Community Review Comments

I love mixed use, shops developing beyond MASSIVE parking lots + outdated buildings!

Worthington Mall traffic pattern is horrible. Please help! Worthington Mall is very concerning. I am Concerned about current Shops built on high & West Wilson bridge corner, seem like they are going out of business, struggling

traffic patterns

The focus on more expensive housing/larger mixed-use development.I don’t think allowing 3+ story housing in this area will diminish the surrounding houses or take away from Old Worthington’s feel

Wilson Bridge is a good place to develop.

The only concern (and it’s a big concern) is to the traffic patterns and the traffic flow in the estates neighborhood – down Caren & Reiber. There is already increased traffic from the corner development at High & Caren – we don’t need more

I love everything planned for this corridor.Another example of right-sized (large) developed for the right side. It will be better than Bridge Park. Yay :). Keeps high rises away from the core

thoughtful(?)

Watch width of Wilson Bridge
move parking @ Trailhead
near tennis courts & use as green space or handicap parking only

Multi-family and mixed use

Please no more “backward” buildings
Make parking access visable

Not. Such great ideas throughout

A trolley from Graceland to Wilson Bridge Rd.

How are we making sure that housing is affordable and remains affordable? What is the system?

Allow for instant development along Wilson Bridge Rd

good development places

not too high – worrying about traffic

I am thrilled with the large sections of dedicated mixed-use build by right zoning areas and hope that these pass as presented and are codified in the zoning code as soon as possible.

I am not sure a 10 story upper limit is necessary north of Wilson Bridge in the sections designated. Let these areas grow with demand over time if there is desire to build them. If you do decide to limit I would allow higher buildings if certain requirements are met (e.g. percentage of affordable housing units).

With the approved High North project stalled, what will the city do to try to get the ball rolling in these spaces.

Great work by everyone involved!

support mixed use / redevelopment at Willson Bridge road.

North High – make UMCH a key community nexus with mixed use facing High Street (including commercial) & amenities facing LARGE central park, not residential.”

upzoning

Do even more upzoning! We want jobs and housing, baby! High-density mixed-use! Make Bridge Park and Grandview Yard jealous!

Focus higher density development along Wilson Bridge Road, N. High St., and the southern portion of N. High St. Mixed-use development that provides housing and office and open areas that provide a variety of housing types and styles and new Class A office that would be bring in additional revenue to the City to provide additional services.

Update the zoning code and proactively rezone the properties to kickstart redevelopment.

Timeline to implement.

I strongly agree with the plan’s case that we need more housing diversity, and I like that it concentrates higher-intensity housing in the opportunity areas (13.1), honors established neighborhood character (principle 5), and even quotes the Columbus Housing Strategy that no single city can solve the regional shortage alone.

I’d ask the Housing chapter to say plainly what’s currently scattered across the plan: Worthington should contribute its fair share through smart, measured growth, not try to absorb a regional crisis it can’t solve, and growth should be explicitly weighed against capacity impacts on schools, transportation, and public services. (The school-impact analysis sits over in Economic Vitality; it belongs in the housing conversation too.) Most importantly: right intensity in the right place. Heavier and mixed development belongs along the corridors and opportunity areas, Wilson Bridge is well-suited to more intensity, and there’s room for mixed business/residential off High Street, while large multifamily shouldn’t be dropped into the middle of established single-family areas. Strong scale-transition standards at neighborhood edges (principle 5) should have real teeth. We only get one chance to get each site right.

I’m curious whether the City could publish a simple “growth dashboard” tracking new units alongside school enrollment, traffic, and service capacity, so the community can see growth is being managed, not just totaled.

I’ve framed this around the principle of right-sizing intensity rather than relitigating any single contested site.

The UMCH property is an historic opportunity for us as a community to invest in green space / paths that will benefit our community for the next 200 years. The green space proposed for this property is NOT BIG ENOUGH.

Why has the Public Input from Project Community Park (for UMCH) been ignored as part of this Planning Process??

We would like the entire UMCH lot to be a Park

Not cut through street. Why aren’t you listening?

No high Rise Apartments Building on UMCH site

No high-rise apartments
2-3 Stories are ok

park space – should be larger, and should be longer and should run all the way to Evening St.

Reduce orange spaces – Small lot & attached too much density for that area & problematic for Evening St. traffic & school

will the park have civic activities

Green space integration around developments – proposed multi-use trails

Allow for multi-use trail / green space behind mixed use development

What support would Worthington offer developers |Since the costs to move closer to the street should be high.

