Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 2, 2014 ~ 7:30 P.M. Louis J. R. Goorey Worthington Municipal Building John P. Coleman Council Chamber 6550 North High Street Worthington, Ohio 43085

City Council Bonnie D. Michael, President Robert F. Chosy, President Pro-Tempore Rachael Dorothy Scott Myers David M. Norstrom Douglas Smith Michael C. Troper

D. Kay Thress, Clerk of Council

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

CALL TO ORDER – Roll Call, Pledge of Allegiance Worthington City Council met in Regular Session on Tuesday, September 2, 2014, in the John P. Coleman Council Chambers of City Hall, 6550 North High Street, Worthington, Ohio. President Michael called the meeting to order at or about 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Robert F. Chosy, Rachael R. Dorothy, Scott Myers, David Norstrom, Douglas K. Smith, Michael C. Troper, and Bonnie D. Michael Member(s) Absent: Also present: Clerk of Council Kay Thress, City Manager Matthew Greeson, Director of Law Pamela Fox, Assistant City Manager Robyn Stewart, Director of Finance Molly Roberts, City Engineer William Watterson, Director of Parks and Recreation Darren Hurley, Director of Planning and Building Lee Brown, Chief of Police James Mosic, and Chief of Fire Scott Highley There were nineteen visitors present. President Michael invited those in attendance to stand and join in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. VISITOR COMMENTS APPROVAL OF MINUTES • • •

July7, 2014 – Regular Meeting July 14, 2014 – Committee of the Whole Meeting July 31, 2014 – Special Meeting

Dr. Chosy commented that he was not in attendance for the meeting of July 7th. The next to the last page reflects that he voted on the motion for council to meet in Executive Session. MOTION

Mr. Myers made a motion to approve the aforementioned minutes as amended. Dr. Chosy seconded the motion.

There being no additional comments, the motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. NEW LEGISLATION TO BE INTRODUCED Resolution No. 35-2014

City of Worthington

Approving an Agreement and Permit for and between Windstream-KDL, Inc., a Kentucky corporation, to Operate and Maintain a Telecommunications System Within the City of Meeting 25-2

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Worthington Pursuant to and Subject to the Provisions of Chapter 949 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Worthington. Introduced by Mr. Smith. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 35-2014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troper.

Mrs. Stewart shared that when companies want to utilize the city’s rights-of-way for their facilities they need to enter an agreement with the city in order to do so. Those agreements are for three years. This item and the next item relates to those agreements that either have expired or they expire this month. Staff is seeking renewal for those. This agreement is with what use to be Kentucky Data Link. Windstream acquired them and so it is now Windstream-KDL. The following agreement is with Fiber Technologies. There being no additional questions or comments, the motion to adopt Resolution No. 35-2014 passed unanimously. Resolution No. 37-2014

Approving an Agreement and Permit for and between Fiber Technologies Networks, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, to Operate and Maintain a Telecommunications System Within the City of Worthington Pursuant to and Subject to the Provisions of Chapter 949 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Worthington. Introduced by Ms. Dorothy.

MOTION

Mr. Myers moved to adopt Resolution No. 37-2014. The motion was seconded by Dr. Chosy.

Mrs. Stewart reported that she had nothing more to add regarding this application but would be happy to answer any questions members may have. There being no questions or comments, the motion to adopt Resolution No. 37-2014 passed unanimously. Resolution No. 38-2014

Authorizing an Amendment to the Final Development Plan for 125 Old Wilson Bridge Road and Authorizing Variances (Stanley W. Young, III/Columbus Sign Company). Introduced by Mr. Smith.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-3

City Council

MOTION

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Norstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 38-2014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Troper.

Mr. Greeson shared that this ordinance is for an Amendment to Development Plan (ADP) for signage related to the new apartments on Old Wilson Bridge Road. He asked Mr. Brown to overview this amendment. Mr. Brown shared that the ADP and a variance are for additional signage. The applicant is seeking approval for the signage of building #2 that will identify the east and south entrances. The signs are identical that will be cut from flat aluminum plates, 24” high address on the top, eleven square feet in area that will say “The Heights at Worthington Place”. The background is shown as dark grey with the graphics in white cut vinyl. The proposed signs will not be illuminated. Mr. Brown stated that a variance is needed to allow two wall signs for a business. The signs will show the address that was approved by MPC. It is in compliance with the Wilson Bridge Road Corridor Study. On July 24, 2014, MPC reviewed and recommended approval of the ADP with the condition that the address height be limited to 24” and that is the proposal before council. Staff also recommends approval. Dr. Chosy commented that he attended the tour of this building and remembers there being a number and something else on the north side. He asked what else was there. Mr. Brown replied that there will be no signage on the north side of the building. Dr. Chosy recalls there being a sizeable number there where the dog park benches sit. There is an address there, 125. Mr. Brown asked if it was on the interior of the window to which Dr. Chosy said he can’t recall. He thinks it was on the outside. Mr. Brown said he would look at the north side again. Stanley Young, Columbus Sign Co. Mr. Young shared that he is pleased to be before council this evening. They appreciate MPC’s approval on this particular sign for two elevations. He shared that originally the 125 numerals were 42”. Planning Commission felt that that was a little bit too large and recommended 24”. We reduced the size and submitted a revised drawing and this is the drawing that was ultimately approved. He would be happy to answer any questions. When asked by Dr. Chosy if he knew what was on the north side of the building Mr. Young replied no. He was interested to hear the comment but he is not aware of anything on the north elevation. Dr. Chosy recalls the number being there but is just not sure of the exact location. There being no additional questions or comments, the motion to adopt Resolution No. 38-2014 passed unanimously.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-4

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Resolution No. 39-2014

Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Update and 2005 Strategic Plan for the United Methodist Children’s Home Focus Area for the City of Worthington. Introduced by Dr. Chosy.

MOTION

Mr. Myers moved to adopt Resolution No. 39-2014. The motion was seconded by Ms. Dorothy.

