property line 25 feet over into the easement area but they do not want to do that because he knows the Parks Department really wants that area. He thinks they can share on that a little bit.

Mr. Faris stated overall, he thinks they have a really good package put together here. They have worked very hard with Mr. Bitar. There are still a few loose ends; not a lot but just a couple. He thinks it will be a very exciting project when they get to the point and be able to get it done.

John Gallagher, the owner of J. Gallager Group, stated he is the traffic engineer on the project. As Mr. Faris said, the study has been well vetted by Staff and the City’s consultant, EMH&T, which was spearheaded by Larry Creed. He stated Mr. Creed is very well respected. So, they went through the riggers on this one. They all are in agreement at this point with Staff and EMH&T that the study is an approved state. There are on-campus recommendations for improvements. Some Mr. Faris talked about a little bit. Some of the major ones that are in this study are at Cleveland and Cooper. Obviously Cleveland is the major traffic concern for the majority of people. They are going to need to build three outbound lanes in order to allow the signal system on Cleveland to function as it has and not take green time away from north-south Cleveland Avenue. So, they have to be able to push a lot of people out Cooper in the short amount of green time that is on Cooper. They will have three exiting lanes; one will be a left turn lane, there will be a center lane that you can go left or right in, and there will be a right turn lane. There will be three continuous lanes of traffic allowed to turn out of there.

Mr. Gallagher stated the capacity analysis at that intersection as part of this study did not show a need for a northbound right-turn lane at the intersection. However, they have worked with Staff and with the concerns about traffic on Cleveland Avenue, that was added into the study; that a northbound right-turn lane would be built at that intersection to help northbound traffic headed to the development or headed to Cooper Rd. They will get out of the way of mainline traffic.

Mr. Gallagher stated he was trying to dig up the exact number but he believes the frontage, south of Cooper Rd that is along the Braun Farm is somewhere plus or minus 900 feet. So they have a significant amount of room. The volumes show that the northbound right-turn lane would need to be a minimum of 600 feet. The right turn lane that is shown on this conceptual plan (the right-in and right- out) could actually be moved a little bit farther north to lengthen its right turn lane. There is also a certain amount of right-of-way in front of Chase that can be utilized to extend that right turn lane as well. They have been working with Staff on how that can be done. That is where the median came into play. He knows Westerville had a lot of problems with their right-ins and right-outs. The only acceptable means of having one to Staff is if they build the median. That is something they have agreed to and is in the study.

Mr. Gallagher stated the study shows a need if things are developed as shown on the study, that Collegeview and Cooper would need a traffic signal in the future. It will be triggered by the development. They show a roundabout on the plan that could be an either or type of situation. The non-development traffic that was projected as part of this study based on the growth expected by MORPC against the growth rates views in this study shows that even if nothing happens, that intersection is going to need some significant turn lanes. Once you have a signal and some significant

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 15

turn lanes, and the potential exists for them to be constructed at the same time, that is when people start thinking about a roundabout as a viable alternative. Staff was eager to discuss that and that is a viable design. That is a design they put together. It is shown conceptually but it is an actual geometric design so they are not just winging it there. They actually laid it out geometrically so they would know how much right-of-way the City needed if that was going to be something that would go in there.

Mr. Gallagher stated he thinks that covers the main things. Mr. Faris and Ms. Cunningham discussed the shared access to the north that is shown on the plan. That was included in the study; something that was added during the second or third go around with the study. Everybody is in agreement with the way that is shown in the study and that it is an acceptable analysis.

Mr. Gallagher stated that is a major overview of what the study shows. He will not go into a lot of detail unless the Commission has specific questions. He will be available for those.

Ms. Cunningham stated she wants to go through some of the issues that Mr. Bitar raised, about some of the things they have been working on with Staff, and where they are on this project. They are also happy to answer their questions as they come up and respond to some of those and address some of the items and conditions in the staff report’s recommendation.

Ms. Cunningham stated one of the things she wanted to talk about is what she calls “two parks”. One is the Alum Creek Park which is 9 acres, and the other one is what she calls “Cooper Rd Park”. That is what she calls them so she can keep them straight. Alum Creek Park is a park in which the City’s Park & Rec was particularly interested in and came back to them over and over again asking for this park. They were not enthusiastic to give them this park. As they know from the zoning text and materials the Commission received, RSTLNE, LLC and the Kirks had some development rights to develop parts of that park. It is a great amenity and the owners saw it as a great site amenity for users of the site. However, through the persistence of Staff and their desire to move this forward, they amended the plan and the property owner agreed that they would be willing to dedicate this 9 acre park to the City. Timing is meant to be with the development of this end piece but it is not a conditional thing. It is going to be dedicated and committed to that as a commitment in the Text.

Ms. Cunningham stated what became more problematic, she would say, as they went along was not the concept of the 3.7 acre park. Again, they felt the City had approached them and requested that they have what she calls the Cooper Rd Park as a view corridor but also a public park for the City. It is 3.7 acres of prime development land. That was a hard sell but they came back over and over and they agreed that they were willing to put this 3.7 acre park in there as a public park. What happened however, as the plan came forward and comments came back from the City was a lack of commitment from the City/an unconditional commitment from the City to accept that as a public park. That becomes problematic for the developer because they do not have a master developer and a big user on this site. She stated that 3.7 acres is a huge open space to try to expect commercial users to cooperatively manage and maintain. While she appreciates everything Mr. Bitar showed them tonight because those are beautiful parks; all of those are publicly owned parks. None of those are privately owned parks that are being maintained by private companies adjacent to them. So, while she understands Staff wants a commitment that the 3.7 acres become a vista/greenspace located there, the

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 16

developer has committed to dedicate that greenspace to the City and have the City have a park there. That is the reason they saw the language of it in the Text saying it “may be a park.” It will be a park if the City will take it as a park. If the idea is that adjacent property owners are going to have to own that and maintain that, it is beyond affordability. It just does not make sense and cannot be done as a private matter. So, they were hoping to maintain flexibility to allow the developer, if the City will not take it as the development occurs, to absorb that open space into the overall site; not lose the concept of having open space but they cannot commit realistically to the private ownership and maintenance of 3.7 acres in the middle of the site. It is just not practical or affordable.

Ms. Cunningham stated they have made this very clear to the City and to Staff. Her comment to the Commission is the same; they will commit to a 3.7 acre public park to dedicate to the City there. However, they cannot make the City take it and if they are not going to take it they cannot commit to private ownership and maintenance of a park at that scale from this development. So, that is one issue that has been a topic of discussion back and forth among Staff and the developer. They are just trying to be practical. Mr. Faris suggested they could make it prairie grass and she said that was fine if the City will accept prairie grass for 3.7 acres in the middle of the development but she is not sure that is the vision they might be looking for at that location.

Ms. Cunningham stated that is one issue she thinks they need to address with the City or that they need an understanding from the City that they will take it as a public park. As she said, every example that was shown is large scale, three story buildings next to these large vistas that are publicly owned.

Ms. Cunningham stated that another question that has come up was the issue of access and access easement to Otterbein Lake. Again, they committed to a 25 foot easement. That was something that sort of came up late in their discussions and she thinks they are in agreement that they are willing to work with the City on cross access easements for parking and other things should they want them at that location. Part of the property there is owned by Otterbein. She is sure they will have their own ideas about the Lake and access through there. Where they see that lined, it is about the property line between what Otterbein owns and what RSTLNE retains going to the lake at that location. One of the things that they have committed to is a 50 foot setback. The City really did not want the greenspace along the lake. They just wanted to ensure that there would be some. They have also talked to the City about providing easements should Parks & Rec want to put structures in or whatever they want to do within that setback area. They do not have any objection to that, it is just that it is another “if.” If the City wants it then they do not object to it. However, it was not something that the City actively sought for them to provide. Again, they are willing to work with Staff on that for the access to Lake Otterbein.

Ms. Cunningham stated another area that they had a lot of discussion about was Mr. Bitar’s chart and Text amendments. She does not know that they disagree conceptually, but she has had significant reservations and has been working with Mr. Bitar and the Law Department on those reservations; not with the concept of what is proposed but with the way the Code works, she does not think it is actually in accordance with the way the ordinances were drafted. As Mr. Bitar mentioned, what they tried to do was follow what the ordinances require in terms of the PD. The way the Code is written for the PD is that it establishes uses by referring to other districts and their uses and development standards so they

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 17

followed that model. That has been the Codified Ordinance adopted by Council and in place by the City for a long time. They also followed the model of the way that Zumstein was done and some of other Planned Districts in the City have been done in the past. Her concern is, as Mr. Bitar kind of alluded to, when you start changing words, not redefining them, using different words used in the Code, or leaving out words that were used in the Code; she is not sure at the end of the day what that means. It creates legal issues that she thinks are inadvertent but may become problematic in the future.

Ms. Cunningham stated they have not been able to come to consensus on that because they believe they are following what the Code provides. Mr. Bitar aspires to greater and she thinks that is great but City Council really needs to provide for the greater and she is not sure they should be redefining that all through Text and Text amendments. They have committed to and agreed that if it is conditional use, they are going to comply with Code. Mr. Bitar is concerned that they reference the current Code. They agree that they will just reference the Code and that is fine; that is not a big issue. It is the complexity of doing it on sort of a select basis without doing it universally; that causes the significant concerns as a lawyer who does a lot of land use law. That is really where their concern has been; not the concepts of defining the uses. If there are uses the City does not want then they will eliminate them and that is what their approach was. Their approach was to take the uses in the district and if there are uses they do not agree with or the Commission does not agree with or Staff can identify as inappropriate, they will put them in there as inappropriate. To do it the other way around without defining the uses is problematic. Mr. Bitar gave a couple examples he was giving him where she asked if they do not include “x” and it is defined as “y,” does that mean they cannot do that? Mr. Bitar would say no but she is concerned if everyone would say that. It really is a legal issue for them about doing that; not a practical issue.