Green Spaces for fitting houses on Larrimer + Hayhurst

Concerned about mixed use on Larrimer + Hayhurst

Triple Size of green space To 15 acres Not To include Tucker Creek

LAST large Vacant Parcel in Worthington

The area south of Larrimer – like the concept of Residential attached with the Green space, but with a different ratio

25% Residential attached for older, empty nesters, 75% greenspace. change some of the surroundings, mixed use to have more open air food hall like Crooked Can

Restrict zoning to permit commercial buildings along High Street and residential housing. Don’t allow apartments. This will add too much traffic volumes on High Street. Do not destroy the neighborhoods on Evening Street with traffic access
Permit green space / Park for all residents to use. Check out Norton Commons in Prospect, KY. A well done planned community

Everything shown has been so favorable but obviously not the darn North HIGH zone

I’m most concerned about wasting the UMCH portion on too much pink & yellow. It is very frustrating that planners continue to think they know better than residents. And NO its not a NIMBY thing — I don’t live near there.

Please keep this as a large green showplace for us. like Fancyburg or Goodalle pr a mini Whitestone. Thank you to the committee for your hard work.

I like the park space.If any development is going to happen which I’m not convinced is good, it should be single family homes.

No access onto evening street!
little to no multi-family development!

How can we ensure that the use of spot is maximized for park use?

I think any large Development Apartments, condos, Town homes Require to much Infrastructure and will upset lots of People surrounding the area. The Building looks good now. Find Good Tenants.

Also Taxes are to high & TAX Abatements are just wrong

UMCH property – possible connector, Longfellow to Evening St…. Does it need to be a continuous street? SUGGESTION: Have 2 dead ends. One from Longfellow and one from Evening St. Both would dead someplace in the middle. Allows for access to possible new residential, and prevents traffic using it as a cut through. Putting in speed bumps might be ok, but houses(?) poses problems for fire trucks driving over them.

Take away mixed use from the UMCH EXCEPT along High St.
EXPAND THE GREEN SPACE TO REPLACE ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL – TOO MUCH TRAFFIC

This is clearer vision of what ‘powers that be’ want. Neighbors include bike, ped, transit infrastructure.

↑ development & exchange some green space at Snooter Rd park and add to green space on High Street development

Plans mostly non residents have easy access to this Park.

I’d like to see a roundabout put in those.

The intersection of Worthington Galena and High St —> are there plans to explore plans or change the flow of traffic

Please do not rezone the current houses on the east side of Hayhurst. We’ve been under the impression that those three lots will not be rezoned for business. They are currently the only buffer.

Business along north High Street along High is one thing – but we don’t want it to look like Arlington along Lane Ave. Keep the heights reasonable.

It would have been honest to truly engage residents, voters who elected our Council to represent our residents rather than Council members’ campaigns who were funded by developers’ interests.

It is not good for low on high income earners. Reasonable density will not increase traffic. A central park is desirable. The goal of Worthington together (a misnomer) seems to be to serve the developers rather than residents. This evenings info on the boards appears no different than the PN Worthington approach. This entire process has not seemed genuine, but designed for controlled outcome.

I would think this charade would damage Next Planning reputation. More + more municipalities will learn how duplications and dishonest they are. The expression of outrage by NP head at a city council was an insulting outrage to worthington

not much, except for the park along High Street.

The plan is uninspired. A six-acre park is too small. This is the only place to put a central park and you are ruining it with housing.

Where were Comments at prior meeting seemingly ignored? Is this a recycled plan that ignores resident requests for a Central Park

Way too little green space shown on UMCH propertys core should be park, not residential

Not much.6 acres of park is not sufficient. This parcel is centre of Worthington + Should have residential crammed onto it.

. We are park Starved. Housing can be in other areas. The PCPW recommended. Plan was shared with Worthington Together and ignored. It shared have been shared on the wrokshop to get resident input

Why is this committee trying to satisfy council + not lsitening to residents.This process is a force + irritating

Worthington Proper is Park – Starved. we need a Central Park on High, our Worthington Welcome Park on High.

I like a nice neighborhood extension of downtown Worthington — not people on top of each other

Not as many houses all stuck together with no distance between. No high density devlopment – we are not buildings a new modern Worthington

about why it is that you want to change the character Worhington instead of enhancing it

Mixed use along High St.

Way too many housing crammed into interior park space of 6 acres to small. Should be mostly park space.

How did you come at 6 acres for park? Why are there those still no numbers associated with the number of housing units. This looks like the same plan as last time.

Using High St. for commerical use

Future neighborhood safety & parking night – green space more needed for internal new residence & neighbors.