Mr. Greeson shared that he would make some introductory remarks before turning the meeting over to Mr. Brown and Mr. Hermann. As members know, last year we launched a process to update the portion of our Comprehensive Plan that talks about the United Methodist Children’s Home (UMCH) property that is located across the street from City Hall on High Street. Background Mr. Greeson shared that in 2005 the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was updated. The update examined a number of areas in Worthington that if re-developed would be significant for Worthington’s future. One of the focus areas was the UMCH property. Other focus areas included such property’s as what is now known as The Shops at Worthington Place. Given the fact that Worthington is landlocked and largely built out, it has been deemed critical that staff work with property owners and the community to envision how the few larger scale properties left in our community, like the UMCH property will re-develop in the future. This has been done over the past year through an effort we call “Vision UMCH”. Tonight we will present to City Council the recommendation of the Municipal Planning Commission, the City staff, and the city’s consultants, MKSK on how we should update our comprehensive plan to help evaluate and guide development on this very important piece of Worthington’s future. In many ways this is an extension of the planning effort that many members participated in, in 2005. Mr. Greeson shared that Mr. Brown will highlight the process that was followed and Mr. Hermann will overview the actual plan amendment. But he first expressed his appreciation to a number of people who participated in what has been a yearlong endeavor. 1) UMCH Representatives – David Fisher, Board Chair, Reverend Cyndy Garn, Reverend Grayson Atha, Sam Koon, and Executive Director Sean Reilly. Mr. Greeson thanked them for their participation in many public meetings, walking tours of their property, development tours around central Ohio, and for the many conversations we had regarding their property.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-5

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Greeson shared that UMCH plans to sell their property which was the genesis of staff undertaking this important process. He thinks it is important to note that while they are no longer in need of such a large piece of land for their mission, they continue their mission nonetheless in central Ohio offering foster care, adoption services, and mental health treatment to children and families, many of which are in great need. 2) City Staff other than Mr. Brown, Mr. Hermann, and Mr. Greeson that put a great deal of time into this project. He thanked Mrs. Robyn Stewart, Mrs. Pam Fox, Mr. Jeff Harris, Bill Watterson, Lynda Bitar and Darren Hurley. These individuals provided vital contributions to this effort. 3) MKSK Team – Darren Meyer, Luis Calvo, and Aron Frazier all ably assisted Mr. Hermann with this process 4) The members of: a. City Council b. Municipal Planning Commission c. Parks and Recreation Commission d. The Worthington Alliance for Responsible Development Planning Committee (WARD) e. Representatives of the Old Worthington Association f. Many citizens and business leaders who gave us their time, their varied thoughts, and their good input during this process. Mr. Greeson shared that while all parties did not always agree as we tried to find some consensus, he found himself once again greatly admiring the dedication, thoughtfulness, and the intelligence of the people who live in this community and volunteer their time to help shape its future. Mr. Greeson asked Mr. Brown to highlight the process that was followed prior to Mr. Hermann presenting the plan amendment. Mr. Brown shared that he wanted to build on what Mr. Greeson shared with this process of building community consensus throughout the process. From the kick-off meeting in September 2013 it has been great going through that process and the education and outreach of everyone involved. The proposal before council is an amendment that will clarify how the community would like to see the site develop in the future. Process: 1. Kick-off Meeting – September 2013 2. Stakeholder Interviews – September 2013 a. UMCH b. WARD c. Worthington Business Community representatives (CIC, CVB, OWBA, OWA and Chamber of Commerce) 3. Walking Tour of UMCH Site – October 5, 2013 4. Design Charrette – October 17, 2013

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-6

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

a. Approximately 24 people attended the design charrette. Representatives from City Council, MPC, WARD, UMCH, OWA and School District attended. 5. Follow-up Stakeholder Interviews – November 2013 6. Public Meeting #1 – December 4, 2013 a. Approximately 152 people attended the meeting. 7. Website Outreach - Online dialog hosted on the City’s website – December 23, 2013 – July 24, 2014 a. Development Scenarios b. Residential, Commercial and Green Space Discussion c. Development Tour Examples d. Draft Plan 8. Consultant Meeting – Revised Scope of Work – January 16, 2014 a. Discuss next steps and revision to the Scope of Work, including a revised timeline and an additional public meeting and outreach. 9. Focus Groups: a. Young Professionals Luncheon – January 22, 2014 b. Young Adults - College/Graduate School – February 11, 2014 10. Developer Meetings – December 2013 – August 2014 a. Reached out to the development community to obtain input. 11. Development Tour – March 14, 2014 12. Public Meeting #2 – March 26, 2014 a. Approximately 250 people attended the meeting. 13. Communication & Outreach – April 2014 14. UMCH – Draft Plan – April 2014 15. Adoption Process: a. Municipal Planning Commission – Special Meeting – Briefing – May 29, 2014 b. Municipal Planning Commission – June 26, 2014 – Tabled c. Municipal Planning Commission – July 24, 2014 – Recommend approval to City Council with modifications d. City Council – September 2, 2014 The Plan: Mr. Hermann wished to echo Mr. Greeson’s comments. It has been a very rewarding process and continues to reaffirm what we all know, which is the amount of engagement and interest and actual wisdom of the community. We have all come together and talked about an issue and he thinks they have made a lot of progress which was what all of them hoped to do. Mr. Hermann shared that he wished to share a twenty slide PowerPoint presentation. Many of the slides are ones that he has shared before at meetings but he wants to make sure that everyone is on the same page for the basics that lead to the actual text. Mr. Hermann commented that their proposal is the replacement of a section of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: City of Worthington

Meeting 25-7

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

What is Proposed Update the Worthington Comprehensive Plan (2005) • Specifically the UMCH Focus Area section • Adopt replacement pages for pages 88 (UMCH portion), 89, and 90 of the existing Comprehensive Plan with pages 89-99 being considered tonight, and renumber the following pages of the document. • This document provides strategic guidance to City staff, Boards and Commissions, residents, businesses, landowners, and potential developers for the reuse, rezoning, and development of land and necessary supporting infrastructure within the City. Process Task I:

Task II:

Task III:

Task IV:

Opportunity Analysis ( Sept. – Oct. 2013) • Site Walking Tour (Oct. 5th) • UMCH, WARD, Business Stakeholder Mtgs. Conceptual Site Plan Analysis (Oct. – Dec. 2013) • Design Charrette (Oct. 17th) • Public Meeting #1 (Dec. 4th) • Feedback – online, e-mail, letters Plan Generation (Jan. – March 2014) • Worthington Young Professionals • Worthington College Students • Developer Interviews • Park & Recreation Commission • Development Bus Tour (March 14th) • Feedback – online, e-mail, letters • Public Meeting #2 (March 26th) Review/Adoption Process (April – Sept. 2014) • Municipal Planning Commission (May 29th) • Municipal Planning Commission (July 24th)

Mr. Hermann comment that Municipal Planning Commission unanimously approved the plan with a number of changes, which have been incorporated into the text that council has tonight (dated August 4th). •

Worthington City Council (Sept. 2nd)

Why is this Important? • Be Proactive • Build Consensus • Recognize Worthington is land-locked • Achieve city objectives of improving tax base and providing intergenerational housing • Enable once in-a-generation opportunity • Facilitate Development Approval Process

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-8

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

UMCH History in Worthington Mr. Hermann showed several slides of the UMCH site from 1926 to 1950 as well as several slides of aerial photos of the site and surrounding developments in Worthington from 1938 to 1995. He noted that the connection of the Evening Street extension was a contentious issue back in the day. Mr. Hermann showed a slide depicting the currently zoning on this property. He added that the owners of UMCH could re-develop on this site following this zoning or they could sell it to a developer who could build according to this existing zoning. As long as they match the zoning they would really only need to come in for Architectural Review Board approval and then they could file for building permits. Current Zoning Permitted Uses: S-1: Special – Institutional: Preschool, nursery school, child daycare centers, Public uses, Semipublic uses: “churches, Sunday schools, parochial schools, colleges, hospitals and other institutions of an educational, religious, charitable or philanthropic nature” S-C: Senior Citizen: “Higher density multi-family dwellings” for 55+ C-2: Community Commercial: Supermarkets, department stores, specialty stores, hardware stores, apparel and shoe stores, jewelry stores, appliance and furniture stores, drugstores, personal and business service outlets and discount markets C-3: Institutions & Office: Medical centers, fraternal and social organizations, instructional, real estate and insurance offices, legal offices, investment firms and various establishments housing only administrative offices Mr. Herman shared that what they expect and what they hope that comes out of this new plan is a more thoughtful development that responds to the needs of the community and he thinks the interests of the landowner. That is really to re-zone this site, which is really where this Comprehensive Plan comes in. He thinks we would expect for a developer to come in and ask for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development, which council approved as an addition to the codified ordinances of the city. Change in Zoning • It is expected that any zoning change would be to Planned Unit Development • Allows a mix of uses and more traditional neighborhood development layout Requires: 1. Preliminary Plan review for entire site a. Review & recommendation by MPC b. Review & approval by City Council 2. If approved, site is rezoned a. Final Plan review and approval for each development by MPC City of Worthington

Meeting 25-9

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Why Does the Comprehensive Plan Matter? Mr. Hermann shared that when we rezone, the Comprehensive Plan is really the document that the community, the City, and the Boards and Commissions look to for reference as to what the community wants to see with a rezoning. This plan tries to create a section that helps any developer coming forward who is asking for rezoning. Redevelopment Process for a Site A. If following the existing zoning: 1. Submit development application to City 2. Proposed architecture & site plans reviewed and approved by Architectural Review Board 3. Building permits 4. If desiring different zoning (i.e. “rezone”): 5. Request rezoning from Municipal Planning Commission (MPC). a. MPC references adopted Comprehensive Plan for guidance b. MPC reviews zoning plans c. MPC makes recommendation to City Council. 6. Council decides on zoning change request a. Council references Comprehensive Plan and MPC recommendations b. Council approves or denies zoning change 7. Developer follows procedures of A above. Mr. Hermann showed several slides that contained the existing text today. Plan Update Goals for UMCH Focus Area a) Consider the redevelopment potential of this 40+ acre site recognizing the critical resource and opportunity it represents within the City. b) Provide a mix of desirable uses and green space that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and that are currently underserved in Worthington. c) Address the needs of current and future residents by providing new housing types/options that are underrepresented in the market and complement Worthington’s current offerings. d) Recognize the financial goals of UMCH to enable it to continue its mission within the region. e) Expand the City of Worthington’s tax base by incorporating uses that allow for new or enhanced sources of revenue. f) Preserve and integrate the existing natural features of Tucker Creek. g) Create a well-planned, vibrant, walkable, and integrated development of the highest quality that meets or exceeds current best practices for mixed use development, including the provision of communal space and complete streets.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-10

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendations: • High Street Mixed Use – Mixed-use commercial/residential/neighborhood retail, tax base focus (office/medical), two-to-five stories, shared parking • Worthington Estates Edge – Single-family residential, similar density to Worthington Estates and Old Worthington • Neighborhood Core (opportunity to add different types of housing types that are underrepresented or not represented at all) – Residential neighborhood, integrated site design, similar density to Ville Charmante, three-story height limit, integrated park land • Tucker Creek Preserve – Natural preserve with sensitive multi-use path What We Heard – Community 1. Parks and Open Space The desire for park space as part of any development 2. Connections Input about how connectivity will affect the neighborhood 3. Development Input about the type of development, the quality of development, the density of development, and impacts on adjacent properties, like storm water. Parks and Open Space Recommendations for Parks and Open Space: 1. Expect the developer to dedicate Tucker Creek ravine natural area. 2. Work with developer(s) at time of rezoning to provide additional park land integrated into the site with community-desired amenities. 3. Identify funding options for parks and open space. Connections Recommendations for Connectivity: 1. Provide multiple complete street connections (pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular) to address safety, provide access, and integrate this neighborhood with the surrounding community. 2. The street design must be carefully done to limit impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and discourage cut-through, non-local, and commercial traffic from High Street to connected residential streets. 3. A Traffic Study must be conducted as part of any development of this site. Development Mr. Hermann shared that there was discussion about density. He showed images that depicted housing of the types that members viewed while on the development tour. The following identifies the developments that members viewed and the density at each location: • • •