Ms. Cunningham stated she appreciates his reference to form based codes and she knows he likes them. She stated that New Albany has a form based code and specifically exempted from the form based code are Planned Districts because they are really not designed for form based code. Also, Dublin has some areas where they have done that after eight years of study, public hearings, and a lot of work of Council. So, she is very reluctant to try to redefine the Code through a Text that she thinks the Code really does not support in that way. That is their difference with Staff; not the ideas but she feels constrained by the Code provisions. That is where they are on that. They have gotten the Law Department a little bit involved in that and hopefully they can come to a consensus on that.

Ms. Cunningham stated that one of the things Mr. Bitar mentioned as a condition is the Text be amended to indicate the standards not specifically listed will be applicable to current Code. They are fine with that.

Ms. Cunningham stated he also talked about public fee waivers being at Final Development Plan. She does not think they have a big problem with that; changing the Text language associated with that.

Ms. Cunningham stated in condition number 7 Mr. Bitar talks about entry features and major project identification signs being subject to Final Development Plan review and approval. If he wants that in the Text then that is fine because she thinks it is. They are not trying to not be subject to that and she believes in their Code it would be anyway. She thinks when she mentioned that to Mr. Bitar on item 7

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 18

he said he understood that but wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page. They certainly agree that all of that would be subject to Final Development Plan approval.

Ms. Cunningham stated one of the things they have been talking to Staff (Mr. Bitar, Engineering, and Law) about is the idea of a development agreement. The reason they talk about development agreements in this case, and maybe in others, is because Mr. Bitar’s view is if/when it will come, with a lot of the roadway improvements that Mr. Gallagher talked about are not roadway improvements that have to be done tomorrow. When they have to occur is going to be based on the intensity and the impact on the development as it occurs on the site. If Otterbein chooses to have a vacant, 25 acres for 30 years that will effect traffic differently than if they decide to put in a parking garage and two classrooms. She is not speaking for Mr. Fisher or his client (Otterbein); they have no solid plans at this point. She is using it more as an illustration of not knowing when the traffic needs are going to be triggered so they are working with Staff to make sure that everybody is clear about what the impacts are going to be, what is going to trigger them, how much traffic is going to be put in, and when the improvements are going to have to be made. They will have to be phased based on direct impacts. That will be part of a development agreement that will go to Council. It will piggy back off of the traffic study. They saw in the Text that they put the presumptions that the traffic study relied upon so they would have some basis if they come back because it is possible that somebody might have to come back and change those; something about the development based on traffic impacts. They wanted the Commission to know ground zero where that started so that when somebody comes back, and it may be different Commission members, then everybody will know where they started and how that impact will be. So, in the Text and in the staff report they see references to a development agreement. That is really what that is all about and they are all technical issues that somebody is going to decide who are experts in that field to try to work out when and how that is going to happen. They will try to work with the City. On that, Otterbein will now be involved as well for working out those improvements.

Ms. Cunningham stated one thing she did want to mention is that Mr. Gallagher talked about the intersection of Collegeview and Cooper Rd. That is another one of those if/whens; there is not a signal or roundabout warranted today but it may be in the future. Mr. Gallagher indicated that he thought it might at some time and early on in the engineering discussion she thinks there were discussions that it may never be. They do not know if and when that will occur. Again, that would be based on the traffic generated on the site and other issues as well. That will be part of the developer agreement. She believes the design of that interchange will all be part of a future determination, they are not suggesting what it is going to look like or how it is going to look at this time. What Mr. Gallagher was alluding to is all they did was make sure it would fit; whatever happens. That was part of their conceptual plan, to identify that it could happen in the future and it is doable at this location either as a roundabout or as a signal. Just because their plan shows a roundabout, she does not want them to presume they are here advocating a roundabout because they are not. They are saying it may happen in the future and they are not going to be the decision maker on what happens there. They understand that would be in conjunction and cooperation with the City with whatever the development might drive at that location. She wanted to make that clear because it is part of a conceptual plan. It has been discussed a possibility of either a signal or a roundabout without any determination by them. She

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 19

presumes that Otterbein will weigh in on that in the future too because that will directly effect their parcels as well.

Ms. Cunningham stated that with that developers’ agreement they have had a lot of discussion about when sidewalks would go in, where, how, and what part of the development will trigger what. They hope that will be part of the developers’ agreement too. That will help figure out how that will logically occur to allow for pedestrian connectivity based on what parcel is developing when. Those are a lot of the technical details that they felt were more appropriate for a developers’ agreement and part of the zoning text because there has to be more flexibility in that as it comes forward.

Ms. Cunningham stated finally, one of the issues they have had a lot of discussion about is density and density in the R-4 District. She appreciates Mr. Bitar’s amendment tonight in addressing this issue. It was not their intention to necessarily tie everything to density bonuses. Some of it was just in the PD and the idea of the overall consideration. These include how much open space you are giving, quality of design development, and all those flexibilities in doing things. One of the things that would allow the developer to give the City the 9 acre “Alum Creek Park” and a 3.7 acre “Cooper Park” is to allow a high intensity of development in some locations. Also, to create the scale and quality of development to support those kinds of things, one thing that helps is density. She put in the text that it is a variance to the Code but she is not sure that it is frankly, given the PD but she knows there has been some history of interpretation. One of the objectives that they were trying to accomplish is to create in the Code the standards that assure them that those things are going to happen; the greenspace is going to go, the park will be dedicated, and in the end response to that is the density in that subarea can be 12 units an acre. It is not something they proposed, it is determined at Final Development Plan. They would see the issue at Final Development Plan as not density but as qualifying for the upscale design criteria they have committed to in the architectural standards as the obligation to give the City the 9 acres. That would be done at Final Development Plan as well on that site.

Ms. Cunningham stated they see the 12 units per acre as PUD plan qualifying for it and it being an opportunity at Final Development Plan to assure that all of the high standards they have tried to establish through landscaping, signage, and architectural standards are met as part of the Final Development Plan. That was part of their discussions back and forth with the City and she thinks that is part of what Mr. Bitar’s amendment is trying to address; their concerns if they meet these standards overall on the site and within the subarea at the Final Development Plan then that should be sufficient.

Ms. Cunningham stated she thinks those are the main issues. There is some discussion about the floodplain on the southwest. They are still working with Staff on that. They have committed to being within 50 feet. They are talking about the stream on the southwestern portion of the property. Pretty much everywhere around there, that stream, and on the St Ann’s site have all been entitled to fill in the floodplain and Code does not prevent them from doing that. They have committed to try to stay out of the tree line and have a 50 foot buffer but they would like the opportunity to use that portion of the site. It makes it very difficult to develop that corner otherwise. As they can see from the photo, there are parking lots that have filled and are all the way up to edge all through there and there has been filling all along. Since Code provides for it and they will be respectful of the trees and the existing vegetation, they have not agreed with Staff that they should have anything more than a 50 foot setback

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 20

there. She feels like that is what has pretty much been enforced in other places and on adjacent sites. They are willing to comply with that. They have not been willing to agree to back off of that just because of the extreme limitation on development opportunities at that location if that occurs; particularly when the properties right next door are right on it.

Ms. Cunningham stated she thinks those are the main issues. The one issue she is going to talk about that is not really her issue ultimately but is addressed in the Text and Mr. Bitar mentioned was the northern access for traffic. This would be through property owned by Otterbein. Originally they were talking about the commercial development that is at the southeast corner of Main Street and Cleveland Avenue. The concern has been, and she thinks the Text reflects, there are not cross access easements right now that would allow anybody to drive through any of the adjacent properties to get to this site. There is a private parking lot with a drive aisle on the property immediately to the north. With her “lawyer hat on” she would say they cannot just hook up to somebody’s property and let people drive across it without having an easement or a cross access easement or some rights. They have had discussions about that and that is why she thinks appropriately Mr. Bitar has said this should be a Final Development Plan issue. It will also really be Otterbein’s issue whenever they decide what they are going to do and how that is going to connect because it directly affects their property. That is why it has been kind of iffy about committing to doing anything in a particular location at that particular place because there are a lot of legal rights that have to be ironed out first to make sure that access rights are available on both sides should that happen. They have sort of punted and said it is going to be a Final Development Plan issue to be worked out and wherever access might come through there.

Ms. Cunningham stated that goes through the main issues that Mr. Bitar brought up. Mr. Faris did talk briefly about what they view as the temporary construction easement potentially for the three buildings in Subarea Three. They will work with the City on that. They are not trying to do any great disturbance of anything. They have committed not to take down any trees or violate the woods in any way. It is just the practical development realities. They could convey it afterwards she supposes but they want to be honest about the fact that they might do a little grading in there; nothing significant and they would work with the City and more clearly define that.

Chairman Johnson opened the floor for public comment. Seeing there was no one, he closed public comments and opened the floor for the Commission.

Mr. Szuch stated the plan now shows offices in the center. He asked if the center core is no longer essentially a senior living environment but half of it is becoming office.

Mr. Faris stated that is one of the big “ifs”. He just took that out so they could show the massing on the park. It could still be that.

Mr. Szuch stated one of Staff’s requests was having some form of vehicular traffic on the southern portion of the greenspace area. To him, one of the unique things he would like about not having vehicular traffic is if indeed this whole center area was some form of senior/skilled environment, not that it would be free of vehicles on that site but be fairly pedestrian. If that was developed as office,

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 21

then he could somewhat see his point that it would be nice to have some form of parking. As that develops that would weigh in to a portion of that.