Also Worthingway outcome, Evening St. have no green space compared to other middle schools

elementary ‘open play’ for during after school hours. These parking significantly more is needed on North High Plans west of High St.

I love taking these Spaces back from vacant buildings to Mixed use! Great.

I’m not Sure, Seems like great ideas but nothing concrete.

How to take the Vacant or chance fields and make them alive. I’m not sure that is mot ‘pn’ but lets make North High area vibrant & cool!

This is not reflecting what I want in one area. Large green space is missing. I DO like the strip entrance of green leading from the City Hall buildings.

I DO NOT like the orange on that UMCH space = NO! . I think that the is too much overall too. Not to cavernous,tight to High St.

I DO like retail on HIGH st. if the fronts are active rather than fake facades. I think an outdoor learning area +/or public fountain splash area would be nice, too. Lots of natural acres 30-50+!! I think the entire planning group is doing GREAT every where else – Wilson Bridge, South High, FORGE etc but UMCH area continues to frustrate.

Develop Wilson Bridge area

DO NOT put high density on the anthem lot. No Apts & no townhomes

Why didn’t you take any of the information from PCPW into consideration?

green spaces & nature & housing

Toronto has “pioneer farms” In city park. Milwaukee has eco studies lab.

Nothing.

Worthington is Park-Starved. needs a Central Park of 40 Acres on High.

our Worthington Welcome Park on High!

Nothing- Worthington needs a 40 acre central park!

We can call it “Worthinton Welcome Park on High” because Parks attract both buisnesses + homeowners! Thanks!

We want a park at UMCH please Thanks!

I would then the area into a park instead.

Why weren’t the PCPW map an option? We don’t have to develop the UMCH Property into something exactly like it’s but I would at least like to be an option to pick them.

This is a perfect place for development but not be too adverse

More paths homes please

Yes let’s fix it up but do not put all tall buildings along street
Like UA

Very comprehensive & well thought out

March 13, 2026
To attn: from
Anita Hemanni
300 Franklin Ave.
Worthington, Ohio 43085 — Tax Lot #100
The north borderline is a narrow park strip going west to Morning Street. Behind my 2 wooden fences section a not exceptable sum of plants inmitten of overgrowth of myrtel vines is present. It is the most dense of growth also oversizing in do. A mess! Seemingly it is doing Botanica in call.
A walkway — an alley — from behind Stafford 361 to Morning Street would be a commendable future effort. My Franklin Ave. property is north border with eastern Pingree Drive frontage.
Sincerely,
Anita Hemanni

I’m concerned about all aspects of proposed development of these properties

Although it would be appropriate to have some storefronts and businesses along High Street these two properties should not be developed for new housing. The pressures on traffic along High Street, onto 270 and 315 and along Evening Street and 161 would be unimaginable. These routes are typically blocked for hours every day. In addition to new pressures on the schools with new residents, I don’t think the community is prepared and able to increase the number of residents by such a large percentage at one time.

Why have the other options suggested by community groups, such as WARD and PCPW, not been addressed at all in the report. You are asking for community input and these groups represent very large numbers of residents.

There has been no mechanism to insure that the people participating in the surveys and meetings are in fact tax-paying residents of Worthington. ONLY residents of Worthington should be allowed to participate since we are the ones who will bear additional costs and inconvenience.

I like the attempt at keeping character while connecting communities. The “happy urbanist” on social media does a lot of research with this!

We have been advocating for a sidewalk on worthington galena, from the emergency departments to the split in the road. It is a small section but has proven to be so dangerous. People do not go the speed limit and we have witnessed wrecks. This would connect kids to schools (2 schools on this road and the connector for the over 15 kids (hence why this is time sensitive) on this street going to Wilson hill). Also this connects seniors to the rec center (and middle schoolers who are often jumping into yards to stay safe!). While I understand that slowing down techniques may not be used due to the emergency services on this street, I think emphasizes the need for an all purpose path away from the street even more. I’ve read on how the use of trees can also be used in an additional barrier and a slowing down technique while also adding character to one of the main streets coming in to worthington.

Could something like FLOW assist with the tree development on this street as a buffer between the street and the path?
What have the challenges been to doing this? I had sent this link maybe a year ago as funding assistance:
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-is-walkability-what-does-the-government-spend-on-it/

Any other avenues for advocacy my neighbors and I can take? With this amount of school aged children living on this street, it feels time sensitive.

I like the focus on walkability

I’m confused. Why did you not include options that residents requested like a public park at UMCH?

How did you decide which proposals to put on the boards?