Worthington Estates – Density: 3 units per acre Old Worthington – Density: 4 units per acre Ashton Grove – Density: 7 units per acre (Price: $350,000 - $650,000+)

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-11

City Council

• • •

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Ville Charmante – Density: 7.5 units per acre Keswick Commons – Density: 12 units per acres (Price: $400,000 - $600,000+) Harrison Park – Density: 14 units per acre (Price: $350,000 - $500,000)

Planning Team Recommendations 1. Provide a mix of housing types not well represented in the City and incorporate intergenerational housing types that provide the opportunity to “age in place” within Worthington. 2. Transition residential density from the west and north sides of the site to High Street (lower to higher). 3. Attract as much office development to the High Street frontage as possible (to improve city revenue base). 4. Allow for neighborhood service retail uses along High Street that are incorporated into the development. 5. Place buildings closer to High Street to improve its walkability/strollability. 6. Ensure that development is of the highest quality. Comprehensive Plan Update Subsections within the Focus Area Plan • Background (pg. 89) • Context (pg. 90) • Future Land Use Focus Area Plan (pg. 90) • Design Intent (pg. 90) • Future Land Use (pg. 91) • Objectives (pg. 91) • High Street Mixed Use (pg. 91) • Worthington Estates Edge (pg. 92) • Neighborhood Core (pg. 93) • Tucker Creek Preserve (pg. 94) • Zone Boundaries (pg. 95) • Park Space (pg. 95) • Design Guidelines (pg. 96) • Connectivity (pg. 97) • Street Intersection Options (pg. 98) • High Street Frontage (pg. 98) • Landscaping and Buffers (pg. 99) • Storm Water (pg. 99) • Public-Private Partnerships (pg. 99) Mr. Hermann commented that the Planning Commission had great discussion with the community. We made a number of changes in there that are all in the document before council.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-12

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Hermann made members aware of two important recommendations: 1) The text on the Street Connections on Page 97. The objective of these new connections is to interconnect this site but strongly discourage cut-thru vehicular traffic from High Street and commercial office uses through the Worthington Estates and Evening Street neighborhoods. 2) Buildings proximity to High Street on Page 98 and 99. The text now reads, “Generally it is anticipated that buildings will be setback from the High Street curb line an appropriate distance based upon the architecture and use(s) of the buildings.” “As the building height increases, the buildings should consider a relationship between the setback, the street corridor and the building height.” Mr. Hermann reported those being two areas where there was a good bit of discussion and the language that came out of that. He would be glad to answer any questions. Ms. Michael commented that she wanted to recognize three people who haven’t been “thanked” yet and she would like to do that because of all of the time and effort they put into this project as well. They are three members of the Municipal Planning Commission who happen to be here tonight: Dick Hunter, Jim Sauer, and Michael Coulter. She thanked them for their effort on this project. She asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address council. Susan Jones, 6506 Masefield Ms. Jones shared that she attended the meetings and participated in the website communications. She grew up here and would just like to say that from the beginning of the meetings to what she read that was just e-mailed to her; there really is not much difference, in her opinion. She thinks the density is overwhelming. Three to five stories on High Street is too much for Worthington. This is a colonial community and she objects to that. She just wants to be on the record saying that one more time. We already have our big building up on Wilson Bridge Road. She just doesn’t want to see this happen on High Street and she definitely doesn’t want to see a cut-thru on Evening Street. If you live in that neighborhood and have kids that go to high school or elementary school there, that road in the morning is a nightmare. She would hate to see all of those residential people in that dense area pouring out onto Evening Street. She thanked all who worked on the project and said thanks for having all of the meetings and the website and the chance to communicate and make a comment. Susie Kneedler, 263 Weydon Ms. Kneedler commented that she and her husband have lived in Worthington for twentytwo years and they are worried about the affect of what might happen at UMCH on the neighborhood they have come to love. They too are concerned about what Susan said in the fact that there hasn’t been a traffic study and the possibility of a cut-thru on Evening Street. They already have four rush hours a day that are very difficult along their stretch of Evening Street. She also thinks that for all of the work that MKSK has done, it hasn’t studied the fact that green, open natural areas adds value to every place where they are City of Worthington

Meeting 25-13

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

preserved. Communities across the country and communities across Europe are much better than we are but even in the United States loads of cities and towns are discovering that urban open spaces. She added that bringing in money has been talked about a lot at all of these meetings and like Susan she has attended all of them. The adding value for developers has been talked about a lot but she doesn’t think that they have emphasized enough adding value for the entire community of Worthington. We really desperately need some sort of garden type, peaceful central parkland in Worthington proper. The Village Green is lovely but it is not the same as the green space could be at UMCH. The parkland is lovely but what we have now for runners and for people strolling is a freeway for bikes much of the day. You can’t go there and just be peaceful because you always have to watch out for being mowed down by bikes. It would be a worthwhile investment for Worthington to at least contribute something and to explore the possibility of public/private partnerships to use the green area rather than bulldoze it for more buildings. We especially heard a lot about Class “A” office space to bring in more tax money to Worthington. She hopes we can consider other spaces for that and spaces that will truly add value that all of the citizens of Worthington can enjoy. Dr. Chosy commented that Susie brings up and tends to imply that the city is doing a lot of this in order to make more tax money. Certainly a little bit more would help because the service area will need service but in his mind making money for the city was never a part of this whole development plan. It just simply was not. Dr. Chosy went on to say that this is private land. The city is going to great lengths to try to help to control what is going into private land. He thinks that is remarkable on our part to do that. The difference between what is down here and what actually happens when somebody wants to actually put money in and build this stuff may be quite a bit different. For example the green spaces aren’t listed here except for Tucker Creek and we will push very hard for those. He shared that he lives right there by Evening Street and the traffic is really concerning and part of why he is saying something is so that it will be in the minutes of this meeting. We absolutely have to do everything we possibly can to minimize the traffic if we do have a cut-thru. He said he recognizes that cut-thrus are needed. It is just not practical to take a piece of land and have one or two entrances/exits on High Street but if we end up with that, it has to be absolutely done in a way that minimizes the traffic in and out of there with no trucks and that sort of thing. Overall when you consider the fact that we are trying to suggest and in a sense control development of an area that the city doesn’t even own, he thinks what we are doing is remarkable and he has to support it. Mr. Myers shared that he agrees with Dr. Chosy and that doesn’t happen every day. He also wants to thank all of the people who have been involved in this. It has been a long process and he has certainly enjoyed being able to talk to particularly the members of WARD and express his opinions. Hopefully that will make everyone little better voters next time when you know how he stands on things. Whether that is good or bad for him he doesn’t know. The point that he wants to make is that many of the comments shared tonight are very, very site specific. Remember, this is not a plan for how this property is going to be built. It is a vision. He kept thinking: do I want something that is like what City of Worthington