Mr. Szuch stated the other challenge they are going to have here is that he gets a sense the skilled nursing form/building has been used somewhere else. This is not a one off as far as these particular wings and the way this thing is developed. As they have taken great pains to develop their hierarchy in their other areas, they have this ameba-shaped thing that is taking over 8 acres of the center core of almost this entire site. They have to decide whether they still think this is the best place for this or not. If that indeed is going to be the location, it is bisecting and chopping up a lot of what he thinks could have been otherwise nice access being set up. He likes the ideas of Cooper Rd and the greenspace; he fully sees how that works. He is still looking to see more of those types of relationships through the space. It seems like not only is it divided into subareas as far as what everyone is thinking, but even just functionality. Each area kind of ties itself off from another one and there is not real overall, bigger scheme to how the thing lays out. All the buildings seem to be fairly small in nature. He would hope to see as this thing gets further on and closer to development that some of these buildings would coalesce into larger structures. Every time you build a small building you have to have two stairways, an elevator, a lobby, and any kind of entry; all space you can sort of combine when you do larger structures and hopefully get back to more greenspace and more walking or pedestrian spaces. Every time you have a smaller building set next to one another, and that is going beyond the point made that there is no one overlying developer on this site which is almost the exact opposite concern he had when they were dealing with the residential property. He was concerned that whole thing was going to end up looking the same. His concern here is that none of this is going to end up looking like it belongs together. So, starting with the skilled nursing he will be curious to see how those elevations relate to anything around it. So that one does not look like it is the hierarchy of some farm village and then there are some modern glass office buildings. He thinks they will have to pay very close attention to how each of these come in being that there is not a single, overlying developer handling these properties.

Mr. Szuch stated he is a little confused as far as when they are talking about density versus conditional uses that are being set as far as what the Code says for Conditional Uses pertaining to the 12 units per acre and the public use. It seems like the City is giving away a lot of items here and being asked to make specific agreements that they will commit to making it a park. However, he sees on the other side a lot of not really knowing what this is going to be. One of the most troubling ones to him was the connection of Collegeview and Cooper Rd. He does not see major roadway connections being something that gets left to Final Development. He thinks that is something they need to work on before they get to that point. Yes, he understands how the buildings lay out and the various subdivisions for the different parts of this site can come at a later time. However, as something as fundamental as the basic connections and the road system is different. They are taking great pains already to talk about ins and outs off of Cleveland Avenue section but the for the major connection on this site they are still talking about that being something that the developer is not willing to commit to what that is going to be.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 22

Mr. Bitar stated what they are saying is that would be part of a development agreement between the owner and the City. It is not a Final Development Plan. When it is warranted it takes place at that time regardless of whether there is a Final Development Plan or not.

Mr. Szuch asked if he can give them an idea of when it is warranted falls in the timeline of things.

Mr. Bitar stated no, he cannot because traffic signals are usually not warranted unless traffic data supports the need for a traffic signal. He will let the traffic engineers speak. When the traffic data gets to a certain point that it warrants a signal or roundabout, then it would take place, which is the type of thing that is intended to be in the development agreement. So, the intent of the development agreement is that by the time they get to Council that in association with approving the rezoning, the plan, and the text, the development agreement would also be approved.

Mr. Szuch stated OK.

Mr. Gallagher stated to give them a little more detail; the study breaks down exactly the tripping points based on some assumptions. The traffic study shows that roughly 40% of the development would have to occur before the signal would likely be required.

Mr. Szuch stated he looks at this like he looks at Altair because Altair had a lot of moving pieces and a lot of different uses on that ground as well. He asked if there is somewhat of a timeline commitment. He knows they always hear it is when the market allows. His concern is that certain aspects of this will be fully developed, obviously the skilled nursing would be one of them, and that other areas will not get developed at all and they end up with really none of the traffic improvements being done or have not tipped the scale as far as the percentage is concerned. He would be interested to get a little bit of a commitment of when they think some of the components within the site would potentially be developed. He knows things move as far as the markets are concerned but now that they have Otterbein as part of this, they know their needs as far as parking, student housing, and other things. He hopes that picture can be a little more focused as far as what the timeline is going to be for something to be developed here.

Mr. Szuch stated they had mentioned parking and pavement; he is supportive of that to the extent that if parking is being reduced in areas that is essentially is left as green. Once they build a building he cannot do anything about expanding the parking in a given area but he is all for parking on as little as the developer feels he needs with the condition that if parking needed to be grown for a given use or area, that land was available to do so. That is always what he felt it would be for that and for office buildings as well.

Mr. Szuch stated as the plan stands right now, the right-in and right-out off Cleveland Avenue does not really tie to the rest of the circulation on the site very well. He does not know whether it is supposed to be a relief valve for essentially this grouping of the mixed use or commercial area (whatever that ends up being) directly adjacent to it but it seems like it is tied off from everything else short of having to drive through a double-loaded parking lot where you are trying to watch traffic on both sides as you

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 23

are trying to get back to the road. He hopes there would be some way they can improve that connection to it.

Council Member Fosselman stated she appreciates the way the traffic study was addressed with the median on Cleveland Ave and the potential for widening at Cooper to allow additional traffic through that. She thinks those are very important on this piece of property where Cleveland Ave traffic is already a challenge for the City. She does appreciate that and moving that road so they have more of a stacking. Those are great improvement.

Council Member Fosselman stated as far as items she is concerned with, one is the protection of the streams and creek. Those are very important to her. Mr. Bitar put up the picture of the floodplains for both areas and it is very interesting to look at the adjoining property to the south because it appears they did go through staying out of those areas. She would like to see that continued on this property where the goal is protecting the waterway. This is something they ask for on all development. As you go up north on Alum Creek they ask for the preservation easements to make sure they are not negatively impacting the stream. The three easternmost buildings are of concern to her, including the associated parking. She wants to make sure the City’s Engineering Division is looking at drainage to make sure drainage from all the parking lots are directed into those retention basins and not into either one of those waterways. That is very important. She does not want runoff of car oils or whatever getting into those waterways.

Council Member Fosselman stated she agrees with Mr. Szuch’s comment about the size of building. There are so many small buildings on this site and because there is not one developer she thinks that increases their chances of winding up with more of a hodgepodge development that does not have the creative feel or sense of being. She would prefer to see fewer, larger buildings. She thinks a hotel would be great rather than all of these buildings that appear to be smaller. She stated she was trying to visualize, especially on the southern part where they have two and three story office buildings designated, whether there is adequate parking for those buildings and whether this is a realistic portrayal of what potential development could look like.

Council Member Fosselman stated she is excited about Otterbein’s potential for growth in this area. She is anxious to see what input they would have. This is an incredibly beautiful piece of property with those natural amenities of the stream to the south, the creek to the east, and Otterbein Lake (which is a real well kept secret in Westerville). They have some incredible natural resources there to work with. She hopes they will use those to the most of their advantage. She was surprised to see garages facing Alum Creek on the north residential piece rather than having a building with that view. She stated they will have to see what that turns out being in the Final Development.

Council Member Fosselman asked about the skilled nursing facility possibly moving which would give the opportunity to freeing up parking.

Mr. Faris stated they have talked to Mainstreet (the skilled nursing facility) several times and they are not going to move. If they move then they are not here. He hates to say it like that but they have told them that.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 24

Council Member Fosselman asked if they are set on that shape. She stated maybe if one of the wings is not where it is or if it is rotated then they could free up some space.

Mr. Faris stated that is probably more of a question for when Mainstreet is in front of the Commissions. They have been explicit with him that they are done looking at this.

Council Member Fosselman stated that puts the challenge on him on if it is a done deal then he needs to figure out how to move the rest of that stuff to open that up there.

Mr. Faris stated as far as some of the other comments with the protection of the floodplain and everything else, he thinks what they are seeing down below is the mapping of the floodplain after it was filled in. They remap all the floodways and floodplains at different increments of time. He does not think it was ever that skinny down there; it was actually probably much wider. When it went between the parking and that building it wasn’t 30 feet wide, it was probably a couple hundred feet wide. He thinks that the farm has done quite a bit of filling in that area already and the mapping has not yet caught up to the elevations that are out there. If they look at the topography they have on the map on the plan, there is no way it can be flooding there because it is 5 feet higher. There is a little bit of magic in the line that maybe really does not exist where it is at but maybe they can verify that more for them since they are asking for that relief.

Mr. Faris stated as far as the scale of the buildings, he agrees with that. For example, he has worked with Daimler for 20 years and he knows what their buildings are shaped like and what they put in them. These are based on them and these are their parking ratios. He is not saying Daimler is going there but he has brought that experience to this. One thing they are seeing here that Daimler does not do is push their buildings to the street. He is trying to set this up so they get a walking environment.

Council Member Fosselman stated she appreciates that.

Mr. Faris stated those are the scale of the buildings they are talking about. He thinks they brought a study in that showed the parking ratios to show they supported the two and three story. He thinks they did that a couple times ago and that has not changed.

Council Member Fosselman stated she was trying to judge just the furthest southeast office building with the St Ann’s MOB that is further to the east and trying to compare roughly the size of that with the size of the parking field and it looked like it was close.

Mr. Faris stated he thinks most of those that they looked at are 25-50 but he would have to go back and look at that again because he does not want to get the numbers wrong. However, they are taken out of a “developers playbook.” He is not just drawing squares to draw squares; there is some reality behind it and he makes sure that the parking ratios work for the building massing that they are seeing and that it is realistic. He does not want to show too little parking and then they are thinking that it is greenspace. He also does not want to show too much. It is really close to what reality would be if somebody were to come in and do what they want them to do.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 25

Mr. Bitar stated it is a little tricky because he mentioned the size of this development is the size of Easton, so what looks in proportion to be small in reality it is a pretty decent size building.

Council Member Fosselman stated her fear is if a couple of those lots are given to one development and then a couple more are given to another developer. She was comfortable with the previous idea of an assisted living for seniors next to the skilled nursing facility, but now she is losing some of her comfort knowing that it could be just a multi-family in addition to office.

Council Member Fosselman stated she would like Staff’s input on how they would envision that road to the south of the open space looking. They were talking about possibly a one way. She just wants to make sure it is going to work even though she sees they have a drive on the western part of the park and slightly south and east. She guesses it could tie into it.