I’m worried this wasn’t a fair process. If the ideas of residents are ignored, it looks like the process is predetermined

Mixed use areas with height and density along E and W Wilson Bridge Rd.
Southern High St down by Selby, great area to create another mixed use area that helps define the southern part of Worthington.
UMCH site should not be more than a 1/3 park space and no connections to Evening or Longfellow unless it’s single family. Commercial access should be from Larrimer and High.

1/3 of the UMCH site should be for parks, no more than that. We need to take care of what we have vs just adding parks.
Don’t rezone too much of our commercial properties to residential since commercial properties bring in income tax

Old Anthem site and Harding site. Mix of uses and access. Harding site is private property and they could always tell us to get off their property, we need to see if we can formalize access to the site or at least paths throughout the site.

Please try to implement recommendations. Interested in the rewrite of zoning code and proactively rezoning of properties.

Like that this should be developed but responsibly. In terms of green space good start and some housing and commercial on the high street frontage.

It will need more thoughtful green space, this is really the focus point of the project. And in terms of housing no apartments, what is needed is single suburban style homes that fit the rest of the neighborhood.

The timeline, everything seems to be coded an hard to understand what next steps are.

Please really that a moment to think about this development, once done it’s there for many years a can’t be redone. More greenspace now can always be developed later not the other way around.

I appreciate the plan’s emphasis on corridor connectivity, walkability, mixed-use reinvestment, and creating a stronger public realm along High Street and other commercial corridors. The plan appropriately recognizes that transportation, placemaking, and economic vitality are interconnected.

I would encourage the final plan to more formally incorporate the Worthington Mile concept as a long-term framework for corridor revitalization, branding, and economic development.

The Worthington Mile was broadly embraced during the Vision Worthington process because it represented more than just infrastructure improvements. It reflected a vision for:

* modernized zoning,
* activated frontage,
* improved walkability,
* coordinated design standards,
* stronger corridor identity,
* and encouragement of private reinvestment over time.

Even if large-scale infrastructure improvements cannot occur immediately, formally establishing the policy framework and redevelopment expectations today can help encourage incremental private investment moving forward.

I am curious how the Comprehensive Plan will ultimately inform future zoning modernization, corridor design standards, and implementation priorities along High Street.

The current public perception of some aging commercial corridors has become outdated and disconnected from their long-term potential. Establishing a clear vision, identity, and predictable redevelopment framework is an important first step toward changing that trajectory.

Nothing thus far :). I joke. It’s Worthington. Council and the city have done little in past 20 years unlike New Albany, Westerville, Dublin, and Grandview. The plan will be submitted and 20 years from now a new plan. Those elected to council have to think much more holistically and wider than what’s the next bike lane, did we allow our teens to have a say in the matter, what color should certain buildings be, and don’t we have the best Saturday market. They have to make decisions, anger some in the community, and perhaps be willing to lose an election for the community to move forward.

Since council screwed the pooch on the pool – should have been greater discussion and thought as to having it at the community center, thinking council has little room for imagination or disagreeing with constituents that speak the loudest (my gosh Dublin is so fortunate to have leaders), so UMCH likely sits for another 15 years. The city needs to consider purchasing the land and entering into a public – private partnership with developers for something the community might see in New Albany in terms of housing/commercial development/and I guess, green space (because one can’t talk about developing Worthington without green space being mentioned). If purchased, council cannot allow the very vocal minority surrounding the area to then control what is done with the space.

I like that the city is planning to keep green space at 1033 N High. Right now there is a lot of green space but it is inaccessible to the public so I see this as a major upgrade for our city as a whole.

I would love to see a plan that addresses the lack of quality sports fields in the City of Worthington.

I’ve volunteered as a coach through the WYB program across multiple sports for the past eight years, and one thing that stands out is how far behind Worthington is compared to many other Central Ohio communities when it comes to athletic facilities. Dublin has Darree Fields and Soccer First, Hilliard has Spindler Sports Complex, Grove City has Murfin Fields, Westerville has its Sports Complex, Gahanna has Academy Park, and New Albany has Bevelhymer Park. These communities have invested in centralized, high-quality athletic facilities that serve youth sports, adult recreation, camps, and community events.

Outside of Ohio, similar communities have taken this even further. West Chester developed VOA MetroPark, and Westfield, Indiana created Grand Park, which has become a destination for youth sports tournaments and regional events.

Worthington has a tremendous baseball facility in McCord Park, but there is no comparable multi-sport complex for soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, rugby, and other field sports. A centralized sports complex would provide better playing surfaces, create a stronger sense of community, and give families a common gathering place throughout the year.

