Mansfield Planning Commission pauses vote on $130 million Cook Road development plan

MANSFIELD — Mayor Jodie Perry said Tuesday a Planning Commission meeting on a proposed $130 million mixed-use development on the city’s southwest side was just the beginning of a public process.

But a City Council chambers overflowing with Woodland residents opposed to the project made it clear how they want that process to end.

No such development.

Eleven residents spoke in opposition to the project with loud applause following nearly each one.

Many others signed up to speak, but later declined, saying others had already covered their reasons against the plan. Former Mayor Tim Theaker was one of those residents.

At the end of the two-hour public meeting, commission members tabled the idea for an upcoming meeting to allow Perry and her administration to work with developers based on public feedback and commission questions.

The commission postponed a vote until at least November to allow developers, city administration, and planning staff time to digest public feedback and examine potential revisions.

“This is the first step of a public process,” Perry said at the start of the meeting. “The role of a public process is to be informed, both as the planning commission and ultimately City Council, on residents’ feedback.”

She said City Council will have the final decision on the project, regardless of the Planning Commission’s ultimate recommendation for or against the proposal.

What is the proposal?

Columbus-based developer Highland Real Estate and design firm G2 Planning + Design seek to rezone roughly 64.66 acres of the historic Raemelton Farm property at 1030 Marion Ave. from R-2 residential to a planned unit development.

(Below are plans for a planned unit development in southwest Mansfield.)

Under the proposal, dubbed “Raemelton,” the developer envisions creating a master-planned community featuring 504 total residential units (apartments and townhomes), commercial out lots and a skilled-nursing care facility across four distinct subareas:

• Subarea A (commercial): Located along the West Cook Road frontage across approximately 9.4 acres, this section would feature up to five commercial parcels designed for neighborhood retail, restaurants, professional offices or medical clinics.
• Subarea B (multi-family): Spanning more than 24 acres in the central tract, this section would house up to 420 apartment units across garden-style buildings, complete with clubhouses, pool amenities, sport courts and dog parks. The apartment buildings would be three-stories high.
• Subarea C (skilled nursing facility): Covering approximately 14.5 acres, this portion is designated for assisted living, memory care, residential care and skilled rehabilitation facilities.
• Subarea D (townhomes): Planned across roughly 12.2 acres in the northeastern portion of the site, this neighborhood would consist of 84 attached townhomes intended for sale as fee-simple or condominium units.

Adam Gongwer, a city codes and zoning official, said the project would bump overall density to 8.36 units per acre — above the seven units per acre permitted under existing zoning.

The developers also seek three code variances: increasing the maximum building height for multi-family buildings from two stories (25 feet) to three stories (40 feet); reducing required parking lot asphalt; and waiving perimeter fencing mandates around retention ponds so they can function as visual amenities.

Ryan Scribner, vice president of development for Highland Real Estate, and Gary Smith, owner and founder of G2 Planning + Design, spoke on behalf of the project.

Smith presented the technical site layout, subarea breakdowns, access roads and architectural guidelines to the commission. Scribner addressed the economic and community development aspects, including the estimated $130 million capital investment, market research and local workforce and demographic impacts.

The two men said none of the residential units would be government-subsidized or Section 8 housing, but rather market-rate options tailored to young professionals, hospital staff and downsizers.

“A new development like this and these rooftops will absolutely increase the availability of local workforce for your incumbent industry,” Scribner said, noting that population and housing growth are vital for attracting new businesses and dining to the community.

He said units are designed to provide an accessible, market-rate product. But, he said, the household income required to rent an apartment or purchase a townhome would exceed the local median household income.

“It’s an affordable product, but at these price points at market rate, the minimum household incomes required to rent that apartment, to rent or buy that townhome, will actually exceed your local median household incomes,” Scribner said.

Scribner said attracting higher-earning residents would serve as an economic catalyst for Mansfield. He said raising local demographic indicators and bringing in residents with more disposable income is necessary to attract outside retailers, restaurants and new industries to the city.

Both men pledged to work with the city in developing the plan.

“This is a piece of the process that kind of happens in good faith, right? If we’re working in good faith and the city is working in good faith, then, you know, eventually … hopefully … we get to something we can all agree to,” Smith told commission members.

“I mean, it wouldn’t be unusual if we get to the same point where, the city says, ‘This is what we’d like you to do,’ and we say, ‘We can’t do it,’ and you say, ‘Well, that’s not good enough,’ and, you know, we all go our separate ways,” he said.

“We’re hoping that doesn’t happen here. We’re hoping that we can find a way to kind of get a project put together that serves the needs of the city, that makes you guys happy, and will work for us and the builder partners, and go from there,” Smith said.

(Below are photos from a city of Mansfield Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday afternoon. The story continues below the photos.)

‘I believe it would be a catastrophic decision’

None of the proposal’s current ideas were supported by Woodland residents in attendance.

The neighborhood was platted in 1920 as a planned suburban garden community and it grew into one of the the city’s premier residential neighborhoods.

Woodland remains Mansfield’s largest contiguous historic residential neighborhood, closely guarded by residents for its single-family character, tree-lined corridors and park-like streetscapes.

Despite developers’ assurances that the commercial frontage would be restricted to low-intensity neighborhood uses and buffered by green space, homeowners voiced unified opposition during public comments.

Cheryl Cummins said she and four generations of her family have lived at 580 Woodland Road. She cited five reasons she opposed the development idea, most of which included her belief the area already has most of the features the developer plans to include.

She said there is no additional need for the planned commercial development in the area; that sufficient housing already exists in the area; there no demonstrated need for more skilled care/nursing facilities in the area; and the fact there are already biking/walking trails throughout the area.