Mr. Bitar stated it is a conceptual thing that this point. One of the things with these “ifs” and “crazy planner ideas” is they could also look at on-street parking in this area. They have a three-lane road with a center dual turn lane along Cooper Rd and if they restrict the number of turning movements, they do not need the center turn lane throughout that stretch. He thinks that would be a good traffic calming. The curves become interesting and obviously that would have to be evaluated from a traffic standpoint and where the intersections have to be. It all really depends on the details at that time. It is not the end of the world if that road does not happen. It is just based on the experiences that were shared with him that usually contributes quite a bit and the examples that he saw. The one he showed them did not have that so it works in other ways as well.

Council Member Fosselman stated she agrees with what they are saying as having a front of the building. She thinks that does make a lot of sense. She does appreciate the access there to Otterbein Lake and the easement along that. She thinks that is important to the community. Whether or not that will actually turn into parking, she does not know but she thinks that is going to be largely based on whether they have access at Mettler Toledo, which is also going to be controlled by Otterbein. She thinks they need to have that in case that is needed there.

Council Member Fosselman stated retail is a concern. The last thing she wants to see is a bunch of retail extending the entire frontage on Cleveland Avenue. She does not want to see fast food restaurants lining that. She does not want to create South State Street and what they are trying to correct now. She does not want to see this area turning into too much retail. However, retail supporting the interior uses is something she is fine with. She really likes the list that Staff provided. She thought is made it much more clear when they talk about referencing the Code. She recognizes it is difficult. She is challenged doing that in going through the Code and she thinks that really simplified it for her. She appreciates that and thinks that was a good benefit to this.

Council Member Fosselman stated she is OK with the residential to the east of Cooper. If they are just going to have apartments or that type of multi-family to the west of Cooper then that is a concern. She stated she loves large office buildings, hotels, and supporting uses for that.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 26

Council Member Fosselamn stated the timing is another concern for her and she hopes that will be worked out with Staff as far as when sidewalks will go in and when roadways will go in.

Council Member Fosselman states she agrees with Staff’s comments on density. She prefers waiting for Final Development because she needs to see that the quality is there and the open space is there. To her that is how the City can ensure the quality of that development. She likes the way things are listed but she needs to make sure it is not a guarantee unless they see the final product and feel that it meets the criteria.

Mr. Domanik stated one of the things that intrigue him with Otterbein coming along now is that this is the first sell off. He asked how many more sell offs they are going to have. He asked if the overall developer is starting to get cold feet and say they should start selling this off because things are not moving fast enough. He hates to see that broken into a bunch of pieces. He thinks with Otterbein’s addition that is a pretty good sized chunk of land. They know the record of Otterbein, what they have done, and what they are going to do. It is a good tie in but what scares him is the rest of it and if it is going to start selling off. The Commission cannot control that. Maybe they can but they need some solid plans on that. He knows the other thing they cannot say what is going to happen is the economy; that is what holds up everything. They are still waiting on stuff further on up north. Who knows if it will ever develop.

Mr. Domanik stated he never liked where the nursing facility is located or the way the building looks. He thinks that should be someplace else but that is the only given thing they have to sink their teeth into right now. He can accept it. However, the other Subarea they have no idea what it is going to be at this point. He appreciates the park in the middle but he would like to know more about what Otterbein has in mind. He knows they do not just buy property for the sake of buying property. There is a plan someplace in there to see how this is going to tie in with the rest of it.

Mr. Domanik stated as far as density, they have been pretty hard on density for a lot of areas. However, they need to give them something that deserves that density; maybe less smaller buildings. He stated to maybe get a four story building in there. He asked if any of those are planned in there.

Mr. Faris stated they increased the height limit in the Text to encourage that.

Mr. Domanik stated it looks like they are going that way but until they see it on paper they do not know that. That helps because that would allow for more greenspace.

Mr. Faris stated even if he draws it on the paper that does not bring it here but he understands what he is saying.

Mr. Domanik stated right now it is what ifs and that big “if” that Mr. Bitar is talking about. As they see it now, he likes the idea of not having the three building close to there but it looks like it is going to be a done deal there.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 27

Mr. Domanik stated as far as the right-in and right-out on Cleveland Avenue, if it is a safety belt to get traffic flowing to the north then he guesses he could accept it. The median scares him but he knows they need it in there for a right-in and right-out because he has seen people do those crazy things at times.

Mr. Domanik stated he appreciates the way they have come on this thing; they have come a long way and there are still some things they can work out. He would like to see something going on this. He would be really interested to know what Otterbein is going to do here in the very near future.

Mr. Berger stated he will start small and specific. He knows in Staff’s report one of the concerns was the setback on Cleveland Avenue and then they heard the traffic engineer’s report. He is confused with respect to the setbacks noted in the Preliminary Development Plan Text as to what amount of setback they are really talking about south of Cooper Rd and north of Cooper Rd given the right-in. He thinks Staff’s intent was to line up the frontage of the buildings to the south with the buildings to the south and the buildings to the north to the buildings to the north.

Mr. Faris stated he thinks their Text right now says 30-35 foot building setback and they have agreed to line them up with what St Ann’s has to the south. They are going to be varying setbacks from the right-of-way because they are only taking 20 feet of the existing right-of-way north of Cooper but south of Cooper they are taking 35 feet of right-of-way. So, it is going to look like a different setback but it is going to place the buildings on the same line.

Mr. Berger sated as long as that is not an item of contention.

Mr. Faris stated no, it is not.

Mr. Berger stated it is a bit confusing because a lot of elements come into it.

Mr. Berger stated he would like to go to the question of open space and give them one person’s view on that. This is under a PD section of the Code and there are five basic objectives sought for Planned Development Districts. Three of which have to do with the natural topography and features, site amenities, and the neighborhood scale of trying to diminish the necessity for non vehicular trips. Consistent with that, they have relaxed standards, density bonuses, setback standards, parking spaces, and what have you. With respect to the southwestern part of the site and the stream there, while things may have been done differently on adjacent parcels, he is not sure they came in under a PD Text where other objectives were being met in that zoning text. He is, as with Council Member Fosselman, sympathetic to what they do with the creek on that side of the boundary.

Mr. Berger stated in tying in with that, he does not know that the three buildings on the easternmost part of the parcel respect or provide an adequate buffer to that area. He is also struck that in total, the 9 acre Alum Creek and 3.7 acre proposed parks account for roughly 13 percent of the total land use of the entire acreage. When they factor in that almost half of that is in a 100 year floodplain that cannot be developed; what he is leading to is he is not sure that the question of who is going to own and maintain the 3.7 acre park is necessarily an item to be decided in the Preliminary Development Plan.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 28

However, speaking as one person he thinks the fact that there will be a 3.7 acre open space ought to be and shall be in the Preliminary Development Plan. They will see where the other items go later. It is all consistent with the provision of site amenities and other things that go along with getting the PD zoning.

Mr. Berger stated those are his major points. He thinks that the site plan has come a long way from when they first saw it. He thinks it ought to be recognized that he is not sure anyone on the Commission really likes the location or design of the skilled nursing center but they are swallowing it. To that extent, he thinks they have already given a degree of concession to this proposal.

Ms. Koorn stated she would like to start with the subareas. She would also add that she feels a little caught between Ms. Cunningham’s struggle and Mr. Bitar’s struggle between coming up with a nice easy to read chart and following the Code. In an effort to understand what the subareas are about she found herself going back and forth. She thinks each approach has its pros and cons. She does not know exactly which side she comes down on but she is confident in this much; as the Text is proposed now she still has a lot of questions. At one point when she was reviewing this, she thought they may be potentially be voting on it and is relieved they are not. At least she does not think they are seeking a vote tonight; she knows Otterbein is not.

Ms. Koorn stated she is particularly concerned about Subarea Two because it encompasses the nursing home which they have already expressed their feeling about. The Code (1162.05) speaks specifically to a skilled nursing facility and she does not see that reflected in the Text. Subarea Two is probably the most important in the regard that is has the skilled nursing and there is already a recommendation that there be a record made with the County Recorder that the skilled nursing is a skilled nursing and never multi-family housing. She would like to see clarification in the next round of Text revisions.

Ms. Koorn stated her next concern and question relates to the Cleveland Avenue right-in and right-out access point; which is referenced on page 11. She understands through Mr. Gallagher that when the time comes for that it will be addressed as the traffic demands.

Council Member Fosselman asked if they can have that clarified because she would see the median going there as soon as that access is built.

Mr. Bitar answered in the affirmative.

Ms. Koorn stated she is not even certain if that is the exact location of the right-in and right-out. She did not think that what was provided was consistent with what was talked about earlier here tonight.

Mr. Gallagher stated the location is conceptual. He thinks Staff will probably have it moved north a bit so a longer right-turn lane can get in. However, that depends on how much right-of-way is available south of their lot that they can utilize to do the longer turn lane. They are working with Staff on that. The study suggests, and he thinks this will be carried into any legal documents, that when the access is built, the turn lane and median have to be built with it.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 29

Ms. Koorn stated tonight in her rush to get here she drove north on Cleveland Avenue to Main Street. The last thing she wants is traffic slowing down on Cleveland Avenue to turn right into that early access point rather than going down to Loop Road A.

Mr. Gallagher stated Staff has the same concern and that is the effort to try to lengthen the turn lane as much as they can so people can get off, decelerate, turn-in, and not affect through traffic.

Ms. Koorn asked if the right-in and right-out is still necessary since the right-of-way is being increased at Loop Road A to push more in and push out like he was talking about in his presentation.

Mr. Gallagher stated he thinks the property owner could probably speak more to this.