Beyond serving residents, a larger facility could create opportunities to host tournaments and events that generate revenue for local businesses, hotels, restaurants, and the city itself. As youth sports continue to grow, communities that invest in quality facilities are seeing both quality-of-life and economic-development benefits.

As a parent, coach, and resident, I would be excited to see Worthington develop a long-term vision for a multi-sport athletic complex that meets the needs of our growing community and helps position Worthington as a destination rather than a community that is constantly traveling elsewhere for quality facilities.

I have been a resident of Worthington for over 38 years. I live here because I love the charm and simplicity of the neighborhood. Having lived in another neighborhood before that incorporated high density into the neighborhood it caused me to have to move. The traffic increased and the neighborhood became overwhelmed and crime went up. Worthington Estates will experience this same problem with high density. There needs to be a stop put to this which I believe has already happened so why are we doing this again????

I would like to see more businesses for Worthington residents to shop. We need more place to spend are money in Worthington. Having more people in Worthington puts more burden on the taxpayers.

I love our bike path but it is getting very crowded.

I think that we need to take advantage of a once in a lifetime oppurtunity and establish a large city park on the property that is currently The Methodist Children’s Home. Hold fast on our zoning laws, and make this happen. Worhtington is extremely “park poor” when compared to Dublin, Westerville even Hilliard!
I think an event space could be part of the park plan and can envision weddings, gradutions, retirements all happening here. What an assest that would be to Worthington!
I do recognize the need for higher density housing but there are other areas where this can be built.

Sadly, nothing.
Worthington desperately needs a 40-Acre Central Park on the beautiful land of the former Children’s Home: The Worthington Welcome Park on High.
Right now, we are Park-Starved compared to other towns.
2000 Acres New Albany
1300 Acres Dublin, plus a Metro Park
650 Acres Westerville, plus THREE Metro Parks
660 Acres: Hilliard, plus THREE Metro Parks
221 Acres: Worthington TERRIBLE.
Even with a 40-Acre Park, we will still only have 261 Acres and will remain Park-POOR.

Create a 40-Acre Central Park on the beautiful land of the former Children’s Home:
The Worthington Welcome Park on High. 
We deeply need a true Village Green of 40 Acres, because our so-called “Village Green” is just four pretty little lawns graced by beautiful native Trees.  It’s PUNY.
So we need to honor the health and happiness of All–business people, residents, & visitors alike–with a real, live, truly “green” Village Green
on our last bit of High Street natural land. 
Our 40-Acre “Worthington Welcome Park on High” would draw both businesses and home-buyers, because everyone–including businesses!–loves being in an attractive spot near a Park, with all the benefits of exquisite wild-ish Nature and its groves of native Trees, many varieties of lovely Shrubbery, and masses of pretty Flowers. 
People of all ages thrive near Parks, because Parklands offer Comfort to All amidst daily stresses & renew the Joy of Life to All every day.

All the lovely People of Worthington, for even “strangers” here are just friends I haven’t met yet. And I’m still meeting new friends every day and many long-time friends, too, as I run on the Olentangy Parklands’ Chip Trail.
I’m always delighted to hear how they love Worthington because of the Olentangy Parklands, and been really moved by how urgently everyone feels our vital need for a 40-Acre Central Park at last.
People understand that Parkland is our true need, for Housing can be built in many, many other spots throughout Worthington. And Housing drains the City Budget, for 7/8ths of our Property Tax go to our schools which are already seriously over-crowded.
Ask people about our hope for a and you will hear the Joy as Light bursts into the eyes and smiles cover their faces!

Thank You for Asking:
We are now Park-POOR, far last amongst comparable towns–even with 261 Acres of Parkland rather than the miniscule 221 we have now.
So we need to hold onto our current Zoning Laws and demand that Lifestyle Communities either let the lovely meadows of the former Children’s Home land be a Park or sell to all of us who will do it ourselves.
NOW is our time to create our life-giving 40-Acre central Worthington Welcome Park on High at last! Future generations will be endlessly grateful.

The incorporation of Residential-Suburban into the plan, unlike prior proposals.

Convert the Residential-Attached to Parks & Greenspace. This would provide a public gathering space similar to Columbus Commons which could be used for afterwork parties, picnics, summer/fall concerts, or outdoor theatre if there is a permanent or temporary stage. If there is Mixed Use or Hotel on High Street, a larger public gathering space nearby would be a welcome area of respite or recreation.

Why is Planning Next averse to presenting options for this property that have been discussed for over 10 years and have been repeatedly voiced at your listening sessions? Your Draft acknowledges there is significant public sentiment against multifamily uses and notes the prior litigation related to zoning for this property (NOTE: as LC’s appeal has lapsed, the litigation is over). A fair summation of community sentiment re how this property is developed should at least summarize the community desires for the property, so City Staff can cost out some options to consider re alternative uses by LC or another developer.