Meeting 25-14

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

we already have or do I want a vision for what we want to become. He looked at this as a document as a vision for what we want to become. Mr. Myers commented that in the last year he has become a quasi-expert on the new urbanism where you live, dine, work and shop within walking or biking distance. He shared about his life growing up in old Westerville. There were places to shop, and entertainment venues and parks that were close enough you could ride your bike to and lots of neighbors’ yards to play in since there were no fences. They had a neighborhood of about twenty five kids his age, he had three aunts and four grandmothers, and five mothers and there was never a door locked. There were probably twenty five houses whose back yards all abutted each other. They did not have fences that would block their play space. That is where they played. That was their park and those were all of their parents. To him, the concept of the new urbanism isn’t new at all. It tries to go back and recapture what we all thought we had back in the fifties and sixties. Mr. Myers stated that he sees this as a vision for us to be able to do that. As he told WARD the very first time they met, what he hoped out of this was that we create a new neighborhood because Worthington is really a collection of neighborhoods and each of those neighborhoods tend to be fairly self sufficient. He hopes that we get a community association out of this neighborhood that programs things at their parks like Colonial Hills does. He hopes that what we get out of this is a sense of community because people live together and people don’t mind living close together and people take care of each other much like all of those aunts and all of those grandmothers he had back in 1962. He hopes that this plan and what he wants to put on the record is what he sees this plan doing is enabling us to have that model. Now when it comes to things like how many acres of park space there is, what kind of cut-thrus there are, what the buildings look like, how tall they are, and how far back from High St. they are, that will all come out in front of Municipal Planning Commission. One of the PUD requirements is probably going to be that this stays in the Architectural Review District. So we are always going to have the maximum amount of control over the development of this property and his hats off to ARB and MPC. He thinks they do a phenomenal job with the whole rest of the town and he tends to trust that they are going to do as good with this one. He also believes that with them involved, with the kind of demographics we already have, we are going to get the kind of produce here that is of a price point where people are going to demand high quality, open space, and amenities, and we will be happy with what comes out at the end. He truly believes that this is going to be a phenomenal development. As already shared, right now if somebody wanted to come in and build a hospital here, or a thirty acre preschool they could do so because there is not a thing we could do about it. If somebody wanted to build a Giant Eagle on the front part of this property, they could do it. There is not much we could do to stop it. So this goes an awful long way for us to get as much control as we possibly can. Mr. Norstrom said he disagrees a little bit with Dr. Chosy in that he would like for us to make some money on this property by having some employees in the commercial area that we’ve identified. When he moved into this community almost thirty years ago, Worthington was the place to be. We didn’t have a city called Dublin. There was no City of Worthington

Meeting 25-15

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

New Albany and southern Delaware County was farmland. We have pretty much stayed stagnant over the past thirty years while other communities have grown up around us and some major employers have moved out. Right now as Mr. Myers just said, new urbanism is not really new. It is a name that has actually been around about thirty years and this gives us the opportunity to do what our neighboring communities are doing. Dublin just announced a massive development that in some ways looks a little bit like what we are amending the Comprehensive Plan to be. The idea here is not to be what Worthington was but to be what Worthington will be in the future. That is a different mix from what we see now. He’s got a couple of technical difficulties with what ARB did because he believes that we should not encourage cul-de-sacs. As a transportation professional, he believes they are terrible. They isolate neighborhoods and he thinks we should keep the word “strongly” in there. He thinks the picture that they took out on page 99 was to discourage development right up to the sidewalk, which we have encouraged along High Street. We put a bank on the southern side of the city. The new grocery store is going to be up close to the curb. Unfortunately a couple other places have gotten away from us but he thinks that those are a couple of things that we want to make sure that developers know they can do that and the plan at the moment doesn’t reflect those strong enough. Ms. Dorothy also thanked everyone who has participated in developing this new Comprehensive Plan update. She is very excited about this vision for adding a new neighborhood, a new piece of our community to Worthington. She doesn’t see the cutthrus as cut-thrus but as community connections, community connections that we have throughout Worthington. We started off being a connected community with a planned vision, with a downtown core, with farmland outside but everyone knew that they had to work together and have these community connections. She is so excited about having paths to somewhere. They are working currently on new bike and pedestrian paths throughout Worthington. Worthington built up around itself but we are missing some of those connections now and she is so excited that this new vision that we have that we are going to make sure that it gets integrated. Having a healthy neighborhood allows you to be able to walk/bike/drive to someplace and have a destination to get to and community members to interact with. She sees this as a new partner in our community and she would not want to isolate it. It is someplace that she wants to be connected to. She sees the changing demographics throughout Worthington. There are many people who are going to want to downsize. People are going to want to move out of their large family home into someplace else. Hopefully we will get those housing stocks in Worthington in this for a part of the new community. We will also have housing stock for young professionals who want to be able to be in a walkable community. She sees that this very much emphasizies connectivity, multi-modal traffic, pedestrian/bike friendly and she is excited about the vision we have here. Ms. Michael thanked everybody for all of the hard work they put in on this. There has been a great deal of time and effort. There has been an extraordinary working relationship that went between members of the community, the United Methodist Children’s Home, city staff, and to her it has just been an amazing process to see so many people who have come together, work together, and try to bring ideas together. As one of her friends said a long time ago, the perfect compromise is when everyone leaves City of Worthington