Zach Kirk, with RSTLNE, LLC, stated they envision the comprehensive plan to tie all things together. Retail to some degree is an important component. He thinks they talked about it a couple meetings ago; the type of retail they are looking at to make this a walkable community and provide it as an amenity for this project. It will also tie in with Otterbein for people that are transferring back and forth and maybe some of the surrounding neighbors. They are not talking about Burger King and Speedway. They are talking about Starbucks, bookstores, and very destination oriented type retail in a very well developed center. This is what he has done for the last 20 years. They are not trying to recreate State Street. That said, if they do not have the right-in and right-out then they do not have retail and that defeats the purpose of those buildings along Cleveland Avenue. In fact, if they do not have right-in and right-out along the northern side of Cleveland Avenue north of Cooper Road, that relegates those buildings south as their only opportunity. So, if they are going to have that as a component, which form his perspective is imperative to make this what they envisioned all along, they have to have that right-in and right-out at some point.

Mr. Kirk stated he thinks if they are going to do what they looked at from the very beginning of analyzing comprehensively what they are going to do here, they have to have that as a component. However, they are sensitive to the type of retail that will be going in there.

Ms. Koorn stated her next topic has been touched on and that relates to the timing. Code (1162.06) provides for a schedule of the phasing. Now they are adding Otterbein and that is a recent development, which she thinks is a huge plus overall. However, in terms of timing, she thinks any plan that is recommended to City Council should include a timing component. Whether that is a month, a year, date, or first comes “a” then comes “b” lastly comes “c.” She would like some sense of when to start looking for improvements down there.

Ms. Koorn stated she has some minor things in the Text that left her scratching her head. One was canopies and awnings on page 15. She does not know what to make of that. It sounds like they can be permitted for directional signage. This is minor in the sense that it is one line item out of 25 pages but as some of her fellow Commission members have mentioned; they are going to have many different property owners and there will be lot splits so uniformity and what this looks like in the big picture is her concern.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 30

Ms. Koorn stated lastly, and it is more on the aesthetic that ties into the 3.7 acre park: the retention ponds along Cooper Rd and the discussions regarding traffic calming, size, and scale. She is wondering, and in going back to the skilled nursing layout, if some or one of those retention ponds might serve as a segue between the skilled nursing and the more eastern side of Subarea Two rather than lining Cooper Rd, because she can see people who are trying to avoid that potential back up on the right turn in and out coming up that Cooper Road trying to get there as quickly as possible. So, for esthetic purposes, traffic flow purposes, and overall site flow, rather than having all the retention ponds line Cooper Rd, she is wondering if some of them could be moved further west.

Mr. Samuelson stated he has struggled as well with the nursing facility location. He appreciates Mr. Bitar’s comment referring to the internal aspects of the facility but in general, he feels like that location is actually a barrier to making this a cohesive development. The retail is oriented to Cleveland and there is not much connectivity between retail and the residential to the east. He almost feels like switching the nursing facility with the office area. It would make the west area more unified as retail office and then the rest of the area would be focused on residential. That is his overall comment on this.

Mr. Samuelson stated he would like to go through a few items in the Development Standards and wanted to make sure about some issues. First of all, in regards to parking areas, he is assuming there is no parking allowed on Cooper or Loop Road A.

Mr. Faris stated they are not suggesting that there is any.

Mr. Samuelson stated there was text also referring to Loop Road A as possibly being private. He asked if that were the case, would the applicant want parking on Loop Road A?

Mr. Faris stated he does not believe so and actually he thinks they have changed it so that it needs to be public. If not, they will.

Mr. Samuelson stated it was assumed to be public but there was that “if”.

Mr. Faris stated it would actually be great to have parking on it because it would be traffic calming but he thinks that is a hard sell with the Engineering Division.

Mr. Samuelson stated in regards to parking and the focal point on Loop Road A, he does not see how the Development Standards address whether or not parking is allowed in that focal area where it makes that curve. He asked if it is the intent to use that for any type of parking or stopping.

Mr. Faris asked where he is talking about.

Mr. Samuelson stated where Loop Road A goes south and then goes east.

Mr. Faris stated no, he does not know what will actually happen there, but they are saying it’s a focal point.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 31

Mr. Samuelson asked if drop off could occur there.

Mr. Faris stated he does not know.

Mr. Samuelson stated it is not clear in the development standards, which is why he is asking because it could be for drop off.

Mr. Faris stated it could just be the road turning right there and they have a plaza there or an open space that terminates on the facades of some nice buildings.

Mr. Samuelson stated he was asking because the word “daycare” is right next to it and that implies to him a drop off. Without the Development Text, he is not clear on the intent of that focal point area so he would appreciate some clarification on the use of that area.

Mr. Samuelson stated the next comment he has is in relation to the traffic and this relates to the roundabout or signal at Collegeview and Cooper. He understands it is either/or which means it becomes a preference, not a requirement that one be chosen over the other.

Mr. Faris stated that is what the City wants.

Mr. Samuelson stated it is a preference so in other words the City does not have to do a signal because a roundabout does not work, nor do they have to do a roundabout because a signal does not work. His question is if the traffic conditions are such that the City were to prefer for a signal instead of a roundabout, there are design applications with a signal versus a roundabout which could affect access at those driveways nearby. He asked if the City has a preference towards a signal that requires access modifications to those driveways, would they be allowed to do that as a preference.

Mr. Gallagher stated Ms. Cunningham would have to address whether that would be able to be written in; he is sure it could but the study was done with it as a signalized intersection. All the turn lanes that were warranted, links were calculated, and all the access is behind all turn lanes. Unless traffic was dramatically different than what they are expecting, which is possible, what the study shows (which EMH&T agreed) is fairly conservative and now with Otterbein taking a big piece, the likelihood is they are going to be producing less traffic than what they used in the study. He would anticipate the turn lanes in the study might be a little bit long and the City and EMH&T had them push all access beyond turn lanes. The roundabout came last minute to see if one would work, to see if they could get it in, to see if they can still make the park work.

Mr. Samuelson stated his question still relates to the driveways nearby. He asked if they can be modified based on a City preference versus a requirement.

Mr. Gallagher stated his answer was that EMH&T made them locate the drives based on either or; the outcome of the study and the turn lane links. The accesses are beyond those and with the roundabout

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 32

layout the access points are beyond where the City and EMH&T thought they were appropriate. He is sure they can leave it open to some modification if need be.

Mr. Samuelson stated like the roundabout or signal, it is an “if” about those driveways being properly located and it is based on the best information they have at this time.

Mr. Samuelson stated he had made a comment to Staff last week about whether Staff had any response on the offsite improvements.

Mr. Bitar stated according to the traffic study, some of those would be related to the development and some of them would be independent of the development. As they may be aware, there is an effort to make some major improvements to Cleveland Avenue that is also in association with ODOT and Columbus and several other jurisdictions. He thinks the City is taking all of those into account. He thinks there is acknowledgement that the intersection of Cooper Rd and Schrock Rd needs to be improved. Cleveland and Schrock will also be improved. The ones that are affected directly by this development would be part of the development agreement and the timing of those would be established. The ones that are identified as going beyond that will be at the City’s discretion.

Mr. Samuelson stated the next item he has is in relation to the section on sidewalks. One feature that seems to be missing in this is crosswalks and the importance of crosswalks, especially if they are trying to encourage pedestrian activity. He is concerned that this does not address how crosswalks should be located and how pathways should be designed to direct pedestrians towards using those crosswalks. He asked if Staff would care to comment on that.

Mr. Bitar stated since the only known at this point is a skilled nursing facility, and assuming even that comes in for Final Development Plan, some of those specific locations are unknown. If they all agree that the greenspace is going to be there and at some point they are going to have to agree whether there is going to be a road to the south of that or not so some of those decisions would have to be made at the Final Development stage because then they would know the exact details.

Mr. Samuelson asked if as the development progresses if they anticipate a comprehensive pathway system that would provide information on the appropriate locations for the crosswalks.

Mr. Bitar stated he thinks as different phases happen and they know for sure that those are happening, he believes they will be part of the development agreement. So for example, if there is an agreement that a certain sidewalk has to take place at the beginning of the project, then yes he would think crosswalks would have to be looked at at that time. Most of those are usually vetted through the Engineering Division to a certain extent. Any approval that the Planning Commission grants, whether it’s Preliminary Plan or Final Development, typically is with the assumption that all engineering requirements are met and those include street improvements, crosswalks, and so forth.

Mr. Samuelson stated in terms of the lighting, Mr. Faris mentioned he had worked with the City on that. He stated this is a minor detail but it is something that has come up with him recently in terms of the approved light source being metal halide and LED. He does know that LED can be made to look

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 33

different based on its temperature and maybe simulating high pressure sodium or even a blue color. He thinks it is implicit from this that the LED is to simulate the color of metal halide but perhaps in the future that could be misconstrued. He thinks perhaps something to make sure the LED emulates metal halide might be appropriate.

Chairman Johnson stated as far as he is concerned, they are not going to hear too much different from him other than to say he is happy that Otterbein is now part of this development. Also, density is a function of quality and he does not think they want to give that away until they are assured the quality will be there.

Chairman Johnson stated it is unanimous that they are swallowing the location of the nursing facility. It is not the proper place to put it but it is what it is and they will deal with it at the time.

Chairman Johnson stated surely the parks are a good addition and he is glad to see that they are going to have them especially to the east; that it is going and they have the focal point that crosses Cooper Rd park. So, the details can come later.

Chairman Johnson stated he thinks the applicant has more than just a general flavor for what the Commission feels. He believes it is the desire of the applicant to table until a time in the future.

Ms. Cunningham stated it is their desire to table for one meeting and hopefully be ready for a vote next meeting.

Chairman Johnson asked the applicant to give Staff adequate time to be sure they can prepare the Commission so they can all be prepared for the next meeting. With that, he asked for the Commission to entertain a motion.

Ms. Koorn moved to postpone PC 2012-17; Council Member Fosselman seconded the motion.