As this property has been the nub of HUGE amount of community controversy, the Comprehensive Plan should (a) present as an alternative a larger greenspace (i.e. more than the 2-6 acres of hillside in the Draft Plan), as voiced by a large segment of the Worthington Community, and (b) acknowledge directly in the plan or by way of an appendix the 2022 City Council resolution amending the prior plan that provided more specific descriptions of the community’s desires for this undeveloped property.

Parks, big ones.

I would make a new park.

I’m curious as to why we don’t have a park in this area.

We need a Central Park.

Tucker Creek and surroundings should be enhanced and preserved as a natural area. An adjacent outdoor public space for gatherings and events should be developed. Housing on UMCH property should be focused on empty nesters which would not contribute much to increased school enrollment or rush hour traffic and provide housing for seniors who want to remain in Worthington.

options for how to fund this

It is obvious from the images that you are NOT adding to green space in the city. The mixed use etc focus along High street does not allow for parkland in the old Methodists children’s home area. to allow this last piece of green area to go into development is an irretrievable loss. there are many areas for development and apartments ( Schrock and Proprieter’s corner for example). I strongly disagree with the plan if it eliminates the only area left for a city park large enough for a gathering, a wedding, exercise, etc. All other suburbs have large park spaces. Do I have to drive to Westerville to walk in a park?

It would be great to have a sidewalk on Worthington Galena Rd. One side of the road would be fine. I think connecting high street, to the school, to the community center would help protect pedestrians from some drivers who drive more recklessly.

I appreciate that the plan already calls for green infrastructure (rain gardens, bioswales) as visible parts of the public realm, and that it values streetscape quality and the tree canopy.

As a standard in major street reconstruction and redevelopment projects, I’d ask the City to (1) bury overhead electric/telephone lines where feasible and (2) incorporate green stormwater design, capturing street runoff into curb-cut rain gardens and planted beds. The undergrounding piece is missing from the plan entirely, and it does double duty: overhead lines force utilities to top and prune street trees, so burying them actually protects and grows the tree canopy the plan says it wants. The green-stormwater piece already exists for private redevelopment, I’d extend it to the City’s own street projects.

I’m curious whether undergrounding could be prioritized first on gateway corridors and during already-planned reconstruction, to control costs by doing it while the street is open anyway.

I really like SP13.2’s approach of supporting a range of housing types by replacing density requirements (units per acre) with design requirements (height, setback, architectural design, streetscape). That’s the right mechanism, and the second round of public input backed ADUs, attached, and age-friendly housing, with strong emphasis on quality, scale, and design.

: I’d ask the plan to commit firmly to that design-over-density approach and enable smaller-scale housing types, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, citywide where residential is appropriate, with compatibility standards (massing, façade articulation, scale transitions) strong enough that new attached housing fits its surroundings. The Hartford at Stafford Village is a great local proof point: interconnected units massed and detailed to read as separate, residential-scale buildings.

I’m curious whether form-based or pattern-book standards could give homeowners and small builders a clear, predictable path to add these types without case-by-case battles.

Love the idea at changing the street design to better connect Old Worthington to Wilson Bridge Rd.

The intersection at High + Dublin Granville is challenging for pedestrian crossing.

Please make sure we do not lose the COTA 102 Bus.

Like how area is to be treated and maintained character

The shops, the history, the housing. The housing especially, the spacing encourages and allows neighbors to know each other.It makes community

Traffic is far too heavy especially, dangerous on High St, South of 161. Farmers market visitors are at serious risk.

Why,since High St., South of 161 is so dangerous (The Bike+ Ped committee has said so) why isn’t it taken seriously and relocated to possiblity, the former UMCH property. Yet, Planning next seems to dismiss, not hear and →

not engage when residents attempt to engage PN with resident ideas. PN is doing the developers work, serving developer interests rather than residents. It seems there is a parallel — much like the City of Columbus Council, serving developer interests. It is wrong when elected officials don’t serve ‘resident wishes’.

Save the DQ!

PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH HISTORIC UPTOWN BUILDINGS!

WE DO NOT NEED TO LOOK LIKE H.A. or Dublin (EAST OF THE RIVER)

old Worthington’s, I agree and proper aspirations are stated

There are no sticker dots currently placed on this board(and it is 7:30 pm now)
. I wanted to just comment that i assume (and hope) This is because this area is NOT a big area of controversy. Everyone wants to Old Worthington to maintain it’s chracter?