Meeting 25-16

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

the table grumbling a little. She thinks what we have in this plan is pretty close to a perfect compromise. Everybody is going to have a little something they would like to tweak slightly differently but by and large it is meeting the dreams and the goals of all of the people who have put so much time into looking at a vision. The other part is to remember this is a vision. What will actually be developed on this land will be some developers interpretation of this vision. Then there will still be another mountain of community input and community involvement when actual plans exist. This plan sets the parameters of what a developer needs to include in the plan. When they come forward she thinks we will have a wonderful opportunity but she thinks this is setting up good visionary goals for the community. Mr. Norstrom said he would like to make an amendment. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom made a motion to restore the word “substantially” (when it talks about expanding into the neighborhood on page 96) back into the plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Myers.

Mr. Norstrom went on to say that as we’ve learned in these meetings, the zones that Mr. Hermann described are just that. These are theoretical and the fact that the mixed use zone could be larger than is shown in the plan is nothing and in fact substantially larger is potentially a possibility. Mr. Greeson noted that the location of “substantially” is in the Zoned Boundary section. It would be located on page 95 on the non-strike thru and underlined version of the document. Mr. Myers commented that there was pretty extensive discussion on this language at MPC. On the one hand he thinks there was a fear that “substantially” opened the door or invited a very large commercial development. While that could fit/work with the right circumstances, he thinks MPC did not want to send a message to a developer that that is what we were looking for and inclusion of that word may have sent that message. He thinks that at the end of the day they agreed in what he perceived was a compromise. They deleted “substantially” knowing that when a PUD came in there it could be an inflow into that neighborhood core by the right developer. So the deletion of that word was a compromise but knowing it could be a reality. He thinks they felt that the elimination of “substantial” gave them the greatest flexibility. Dick Hunter, Chair of MPC, agreed that Mr. Myers has very succinctly described the debate. “Substantially” is a word that really has many different meanings to different people. It would be double or it could be half of what that side is. It leaves it up to members of MPC and our work frankly (MPC and ARB both) hasn’t begun yet. This is a prelude to what will happen when we finally get a development plan in front of us. It is a good vision. He thinks Mr. Myers has articulated our argument. Mr. Hunter added that Mr. Norstrom has also had one side of that argument. He happens to agree with both sides, in this particular instance. If it is substantial, fine. We City of Worthington

Meeting 25-17

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

will look at it with that in mind. If the word “substantial” isn’t in there and we think it is “substantial” the argument will come up again. If it is not substantial and we feel it needs to be more for an economic purpose or for the purposes of fitting into the community, this is all part of MPC and it is going to be a part of a long dialog. Our work is just starting. Ms. Dorothy acknowledged being in attendance at that meeting and agreed that the dialog back and forth to remove “substantial” and it was a compromise to reach that point. She would want to keep it out based on what the dialog was at that meeting. Mr. Hunter added that he personally doesn’t like cul-de-sacs. His talk puts in the fact that if you put a cul-de-sac in, it still has to have people connections. One of the worst parts of a cul-de-sac is the one where you have to go through private yards to get somewhere on the other side. That is foolish. If you put cul-de-sacs in, they better have some level of connection. Not cars but you need to have a public connection as a part of a cul-de-sac to make it palatable to him. If it is not there, he won’t vote for it. Dr. Chosy commented that as he indicated previously, none of his motivation is to significantly increase the income tax revenue. Part of the beauty of this plan is the private home area and the park area and he doesn’t want to see the High Street portion move in there so he thinks cutting “substantially” is totally appropriate. Mr. Myers shared that one of the examples that was floated very early on was what would happen if Ohio State wanted to build one of their campus approaches to health care and we had three, forty or fifty thousand square foot buildings with one general practice and a couple of sub-specialties. That would impede on that neighborhood core and he thinks that would be very beneficial and something that the community would support. But that might be considered a “substantial” inclusion on the neighborhood core that we would all agree with. He just wants to make certain that members understand that that could still happen with or without the word “substantial” and he would hate for council to pass on an opportunity like that if it came to pass. Dr. Chosy stated that the point is that it takes out the implication that you can run all the way into that thing with buildings. Mr. Myers agreed that at that point it was a question of what message. Jim Sauer, member MPC, shared that throughout the whole process there has been a great deal of effort and he has heard it expressed by many that they are looking for a variety of uses. There was talk about a buffer zone on the west where we meet the existing neighborhood. We talked about the opportunity for a variety of new housing stocks that we don’t have. There was talk about a variety of office and perhaps some commercial area with neighborhood retail. But the plan has worked very hard to try to reach a balance and to obtain many of these goals. He thinks the committee/the board was concerned about putting in the word “substantial” because maybe that office complex might expand so much that we lose the mix that everybody has tried so hard to obtain. He thinks that was part of the reason behind taking that word out. City of Worthington

Meeting 25-18

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Norstrom asked Mr. Hermann why the word was in there in the first place. Mr. Hermann shared that the goal was to say if some large office user came in and did it right, we wouldn’t exclude them. He thinks by having this discussion, the MPC and council has heard that there is still an interest for the right user to do that, if it was the right plan and the right set of circumstances. His goal was to put that word in there so that we were all clear, should that happen in the future but if we are all clear without it then he is fine with that. Mr. Norstrom said he would withdraw his motion since the record will show that the council discussed this and although Dr. Chosy would object, several members would not object at all if the right kind of commercial development went in there. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom made a motion to restore “strongly” on page 93 and 97 when it refers to the use of cul-de-sacs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Myers.