Yeas: Mr. Szuch, Mr. Domanik, Council Member Fosselman, Mr. Berger, Ms. Koorn, Mr. Samuelson, Chairman Johnson

Nays: None

Motion Passed: 7-0

Application postponed.

PC 2013-02: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE 12,350 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITY (WATER TREATMENT FACILITY) ON 49.42 ACRES IN THE R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, AND THE SOURCE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY, LOCATION: 312 W MAIN STREET; APPLICANT: KRISTIN KNIGHT, ARCADIS FOR THE CITY OF WESTERVILLE WATER DEPARTMENT.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 34

Ms. LaMantia stated the Water Department is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to expand its existing facility. It sits on a 49½-acre site in the R-1 Single Family District, as well are the most of the adjacent parcels with the exception of the COTA Park and Ride lot to the south which is zoned PID. The Senior Center and Alum Creek are located just to the southeast of the site.

Ms. LaMantia stated public service facilities like the water plant are considered conditional uses within the R-1. It also lies within the Source Water Protection Overlay which regulates substances stored on site as well as any sort of underground storage tanks. The applicant has submitted all required materials and is in compliance with requirements set forth by the Overlay.

Ms LaMantia stated the existing facility is comprised of three main structures. There is the chemical treatment building, the filter building, and the pump house. The proposal before the Commission this evening is to add a 9,100 sqft addition to the north of the existing facility that would house a new carbon filtration process and a 3,250 sqft addition for administrative offices that would connect the two existing buildings. There is also a garage proposed that would replace the existing older garage on site. There will be a new asphalt service drive that would extend east from the existing north/south drive that would service the loading areas, the new addition. Deliveries and refuse collection would utilize it as well.

Ms. LaMantia stated with the proposed improvements parking will be doubled from seven to 14 spaces plus one ADA spot that would be located to the rear of the structures. The applicant has been in contact with the Chief Building Official on ADA compliance and that location may change as well as the design of the front entry point.

Ms. LaMantia stated the overall architecture would be made up of brick that would match what was used on the existing facility. She showed a rendering of the new 9,100 sqft addition to the north of the property. Architecturally speaking, there is not a lot detail to it, but given its location at the north of the complex and its use Staff was not too concerned with the architectural detailing of it.

Ms. LaMantia showed the aerial photo and pointed out where the building would be sited. She stated there is some heavy vegetation, there is the park to the north, and the grade sits a little bit lower so visibility is pretty minimal for that addition.

Ms. LaMantia showed the elevations for the new administration building. It incorporates some glass elements that go from grade to roof line. It has a standing metal roof that would be green and an aluminum canopy that would wrap the entry feature.

Ms. LaMantia stated given the location sitting back behind a couple City facilities and the lower grade, Staff would like to work with them on some minor details on the administrative office component of it given that this would be the public access to the building. This could be raising the pitch of some of the roof lines. As the applicant works with the Chief Building Official on ADA accessibility, the entry may change slightly to include a ramp.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 35

Ms. LaMantia stated a detailed landscape plan was not submitted as part of the package, but that is another thing Staff feels comfortable working with the applicant on. She pointed out the existing shrubs and the landscaping that would be provided around the entry way. They would want to make sure that the entry ways is a little bit dressed up, that it meets landscaping requirements in the Code, and that they minimize some of the existing pavement that is there. There is a lot of pavement and Staff feels there are some opportunities to reduce the amount by adding greenspace. They think there are ways to maybe incorporate some beds to delineate the parking a little bit better. Staff is comfortable with working with the applicant a little bit further on it.

Ms. LaMantia showed some computer generated renderings provided by the applicant for reference in how they look. They were also provided in the Commission’s packet.

Ms. LaMantia stated Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Final architectural detailing be subject to Staff approval; and, 2. Final landscaping details be subject to Staff approval.

Chairman Johnson invited the applicant to come forward.

Kristin Knight, with Arcadis, stated they are the consulting engineers. They have been working with the department for approximately three years doing a study of the City’s water utility that was culminated in this project which was to find the most economic treatment available to improve the City’s water quality and meet regulatory requirements. As Ms. LaMantia showed, she can see what the final plan is going to look like. This new process does not increase the capacity of the plant and does not increase the staff for the plant. Therefore there will be not increased parking requirements due to this addition. There is no change in access to the site so the existing drive and existing access point will still be used.

Ms. Knight stated because the administration building combines the existing administration, filter building, and process building, the JAC facility, and the carbon facility in the back; none of that required removed of trees or existing vegetation.

Chairman Johnson opened the floor for public comment.

Richard Lorenz, the Water Utility Manager, stated this is a project they have been working on with Arcadis for several years and he is pleased to be here to present where they are with the Commission and the community. Their goal has been to get the best water quality they but at an economical price. They challenged their engineer to try to use their existing facilities, which are in good shape, as much as possible instead of tearing down and starting over again. They have done a good job reusing what they have and getting them the good treatment that they want/need and they will meet the new regulations that are coming up. At the same time, they will have some ecological benefits of reusing what they have. They have challenged the engineers to include some green componants in the design. Not too many of them jump out at you but the aluminum shield is actually a sunscreen that provides some cooling benefits from the sun in the summer time for air-conditioning. There are also other items that were included in the packet.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 36

Mr. Lorenz stated that he thinks Staff has covered it well enough and all four of them here should be able to address any concerns or question the Commission may have.

Seeing no further comments, Chairman Johnson closed public comments and opened the floor for the Commission.

Mr. Berger stated in looking at the plans it looks like there is at least two existing and maybe an additional loading area to be added for the filter building. However, they are not very well marked on the plan with respect to where those loading zones are. There is one on the chemical building to the south and another on the western most building to the south. His question comes on the new building to the north; how does a truck position themselves to off load when coming in that driveway then going east. He assumes the loading dock is on the west face/the new activated charcoal building. He asked how they would turn the truck around to get it to the loading dock there.

Mr. Lorenz stated that is very perceptive; there are a number of loading docks that serve a number of different loading docks now and in the future. As far as the ones in the back, they are moving to more for a bulk delivery system than they have now, which means the trucks do not actually pull up and unload at a loading dock because they pull up and unload at a pipe. There is a loading dock in the back large building. That is there primarily for access when they have to change a pump or tank out, which would be a one every 15-20 years type thing. The worst thing they want to do it build all these tanks inside and then not have a way to get them out and put a new one in without taking the roof out.

Mr. Lorenz stated that is the one loading dock. The other ones are not very well marked but there are many other plans in this document engineering wise that were not shared with the Commission and they are marked on there. He thinks there are some small marks about the ones up front. They all have a continued use for what they do. One of them is just for delivery of water meters for example and that is going to remain.

Mr. Berger stated he used to have to off load alum to a water treatment plant so he is sensitive to the fact that they have a lot of chemical deliveries and other things coming in.

Mr. Lorenz stated their engineering firm did use a computerizing program that is designed for semi trucks to ensure the turning radius is accurate.

Ms. Koorn asked if someone could clarify the handicap parking spot and if it is resolved.

Ms. LaMantia stated the applicant is currently working with Ed Ungar, the Chief Building Official, as they move through the permit process to make sure that ADA requirements are met. Part of that will be addressing that front entrance and then relocating the ADA spot. That will be taken care of and reviewed by the Building Division.

Ms. Koorn stated it sounds like it is going in the front.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 37

Ms. LaMantia stated that is correct.

Ms. Knight stated the ramp will be relocated to the front as well as the parking space.

Mr. Szuch stated it looks like the basic floor pad is sitting above grade so he assumes they will have areas of refuge type exits.

Mr. Lorenz stated they are in an area that they need to protect themselves from a catastrophic flood and that may be more than a 100 year flood, which they are out of. EPA requires them to be three feet above the 100 year so the whole floor plan is raised for safety of the community to that level; which gives them an ADA challenge but they are dealing with that.

Ms. Szuch stated it is not even so much as ADA as fire exits and stuff like that. When you have to exit at a level above grade, typically you either have heat tape that stair or put some kind of canopy above it but he is sure Mr. Ungar is dealing with them. He just noticed that from one of the doors off the back. It makes sense for the reasons that Mr. Lorenz stated.

Mr. Samuelson stated he wanted to verify on the accessibility. He asked if the ADA access is to the elevated entry or to the lower level door way in front of the blue tower.

Ms. Knight stated the ramp is actually going to be where the landscaping is to the north of the main entrance. It is a sizeable ramp considering the grade that they have to make up.

Mr. Lorenz stated he thinks Mr. Samuelson was referring to the other door where it has two steps in front of it.

Mr. Samuelson answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Lorenz stated there is actually three steps inside the doorway there. Once you get up there, it is all on the same level so there is no access problem once you get there.

Chairman Johnson asked the Commission to entertain a motion for the application before them.

Council Member Fosselman moved to approve PC 2013-02 with the following conditions: 1. Final architectural detailing be subject to Staff approval; and, 2. Final landscaping details be subject to Staff approval. Mr. Domanik seconded the motion. Convenience

Yeas: Mr. Szuch, Mr. Domanik, Ms. Koorn, Mr. Berger, Mr. Samuelson, Council Member Fosselman, Chairman Johnson

Nays: None

Motion Passed: 7-0

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 38

Application approved with conditions.

SUBDIVISION REVIEWS

PC 2013-03: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF WESTERVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REVIEW AND PRESENTATION OF INFORMAL ITEMS.

Ms. LaMantia stated this is to expand upon the discussion they had at the November meeting in which they discussed the handling of informal items. The informal process has merit to it because it affords any sort of potential applicant that is considering a project the opportunity to present a proposal to the Commission for preliminary feedback before actually filing a formal application and then paying an application fee. There are provisions in the Rules & Regulations that allow the informal review of items and potential projects. There is a list of criteria provided in the Rules & Regulations to help discern whether or not a project would be eligible for an informal review.