I would like to avoid the fake facades in transition development. Both CVS + Freshthyme are like this. Need “front porch” vibrance Dining tables, on High St. Real front enterances not Disney style fake, please.

Always like redevlopment. Many dated sities

4.1 Trophy mixed use is great only IN the right place and NOT at the expense of natural large green areas. 30+=retain

Definitely need to update the plan and continue our tradition of strong parks and recreation services.

I understand staying within our means, but perhaps in an effort to stay away from adding parks at UMCH, the language here regarding growing our parks and adding new and exciting amenities is tamped way down. Even if we maintain the same number of parks/acreage, we should be prioritizing and thinking big within our existing park spaces. Parks are a big part of quality of life and retention/attraction of residents and businesses.

How soon will the master plan be completed – be more specific as to it should be completed by 2028, for example.

The City of Worthington’s current structure, character and level of density create an, especially, wonderful place to live, whether of high or low income. Worthington had room for various incomes in the past. By even recent development, we’ve driven some low income residents away deliberately and for developer’s personal profit.

Not much.
We can improve, of course, by adding housing to the numerous open lots in the City – single, duplex, 4 unit apts. on existing lots throughout the City. Too, vacant buildings, might be converted to housing.

The City acknowledged danger to pedestrians on High St., south of 161 should be addressed. This danger is pretty extreme with the nature of activity through those blocks, that is the farmer’s market, art shows, Market Day in Sept. Thought should be given to find a larger, safer area for such events. Lifestyle LLC’s property, naturally, comes to mind. At this point, their intent to keep or to sell are unknown. It would be ideal space. AND with the commercial space along High St and residential along Larrimer to Longfellow, it benefits business which benefits our tax base, plus it benefits our residents. It adds to Worthington’s character and desirability, without detracting or overwhelming.

I’m curious that limited attention has been given to our environment and to climate change. With the challenges we’re facing, the natural world must be our priority. It is deadly for us not to address this reality. If human life is to survive, it is essential that we be aware and protect our world. High density and an increase in already too much traffic undermines life.

Even in our 5.2 sq mile City, we must understand that our lives hinge on the natural world and its hierarchy. The absence of insects, for instance, is basic, along with the great loss of bird population, etc.? The destruction of natural habitat, crowding, noise and toxins is the route to destroy life, including we humans.

I’ve always admired those who care about all lives by promoting the importance of good environmental practice. The City should and can lead in avoiding development that encourages global destruction, invariably, for excessive personal profit. It has not got the attention it deserves.

I like the map on page 83 thst shows existing sidewalks and gaps and lack of connectivity.

The city should develop a plan to install sidewalks to uphold it’s 3rd guiding principle and one of its strategic priorities.

Similar cities, like Westerville, have developed and implemented successful sidewalk programs. Prioritizing safety and connectivity concerns. This could be great for Worthington, especially in supporting the downtown businesses. There are neighborhoods in walking distance to downtown, but no pedestrian friendly ways to get there.

Please consider developing and implementing new, connecting sidewalks in Worthington, to make it more accessible, walkable and prompting connectivity.

The look and feel/vibe of old Worthington.

Leaving the pride flags up for a month is really obnoxious. The city FB page can sugarcoat it all they want but it’s a celebration of sexuality. Put them up for a weekend and do the pride celebration day, but a whole month? Come on. It’s insulting not to be flying the American flag. Special flags for special occasions. Nothing gets a whole month. Especially not for a divisive topic. I literally don’t visit this area of town all June because of this

Who makes this decision?

It’s the opposite of inclusive if you’re a conservative or Christian. Maybe we aren’t welcome in this town

Strengthening traffic calming and pedestrian safety.

How do you traffic calm to help with the safety and walk ability of the area while also not making the area, a main thoroughfare for Worthington residents, a nuisance. I already avoid driving through the heart of old Worthington by cutting through the neighborhood via South St., which doesn’t feel appropriate but it is better than the traffic through town.

This might sound like a silly thing to put in this forum, but it’s an way to make a comment about it – I’ve always wondered why the left turn arrow turning west on to 161 from high st traveling north only ever let’s 3.75 cars through. It’s the number one reason I use South St to evening st to get to 161.

I like that the plan commits to improving the quality and usability of existing parks and names partnerships with schools and nonprofits as a tool.