Mr. Norstrom said he agrees with Mr. Hunters comments regarding cul-de-sacs. He wants to make it very clear that cul-de-sacs in that development is not good development. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom made a motion to restore the diagram on page 99 back into the plan as originally proposed by our consultant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith.

Mr. Norstrom thinks the picture is important and does a couple of things. First, it shows green space. It shows the potential of having parking on the lot but it also shows the potential of having the building right up next to the street. He added that MPC also changed some wording. Mr. Myers shared that he doesn’t recall what MPC’s thinking was on the removal of this diagram. He asked Mr. Hunter for some help. Mr. Hunter reported that the parking was the real problem he had in that we are suggesting, if you put it that far back you get parking that becomes a real traffic issue. Secondly, it’s again indicating things that a developer may or may not want to put in regardless of what we do. We will see the actual plan with this kind of thing in it when somebody actually comes up with the money to buy the site and the money to develop it. The other thing is that if you looked at, for example Fresh Thyme and where that is going to be, that is actually further away from High Street because of the right-of-way at that point then buildings could be at the 25 foot line here. So they could actually be closer than Fresh Thyme with that 25 foot line in there. Once again, this is a vision. When we get to the plan, then we will get to the work that has to do that.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-19

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Myers recalls that part of the discussion and he doesn’t know how we resolve this conflict because he agrees that we want to send a message to a developer that we want to move things to the curb. Part of the thinking though was without tears a five story building at the curb may appear corridor like. Mr. Norstrom interjected that the language is still in here. Mr. Myers stated that may have been the other thinking as to why to get rid of the picture because it shows essentially a flat front building that you could probably say ok, that is five stories right on the curb. Mr. Hunter, commented that “right on the curb” doesn’t apply. Right of way line is way back off the curb in this area. Mr. Myers stated that he understands that but he thinks that that may have been part of the other thinking as to why that diagram was removed because he doesn’t think anyone would support five stories at the 25 foot line. Mr. Norstrom thinks that with the language that is in there, one will not read the diagram as five stories. It will be read as two or three stories. Dr. Chosy asked if all of the “blue” is being cut from the paragraph on that side. Mr. Norstrom thinks that what is being cut is the blue “cut at least twenty five feet from the back of”. What is cut is in the parentheses. Dr. Chosy asked if the blue “setback from an appropriate distance” stays. Ms. Michael and Mr. Norstrom agreed that it did. Mr. Hermann thinks the discussion at the MPC was because whatever happens, the Planning Commission in general was saying we don’t want to show anything that specifically shows a plan. So they took out anything that showed actual locations of buildings on the site that would say this is a solution. Mr. Myers agreed that the diagram that showed the roadway was a concern from the very beginning. He supports that being removed. We don’t want that to be as overt a message. Mr. Hermann thinks a secondary thought was to just get rid of all of the ones that show something. Mr. Myers stated just make this so generic and so innocuous that inclusion of this picture doesn’t bother him one way or the other. He doesn’t feel that strongly about it. Ms. Dorothy shared that she was happy with the language and doesn’t care one way or the other about the drawing. She was happy with them not in but isn’t against putting them back in. Mr. Troper thinks the pictures should be left out. The motion to re-insert the pictures into the documents passed six (6) to one (1) (Mr. Troper). There being no additional questions or comments, the motion to adopt Resolution No. 39-2014 (As Amended) passed unanimously.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-20

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Ordinance No. 27-2014

Amending Ordinance No. 36-2013 (As Amended) to Adjust the Annual Budget by Providing for an Appropriation from the Capital Improvements Fund Unappropriated Balance to Pay the Costs of the Central District Sanitary Sewer Study and all Related Expenses and Determining to Proceed with said Project. (Project No. 603-14) Introduced by Mr. Troper.

Ordinance No. 28-2014

Amending Ordinance No. 36-2013 (As Amended) to Adjust the Annual Budget by Providing for Appropriations from the General Fund, Water Fund and Accrued Acreage Fund Unappropriated Balances. Introduced by Mr. Norstrom.

The Clerk was instructed to give notice of a public hearing on said ordinances in accordance with the provisions of the City Charter. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICIALS Policy Item(s) TREX – The Pharmacy Food & Spirit LLC Mr. Greeson stated that council is familiar with the TREX process having approved several over the last few months. In this case it would allow a restaurant to port a liquor permit that is from another part of the state to Worthington if we sign off on it as an economic development project. He asked Mr. Harris to overview the request that we have received for 5596 North High Street. Mr. Harris commented that tonight we present to members recommendation to authorize Mr. Greeson to sign off on a TREX of a D-5 and D-6 liquor permit to The Pharmacy Food & Spirit LLC. As members know, TREX is available when you are out of quota based permits within the home community. Mr. Harris shared that David Creighton, one of the current partners in the Press Grill, which is a successful bar/restaurant down in the Short North. He seeks to TREX a D-5 & D-6 permit into the old Colonial Music space at East Selby Blvd. and High Street (5596 North High Street). According to his plan, it will be a 75-seat restaurant with full-service beer, wine and liquor. Hours open until 11:00 pm during weeknights and 2:30 am on weekends. He hopes to open for business in either November or December 2014 of this year. The City of Worthington

Meeting 25-21

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

project still awaits Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval. He is planning for outdoor seating to jut out into the parking lot. The TREX, the D-5 and D-6 liquor permits are coming from an Abuelos restaurant up in Maumee, Wood County. This permit will allow for the sale, with on or off-premises consumption, of beer, wine and spirituous liquors until 2:30 a.m. along with Sunday sales. Mr. Harris shared that the total investment in the project is $200,000. The total number of jobs to be created is 5- 8 (full-time) and up to 10-12 (part-time). Sales tax collections, which regrettably go to the county, are perceived to be about $112,500 a year. Mr. Harris concluded by stating that per notice to the City as we have received it as well as the projected investment and new jobs, staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the TREX form for The Pharmacy Food & Spirit LLC. He said he would be happy to answer any questions. When asked by Dr. Chosy if the entire establishment is located in the city of Worthington, Mr. Harris replied that Sharon Square is partially in Worthington but mostly in Columbus. The physical Colonial Music space is in Worthington. Mr. Myers asked about the name. Mr. Harris replied that when Colonial moved out to Graceland, he walked the space with one of the representatives and they said that use to be a pharmacy awhile back. Mr. Myers acknowledged that it had been a pharmacy and not that long ago. Mr. Norstrom commented that while he would rather have it located in the downtown, it is development that is needed on the south side of the city. Mr. Myers agreed. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom made a motion to approve the TREX. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith.