Ms. LaMantia stated that Staff would argue that most if not all of the items that come before the Commission informally meet one of the requirements or fall under the categories. Currently how they do it is the applicant, per the Rules & Regulations, is only required to submit a conceptual site plan 10 days prior to the meeting date. No staff report is provided to the Commission for review. There have been instances where informal reviews have been helpful to the applicants. They have come forward and had successful applications. However, there has been concern from the Commission that without a staff report or any sort of guidance from Staff, that they might not have all the information that they need to have an actual meaningful discussion or that the applicant might draw conclusions from anything they say. There is a clause in the Rules & Regulations that the Commission’s feedback is not binding but there is that possibility that an applicant might take something away that was not intended.

Ms. LaMantia stated one of the things that was suggested was to scrutinize what should or should not come before the Commission as an informal item. Based on the criteria provided in the Rules and Regulations, it is kind of difficult to arrive at that decision when most of them meet the criteria for an informal review. So, after discussion they had at the November meeting, Staff went back and drafted a couple versions of the Rules and Regulations. One of them was based on the consensus that was reached by the Commission and that was that Staff look at a two step process for informal considerations. The first step would allow the Commission to determine whether or not a request should be heard. If the hearing is granted and the Commission decides to have them come back, then the following month the applicant would come back with their informal item and it would be accompanied with a brief, written staff report and presentation.

Ms. LaMantia stated Staff was reluctant to move forward with a two step process. They understand they need to curb the amount of informal items that might come forward but they do feel they are helpful and did not want to discourage any sort of potential applicant from coming forward. So, what Staff came up with was a single step process that was much more formalized. It mirrors more of a formal application. What they would do is an applicant would actually file an application. Staff is

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 39

calling it Conceptual Plan Review. The applicant would pay an application fee. Staff is suggesting $100 at this time. They would need to file it in accordance with the adopted Commission deadlines and meeting dates. A plan and a narrative describing the project would be submitted. Staff would write a staff report and it would be packaged up and placed in the packet like any other formal application. That staff report would not have a recommendation, but would at least provide some background and some guidance on the proposal before the Commission.

Ms. LaMantia stated Staff put both options in the packet. There was a comment about the first version with the two step process that public comment was revised to say no public comment during an informal. The question was why that was not put into option two. They have no problem doing that. The first option was added in by the Law Department. In going back and looking at the existing Rules and Regulations, there already is some language that states any public comment will be reserved for formal filing and public hearing. The language is in there, but Staff has no problem copying the “no public comment” specifically and putting in option two as well.

Ms. LaMantia stated Staff would recommend the single step process and with that, she is available for any questions.

Council Member Fosselman stated she would like examples where an informal presentation has provided a better product because what she sees happening is somebody comes up with a formal presentation and Planning Commission wanting to be polite and respectful, and not having all the facts, offer more positive comments than perhaps then they would receive more of a balance comments if they had all of the information, and perhaps the applicant is thinking the Commission is more favorable than they may be when provided all the information. She thinks barreling forward after an informal presentation without all the information. She prefers to get rid of all informal presentations. Just like what was said, the vast majority of applications deal with one of those descriptions circumstances. She does not see the benefit.

Ms. LaMantia stated there is one example that Staff likes to use in going back to how it has resulted in a better product and that is Roush Honda. When they came informally to the Commission they showed the typical prototype building that is in Marysville; the white marble building. When Staff initially met with them Staff told them no and the owner agreed that they did not necessarily care for what corporate was bringing down on them. They were open to incorporating traditional materials like brick but they wanted Staff to be the bad guys.

Council Member Fosselman stated that is a very specific example because they had a local manager who was advocating for City standards. She has never seen any other applicant where they have had that situation. She is really struggling. She thinks if they would have gone through the regular process, because they had that advocate, they would have still ended up with a positive result. So, she challenges them to come with another one because she sees it being more of a negative than a positive.

Ms. Koorn stated point taken; Aldi comes to her mind.

Council Member Fosselman stated that is a perfect example of her concern.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 40

Ms. Koorn stated they are not back.

Council Member Fosselman stated they are coming back.

Ms. LaMantia stated they have filed an application.

Council Member Fosselman stated that is weighing on her mind for why she thinks it does not work, because they are coming back.

Ms. LaMantia stated that from a Staff standpoint, she has been dealing with that application and she has found it helpful to go back to the minutes of that informal meeting because she has shared those minutes with the applicant. That is one of the reasons why they postponed this evening. It had been long enough that she truly did not think they remembered the back and forth. She shared with them the comments and they are going back and doing a little “soul searching.” That is one instance where she found going back to the minutes of the informal meeting helpful because she does not think that they took to heart what was said.

Council Member Fosselman stated the Commission can give an opinion but she does not know what they are listening to. If they were trying to be courteous and respectful, they may have tried to be diplomatic and pick out one positive and maybe that is all they heard and that was all they needed to hear to encourage them to come back. That is really troubling her that they wanted to come back.

Mr. Bitar stated the initial reason why this opportunity was established is because the Commission does not have work sessions. A lot of times what happens is they will be discussing with a potential developer and Staff would be saying they cannot support that but then they would ask if that is Staff’s position or the City’s position. Staff would say most of the time they are on the same page as the Commission. That was devised as an opportunity to verify for somebody that yes, everybody agrees that this is not a good idea and they should not invest any more money into it.

Mr. Bitar stated he thinks what they are looking at doing with this one step process is Staff would provide the Commission with their position. It would not be a fully baked application. Having said that, in his view there are two options; either they do not hear any of them or they establish a procedure because he does not want to be picking and choosing which ones they are going to hear. He thinks when Staff approached the Commission with that idea last time he thinks the consensus was that they do not want to shut the door. He is open to not hearing any of them and have them come in for formal review.

Mr. Bitar stated he thinks there are examples where it does help. He thinks much like Aldi and whatever they heard and then going back to the minutes, it is the same thing with the Cleveland Avenue property. He thinks when they came in informally several Commission members raised the question of the location nursing facility and so when they came in for the first formal review and Staff raised that and gave them the minutes so they knew that issue was just not coming from them but had come up at the informal review.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 41

Council Member Fosselman asked if with their proposal how they will determine what is going to differentiate an informal presentation versus having them go through the regular procedure. That is still not clear to her.

Mr. Bitar stated it is not very different. It is not a full blown project so in other words when you submit a full application you are required to submit building elevations, landscape plans, preliminary engineering, and things of that nature.

Council Member Fosselman stated it is an easy in for them. Another thing that is bothering her is just like this example or Tim Hortons, they have a presentation, then they keep tabling it, then they come back, and then they table it, and then they come back. They have seven volunteers up here that don’t do this on a daily basis so when they go over something, there is a break for two months, they talk about different issues, then there is another break for a month, and then they come back to it again. She cannot remember what was discussed or what issues were brought up in that first item. She thinks when they have an informal presentation first, that lends itself to more of that type of thing where they hear the first issue, and then they have a couple months while they are doing whatever. Then they hear them again and then they are tabled. She thinks that is detrimental to a good development. Her example would be Tim Hortons where they discussed zoning the first time it was presented and then it was never brought up at all the night they voted. She thinks that is a problem.

Mr. Bitar stated Tim Hortons is aberration but with these bigger developments he does not think it is realistic to expect that that they will be done quickly. The Commission is going to have to rely on Staff to provide them with a refresher with the previous materials. He thinks that is the same if they decide they want to continue with the informal readings.

Mr. Stroh asked if it would make the Commission feel better if their first option is to table for up to 30 days, hear it, or just reject it. Staff could bring it to the Commission and say these people want an informal review and the Commission can say no based on the nature of the plan they are not going to do an informal review. They can table it for 30 days so if they want an informal review they can come back next month and give them a chance to think about it. The only reason he sees an informal review as helpful in some situations is if you have a developer who does not want to shell out the first $20,000 to get the initial package ready, this is a public courtesy so if someone is coming in with a plan that is so inappropriate that the Commission should tell them up front that they should reject the $20,000 investment. They would be giving them a courtesy review. He thinks it is kind of like putting a client on the stand without giving them a coaching on what you are going to say. Some things you can look at and say you do not like it and it will be a five or ten minutes review but something you may want to take a step back and take the 30 days. If they had that option in the language they could say they understand the Plan, it’s a PD, and they are not going to do this in 10 days notice. They can table it and give them an informal review next month; whether they are giving them the courtesy of not having to make the full investment or giving them the courtesy of their comments.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 42

Ms. Koorn asked about the status of the last informal review that came through here; which was on Africa Rd for the large apartments/multi-family development across from Yarnell Farm. She asked where they went and what the effect of their informal review of that was.

Ms. LaMantia stated they have filed for the February meeting.

Ms. Koorn asked if they listened to the Commission on any of their comments.

Mr. Bitar stated they wanted to come back with another informal because they wanted to share with the Commission the architecture and Staff told them no.

Mr. Stroh stated that would be the other thing. You get one shot; one informal review or a table in the next time but you get two shots at the agenda and it is done.

Ms. LaMantia stated Aldi also wanted to come back this evening for another informal. Staff also told them no.

Mr. Samuelson asked if you pay $100 and you are entitled to an informal review and then the following month you try it again.

Mr. Stroh stated you have the ability to object it.

Mr. Samuelson stated there is nothing to say they cannot do that.

Mr. Berger stated to follow up on Council Member Fosselman’s point, in going forward, to do that they would be obliged to strike the whole section “G” out of the Rules and Regulations. That would seemingly accomplish the intent. Then there would not be any more informal presentation.

Mr. Szuch stated he is sensitive to what Mr. Stroh talked about with civil. He sees it all the time with the projects he develops. He has not even started doing anything. He has to provide elevations at some point but the civil engineer is done and the landscaping is done. There is a lot of money that has already been shelled out in the project before the architect ever gets involved. He does see that if they have a client coming in who has an idea and in order to get before the Commission for the normal process they have quite a bit of engineering and costs involved before they really see anything. So, it would help that. He is sensitive at trying to see how they can keep it from being abused because he thinks it has been abused a few times in the past.