“My fifth, and probably my most important point, is to pass this legislation … to proceed with this project … would devastate — and I mean devastate — the quality of life and the value of this entire area. Not only to this area, not only to this southwestern area, but I believe to the whole community,” Cummins said.

“The city has just spent two years and millions of dollars making downtown Mansfield attractive and inviting. Why would we ever take a beautiful …. as the developer says, an open field … and cram it full of high-density housing?

“I believe it would be a catastrophic decision,” Cummins said.

Retired OSU-Mansfield Dean and Director Dr. John Riedl told commission members zoning regulations exist to protect property.

“Zoning helps preserve the character of residential neighborhoods, protect property values, manage traffic, and ensure that commercial activities are appropriately located,” said Riedl, whose home sits directly across from the proposed commercial section.

“This proposal strikes at the heart of these purposes. By locating five commercial lots in a residential neighborhood, it fails to preserve the residential character,” he said.

Dr. David Brown, a neighborhood resident and physician, disputed the need for additional skilled nursing facilities or commercial storefronts. He pointed to vacant commercial lots along South Trimble Road and existing nursing facilities nearby.

“Trimble Road is already a major route, and with hundreds of more vehicles, this is going to become a disaster,” Brown said, adding that multi-family and commercial zoning would disrupt single-family neighborhoods.

“They talk about a $130 million investment in the community. Well, that’s going to be easily swallowed up by $130 million in decreased property values surrounding this mess,” Brown said.

“This is a travesty. I don’t think there’s a single person in this audience that isn’t outraged by this. How much more community input do you need?” Brown asked commission members.

Dr. Allison Pruett, a Courtwright Boulevard resident, invited commission members to stand in her driveway and look across the open field.

“The concept that I would see a commercial building — whether it’s a dentist office or a Torchy’s Tacos — 200 feet from my home. No amount of light control is going to help very much,” Prewitt said. “It completely destroys the feel of the neighborhood.”

Residents also cited infrastructure constraints.

Geneva Johns of Westview Boulevard warned local water pressure has declined in recent years, questioning whether city water lines could adequately supply hundreds of new units and provide sufficient fire suppression.

“Other issues were the lack of environmental study done for this particular property. You have deer in the area, you have those Canadian geese, you have butterflies and all that kind of stuff, and you’re going to be developing this property with very high density,” Johns said.

“You’re talking about a thousand-some people put in a neighborhood right next to zoning R-1. The object of zoning was to protect property owners, not to make somebody else rich by putting a whole bunch of property right next door to you,” she said.

Shelly Ann Kavanaugh, who lives on Courtwright Boulevard, said developers “had no consideration for those of us that live here, that have lived in these neighborhoods for 20 or 30 years, and the impact of our property values based on their profit.”

“I think that this is totally inappropriate use of this land. … It just seems wrong. I don’t know how else to describe it, but it’s just wrong and inappropriate for our beautiful neighborhood. And I know this would devastate our property values and the enjoyment of our properties,” Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Phillip Rosmarin, who also lives on Courtwright, said 420 multi-family apartment buildings are out of character for the neighborhood.

“Typically, developers are required to maintain control of apartment complexes for five years, after which they are sold to another management firm who may not maintain the planned or intended standards, allowing for degradation of the properties, even possibly resulting in Section 8 housing,” Rosmarin said.

“To my thinking, it makes more sense to add more townhouses or single-family housing to the development instead of commercial and apartment units, or perhaps enhancing the planned assisted living and medical facilities,” he said.

Woodlawn Road resident Vernon Ramey said local streets are already treated like a “raceway,” arguing that adding hundreds of cars would create severe safety hazards for pedestrians and children.

“My main concern here is you’re adding hundreds—hundreds more families to this neighborhood, [and] you don’t even have enough water to put my house out if it catches on fire. All the (water) meters on Woodland Road are all low flow. So you’re going to add more people?”

“And then you promote Woodland Road as a walking path. In the last five years, I’ve helped two people out of the ditch from people speeding up and down Woodland Road, and now you’re going to add hundreds [or] thousands more cars coming up and down the road.

“I’ve witnessed motorcycles well over 100 miles an hour driving up Woodland Road. It should be called ‘Woodland Raceway.’ So I just don’t see a point in even considering doing anything like this,” he said.

Mayor outlines what comes next

At the end of the meeting, Perry said she wanted the public discussion to continue, reminding residents the project will return to Planning Commission and ultimately to City Council.

“I think there were some really great conversations or great questions asked and we’ll continue to work through that. These types of development, it doesn’t matter where it is in the city and what it is, it’s always a sticky issue.

“I live in Woodland and I know many of you personally. We want what’s best for the community. And we’ll see where this goes.”

She said the area’s need for additional housing is undeniable.

“There is absolutely a need. I know it seems counterintuitive to what our lived experiences are, but a lot of the reason (prices for) housing have jumped so high is because it has been a long time since we’ve had major housing developments, not just in the city of Mansfield, but across (Richland) county,” Perry said.

She said a recent housing study showed the county was 3,000 units short for the next decade, a need that needs to be addressed.

“We’ve got a ways to go (on the project discussion). I certainly welcome if people wanted to put a meeting together in the community to have more conversation … I certainly welcome that.

“I’m not afraid of a tough conversation and to share with you just kind of how we’re approaching it and how we think about it. Again, you may disagree at the end of the day, and I understand and respect that, as well. I can’t sit in your shoes exactly, but we’re really doing our best to do that,” Perry said.

(Below is a PDF showing the “Raemelton” PUD rezoning application.)