There being no additional comments, the motion to approve passed unanimously by a voice vote. Ms. Michael asked if the motion could be amended to “approve the TREX as an economic development project. Mr. Norstrom and Mr. Smith agreed to the amendment. There being no additional comments, the amended motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Greeson commented that he wanted to draw members’ attention to a couple of things. 1) Members received as a drop-in, information about a downtown TIF. Staff plans to schedule that for consideration at next week’s committee of the whole meeting. City of Worthington

Meeting 25-22

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

He asked that members review that memo or the one sent earlier in the summer from Mr. Harris. Staff would like to have a conversation about whether it makes sense to do a district TIF in downtown as a source of generating revenue to support downtown activities. 2) On a sad note, one of our third shift dispatchers who has been battling cancer, Reggie Morton, has pass. He has been an employee since 1993. Many probably don’t know him because he has primarily worked third shift. His service will be on Thursday. Many from the city plan to attend that service. Staff will forward the information to council. He wished to publically state the staff’s condolences. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Norstrom asked about the Halloween memo that council received. Ms. Michael commented that it was an informational memo but members can certainly discuss it. MOTION

Mr. Norstrom made a motion to keep Halloween on Halloween. The motion was seconded by Dr. Chosy.

Ms. Dorothy shared that in taking an informal poll of Worthington moms, everyone that she talked to unanimously wanted to move it to MORPC’s recommendation. Other adults can keep their parties on Halloween but the kids can go during MORPC’s designated times. Mr. Norstrom commented that when this issue came up before members had discussions and he would say that there are a number of people that are traditional and want Halloween on Halloween. The community is more than football. The fact that this community schedules Halloween around football says a lot about us that it shouldn’t be saying. Dr. Chosy pointed out that prior to this suggestion by MORPC they previously suggested that everybody have it on the 31st. So the fact that MORPC says this now doesn’t mean anything. Mr. Troper said he is fine with keeping it on the 31st. Ms. Dorothy added that it is not Halloween that we are looking to change the date of but rather Beggar’s Night. Mr. Norstrom replied that in most places that is not two separate nights. Dr. Chosy shared that when he was growing it was two separate nights. Beggar’s night was the 30th and Halloween was the 31st and that was in Columbus a little while back. Ms. Michael shared that in Cleveland where she grew up it was always held on the 31st.

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-23

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Myers commented that he would have to vote against it because it is a non-agenda item and this impacts a lot of school age children and their families in the community. He feels uncomfortable taking a vote on this tonight. Mr. Norstrom stated we currently do this on the 31st so he can withdraw his motion. Mr. Myers commented that was part of his point. He doesn’t know what the school districts have decided or the other community groups. He doesn’t know the issue well enough to know what the expectation of the community is right now. If the expectation of the community is that it stays on the 31st, which he guesses is a Friday night and he has done enough Thomas and now Kilbourne games that he disagrees with Mr. Norstrom in that this community revolves around football. You might say that for lacrosse, soccer, or even track but he isn’t certain about high school football. Dr. Chosy thinks we will get arguments from both sides. Mr. Myers commented that he would like to hear the arguments. He doesn’t care either way. Ms. Michael asked if council was interested in discussing this matter further. She thinks if council is considering a change, there should be a discussion and community input. As it stays right now it is still the 31st so unless there is some discussion/dialog or council decides to make a change that is where we currently are situated. Mr. Norstrom stated that he will withdraw the motion because his understanding in reading the memo was that it looked like the recommendation was to move it and as long as we don’t have to discuss it, we leave it right where it is. Mr. Greeson commented that council has a standing policy to hold it on the 31st. A previous council has voted that. It is listed on the calendar for the 31st. He thinks we are the only community in the northern area that is holding it then as most are following the MORPC agreement. Dr. Chosy interjected that there are several others in central Ohio. You make it sound like we are the only one. Mr. Greeson replied that none of the other communities are close to us. He added that Anne Brown on our staff participated in a conference call that had all of the jurisdictions on it that talked about who is adhering to this previously adopted strategy and what we heard was that most of the communities that share a common area with us were and that we were different. Staff isn’t making any proposal to change but rather just calling your attention to what we experienced the last time it fell on a weekend and the discussion that we’ve had with other jurisdictions. It is up to council whether you want to change it. You do nothing tonight or in the future then beggar’s night will stay on the 31st. Dr. Chosy stated that if you change the date you will get the same phone calls. You will not get yourself out of it. Mr. Norstrom against stated that he withdraws his motion. Mr. Troper commented that he is looking forward to getting the new nameplates that include member’s first names on them. City of Worthington

Meeting 25-24

City Council

Meeting Minutes

September 2, 2014

Mr. Smith shared that he attended the COTA, 40th year celebration with Ms. Stewart last week. The Federal Transit Administration Administrator was there and it was pretty interesting. The gist to council would be to keep working with our local public transit authority to try to promote public transit. Mr. Norstrom thanked everybody that came out for the MAC celebration. He added that it is hard to believe that the MAC is five years old. Ms. Michael agreed that the celebration was great. OTHER EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Dr. Chosy made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith.

The motion carried unanimously by a voice vote. President Michael declared the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

_/s/ D. Kay Thress_________________ Clerk of Council APPROVED by the City Council, this 6th day of October, 2014.

_/s/ Bonnie D. Michael________ President of Council

City of Worthington

Meeting 25-25