Mr. Bitar stated they can claim it is being abused but the Commission is still making the final decision. He does not know that it is always appreciated on how much these plans cost to be put together. There is no guarantee and he realizes that is not easy. What Staff is suggesting is if the Commission wants to continue with these informals, because of some of these issues, that Staff would provide the Commission with back up information and a staff position. They would not be reviewing full plans. He would still rather do it as a one step process. It makes it tedious for Staff to do a two step process and because of the timing of the application being two days before the Commission meeting and then

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 43

they are talking about three months, it becomes a little harder for Staff to remember what they told somebody much less the Commission.

Mr. Szuch stated to counter argue what he just said, he somewhat looks at it from the other side where someone could still show up at Staff’s office, show them a sketch and ask what they think and they have not spent a dime yet either. He does not think Staff has ever steered someone totally opposite direction. He can see that there is almost a mechanism to get an initial review done by a professional.

Ms. Koorn stated she is somewhat sympathetic to the Staff perspective because they are some regards caught in the middle when there is an informal process because the Commission is hounded Staff for answers because they want to know and the applicant does not want to put a whole lot of energy into it initially so they are not giving Staff a lot of information. However, somebody has got to come up with some answers on a very short turn around period. She thinks she has some appreciate for where Staff stands.

Mr. Stroh stated if they have invested in the engineering and stuff before the drawings ever happen, then he would not give them an informal review anyways because they are already in that deep so they should just go ahead and do the drawings. Then they could bring the materials and have a full set of plans. If it is a sketch on a napkin or a discussion point, before they do the drawings, and they just want to wonder if the Commission would even consider it then maybe they do the informal. He asked if the Commission needs to do that though or does Staff.

Mr. Szuch stated that is his argument; if they are bringing a sketch on a napkin he is not sure going before the Commission is exactly where they ought to be at that point.

Mr. Stroh stated how he could see a conceptual idea like putting a baseball diamond on 95 acres and asking for the Commission’s opinion might be a good thing. The Commission could say no and then they would be done.

Mr. Bitar stated they have had the opposite sometimes when they have told people they think the plan makes sense and they were hesitant about whether the Commission felt the same way. They were hesitant to go based on Staff comments and start spending the money. Sometimes it is not where Staff is telling them no, sometimes it is where they are telling them yes but they are concerned about proceeding.

Ms. Koorn asked if there is value in differentiated between what she calls the small scale like wanting to put a work out facility on E Broadway; the more “mom and pop investor” as opposed to Ms. Cunningham’s clients. Converting a use on E Broadway for 10,000 sq ft is a lot different than 95 acres. If they want to humor the small investor with an informal review, it requires less work from Staff. However, she does not know where you draw that line.

Mr. Stroh stated the big concern is the Commission commented positively and then they next thing they know they see the sketch drawing in the paper.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 44

Mr. Szuch stated personally, when someone comes informally he would rather caution them on the things and “beat them up more” on the informals to make sure what they will get back will be what they want. If it is density issue versus architectural quality, he would like to read them the riot act when they come in on the formal part to make sure they understand the Commission takes it seriously. It does not always work but it could work both ways.

Mr. Domanik explained his concerns regarding informals.

Chairman Johnson explained how he thought for a “mom and pop” to come in for an informal the hurtle is not that high but he thinks if they are in the big leagues then you have to be in the big leagues and the Commission should not be doing their work for them. They should not be on the agenda an informal.

Council Member Fosselman stated she thinks in the very least it should be much more limited and she does not feel comfortable with how they are limiting it. She asked how they are limiting it.

Mr. Bitar asked how she would like to limit it.

Council Member Fosselman stated she would say they have informal presentations next to never.

Mr. Domanik suggested that they limit their time; they have five minutes to tell them what they want and the Commission can say no.

Mr. Szuch stated that was his concern if it gets abused and they are listening to eight informal things. He likes the idea of a time limitation.

Mr. Bitar stated he thinks the time limit is currently 20 minutes.

Mr. Stroh asked if it could fall under a staff report and that they could bring them forward to just offer comments.

Council Member Fosselman stated she would almost rather only listen to the staff report on an informal because she does not want to hear their sales pitch. She wants the facts, wants to get a sense from Staff as to whether it works with the City’s plans or not. To her that is the most important thing.

Mr. Stroh stated he thinks that sounds a lot better because it will not raise the applicants’ hopes.

Mr. Bitar stated he does not like that.

Council Member Fosselman stated it puts the burden on Staff.

Mr. Bitar stated he will use the skilled nursing facility as an example. They were all guessing as to what that was and even though it was not received very well, it was helpful to him to hear them say that instead of guessing what that means and telling the Commission what he thinks it is. He thinks if

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 45

somebody is coming in, he would rather have them explains themselves rather than trying to explain it for them. However, he would provide a position on it.

Chairman Johnson stated the flip side of that is setting a time limit for the applicant; like five or ten.

Mr. Stroh stated it should not be 20 minutes.

Chairman Johnson stated if the Commission has a reaction then they give them a reaction.

Mr. Bitar stated they had a 10 minute limit before and it was Bruce Bailey’s suggestion to increase it to 20.

Chairman Johnson stated it just has to be a finite period of time and they get one chance to appear before the Commission without a full application.

Mr. Samuelson stated he would like to be clear about that response though because there are seven of them here and if they each spend five minutes then that is 35 minutes and then you add 10 minutes from staff; then they will be into an hour.

Mr. Szuch stated he is saying 5 minutes for the applicant.

Chairman Johnson stated yes, and that means the applicant will have to communicate with us through the paper work.

Mr. Szuch stated he likes the 5 minutes time limit because they have to get to the heart of it; what is they are bringing, what are the major strengths, and what are the concerns. They have had a few grand stands up there where folks stand there for 40 minutes talking about why they are so good for the community and everything else without getting to the heart of the application at hand.

Ms. Koorn asked if they will be permitted under the five minute plan to submit materials that the Commission will still potentially spend an hour on over the weekend reviewing.

Mr. Szuch stated Staff is saying they have to submit materials at least 10 days prior.

Mr. Bitar sated no, they have to submit at the application deadline; a month before.

Chairman Johnson stated their responses can be for the applicant to try again real hard the next time or encourage or dismiss them.

Mr. Berger stated the difficulty he has with it is keeping them up there at 30,000 feet and this is what this procedure encourages. He remembers the last one where they started talking about the alignment of streets and interconnections to the east. Really it is just a big issue of whether a multi-family development should occur at this site. They get dragged into all these site planning details every time.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 46

He is becoming more sympathetic to Council Member Fosselman’s approach which it to eliminate it out of the Rules and Regulations.

Council Member Fosselman’s stated she thinks it is especially when the applicant goes on and on and touches on all these things because then she feels she needs to respond.

Chairman Johnson stated they are their own enemy there.

Mr. Berger stated he rather do without them.

Mr. Samuelson asked what other municipalities do.

Mr. Bitar stated maybe they need to check with what other communities do. Some places have a fee. Staff had thought about a refundable fee but other communities don’t do that. If the Commission feels more comfortable they could check with other communities and let them know.

Mr. Szuch asked what he meant about a refundable fee.

Mr. Bitar stated they could pay their $100 but if they proceed to submit a full application then they deduct $100. Staff thought they could simplify is and not deduct it because they are spending Staff time on it. That is beside the point however; his point was that some other communities may have some reviews so if the Commission feels more comfortable they can look at that.

Council Member Fosselman stated there has to be a risk to the applicant.

Mr. Bitar stated if the Commission feels more comfortable waiting and they would like Staff to check with what other communities do then they can let them know.

Chairman Johnson stated he thinks it will be one of two options; nothing at all or a very restricted time with one chance.

Mr. Domanik stated he suggested that they table the application so the Staff can find out what other communities do.

Mr. Berger thought that would be a good idea.

Mr. Samuelson stated he would like to add something to limit the informal applications to one per meeting instead of having three or four.

Mr. Bitar stated he does not know how Staff would do that.

Mr. Stroh stated it would be the first on in the door.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 47

Mr. Bitar stated what they have done informally before is to judge by the weight of the agenda. If they have a lot of people on the agenda for formal review then they have told informals they cannot go on. He would rather judge it that way.

Chairman Johnson suggested that they allow 30-45 minutes on any agenda for informal reviews and once the hole is filled up then that is it.

Mr. Bitar stated what he is trying to get at in the end of all of this is a fair way to tell everybody they are going to be treated the same. He does not want to tell someone they will hear them and then tell another person they cannot hear them. He still thinks they either hear them and establish that or eliminate it.

Mr. Szuch stated he likes having a time restraint and he agrees Staff should charge a fee. He also likes getting some form of a Staff report. He agrees with the one chance and not expanding it over two months either. He does not think it is fair to Staff or the applicant.

Mr. Bitar asked if they want Staff to check with other communities.

The Commission members answered in affirmative.

Chairman Johnson asked if they need to formally vote to table.

Mr. Bitar stated it is listed under subdivision review so they should take a motion to table it.

Mr. Domanik moved to postpone PC 2013-03; Mr. Szuch seconded the motion.

Yeas: Ms. Koorn, Mr. Szuch, Mr. Berger, Mr. Domanik, Mr. Samuelson, Council Member Fosselman Chairman Johnson

Nays: None

Motion Passed: 7-0

Application postponed.

MISCELLANEOUS

REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF THE 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT.

The 2012 Planning Commission Annual Report was adopted by vote of acclamation.

UPDATE ON THE UPTOWN PLAN.

Mr. Bitar gave a brief update on the Uptown Plan.

Westerville Planning Commission Minutes of the January 23, 2013 Meeting Page 48

When there was nothing further to discuss, Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:14 p.m.

______Bassem Bitar, Secretary ______Paul Johnson, Chairman