Marysville Planning Commission is expected to reconsider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Cook’s Pointe area.
Earlier this month, the Planning Commission unanimously rejected an application to change the zoning on nearly 28 acres in the Cook’s Pointe Development. The original Planned Unit Development was approved in 2008. It breaks the development area into five subsections. Subsection E, the section under consideration, totals almost 28 acres. The section lies north of Cook’s Pointe Boulevard. The approved PUD plan says that “no more than 14 acres of the land in this Sub Area shall be used for apartments and their associated facilities.”
Currently, Metro Apartments owns 15.65 acres of that section and is building apartments on nearly 9 acres, with the rest to remain green space. Cody Coughlin Company is proposing to buy the remaining 10.6 acres and build what the developer calls, “high end, luxury apartments” on 8.71 acres.
The project would push subsection E over the 14-acre limit for multifamily development. The property owners are asking to have the limitation lifted so the project can move forward.
The property owners have argued there is a need for additional apartments in the community.
“This Marysville, Ohio project is the ultimate in high-end apartment living, that is unrivaled in the current market,” according to a statement from the developer included in the Planning Commission packet.
The Coughlin development would include 110 one- and two-bedroom townhomes as well as two-bedroom, garden-style units.
The complex would include a club house, fitness center, luxury garages, dog park, an Olympic-type pool, walking trails and green space.
“This is an ideal community for those young professionals moving into the area or seniors looking for simple and maintenance free living,” according to the developer.
City Law Director Tim Aslaner said the Planning Commission rejected the rezoning request, but did not give a reason why.
“They didn’t state their reasons for voting ‘No’ and that’s one of the requirements of the code,” Aslaner said.
The law director said Planning Commission cannot just say no to a project. He said the commission must base its decision on certain considerations.
Additionally, the current code states that the area is for “multi-family, owner occupied units.”
Aslaner said the difference between owner occupied and rental is “not really an issue.”
“That may have been some of the reasons that were stated on the record, but that’s a whole other topic,” Aslaner said, referencing conversation included in the Planning Commission minutes.
At Monday night’s city council meeting, Aslaner said he is recommending Planning Commission reconsider the application. If they reject the application again, members need to give an appropriate reason.
Either way, Aslaner said, the matter will come before city council. It will take a super-majority of council to overturn a Planning Commission recommendation.
“The bottom line is, it needs to follow the proper procedure, but council will get to weigh in on the zoning amendment,” Aslaner said.