Two related ideas. First, design park facilities intentionally to enrich, incorporating public art and STEM/educational, learning-through-play features rather than off-the-shelf playground equipment. Hemisfair’s Yanaguana Garden in San Antonio is a wonderful model: designed with a child-development specialist, woven through with local-artist installations, and built for all ages and abilities (and, fittingly, it includes a splash pad). The school district, library, and local arts/science organizations would be natural partners. Second, on equity: I understand the City is investing significantly in the community pool and adding a splash pad there, but access will require a membership. I’d love the plan to carry the aspiration to build a second, free splash pad in a public park, so families without the means for a membership still have a water-play resource, mirroring the free public splash pads in Dublin (Ballantrae), Hilliard (Station Park), and Westerville (Hanby Park).

I like that the plan reflects strong resident interest in better access to the Olentangy and Rush Run, and in a richer, more varied park system.

As long-term, partnership-driven aspirations (I recognize these are big and outside the City’s sole control), I’d love the plan to reach a bit further: (1) support restoring the Olentangy so it’s cleaner, safer, and more navigable by addressing remaining low-head dams, in the spirit of the regional Rapid 5 vision and building on the successful Fifth Avenue dam removal that improved the river near Ohio State; and (2) add new diversity to our park offerings, such as a botanical garden, as a distinctive community amenity explored through the Parks & Recreation Master Plan update.

I’m curious whether Worthington could partner with Metro Parks, Friends of the Lower Olentangy Watershed, and neighboring communities to develop a shared vision for Olentangy restoration and access.

New to Worthington and i love it. There are a few things that need work.

Street parking. North Street between High and Evening St. we need another way to access that neighborhood at the end of Evening Street”¦another route.

Why people with nice big drive ways insist on parking in the street. Dangerous and detracts from property values.

We need to market the empty commercial buildings on High St. All those empty building and For lease signs are beginning to give the appearance of a ghost town.

I love that we’re beginning to talk about this! Worthington is falling behind other suburbs such as Dublin, Upper Arlington, and even Hilliard with it’s lack of a Bridge Park type area that is walkable with bars, restaurants, and other forms of entertainment that are both for adults-only and families.

I don’t believe that we need to prioritize office space. Data indicates that office space still is largely vacant and underutilized. I’d rather prioritize commercial space for restaurants, breweries, etc.

Please keep the conversation going. As someone who falls directly within the median age group in Worthington, I can assure you that redeveloping High Street between Worthington Galena Road and Wilson Bridge Road is something that we all are very interested in. That land is being wasted right now with giant, empty office buildings. Please give us a fun area that will keep us in Worthington on weekends and evenings rather than going to other suburbs to spend our money.

Why are streets like clear view and pingree in the large lots, when they have tiny lots, while north has the large lots and is in small?

include drawing of the existing High St. corridor to compare it to the mobility + connectivity drawing

I appreciate that the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of modernizing business corridors and improving longterm mobility. I also value the emphasis on guiding principles that support a resilient economy and responsible redevelopment. The identification of Opportunity Areas provides a clear framework for where future improvements may occur.

My primary concern is the safety impact of increased traffic on neighborhood streets surrounding the UMCH and Wilson Bridge Road Opportunity Areas. Daily family and student travel from highdensity developments just outside the City but inside the Worthington School District already overloads streets such as Reiber Street, Caren Avenue, Larrimer Avenue, Longfellow Avenue, and Evening Street. Since the Worthingway Middle School renovation, approximately 200 additional students now travel to the school, most coming from outside the neighborhood.
Despite these conditions, the safety issues created by cutthrough traffic and narrow, lowcapacity neighborhood streets have not been adequately addressed.
Residents must understand the full effects of redevelopment prior to any zoning approvals.

I am curious how the City plans to address traffic volume, safety, and circulation before any zoning changes are made in the UMCH and Wilson Bridge Road areas. Given the current conditions on our neighborhood streets, it would be irresponsible not to complete these studies first. I would like to understand how mobility analysis will evaluate cutthrough traffic, neighborhood street capacity, and the cumulative impact of new residential units. I am also interested in how access points into neighborhoods will be managed to prevent additional strain on narrow, lowcapacity streets.

All the reasons the UMCH property was originally not rezoned for highdensity housing still exist, and increased neighborhood traffic since the original proposal only heightens these concerns. The loss of a major employer in Worthington has understandably created pressure to replace incometax revenue, but revenue challenges alone should not drive decisions that compromise neighborhood safety or the longterm character of our community. At this point, I am unclear as to what has changed that would make highdensity redevelopment more appropriate now than it was before. There are other ways to generate sustainable tax revenue that do not jeopardize safety, and I hope those alternatives are fully explored.

I like the corridors,but I really hope you aren’t displacing the people who live along the corridor

it is a good plan but I am not happy with the density of structures.

Can you make a safe,active route that goes to the community center from the south of Worthington?

“Columbus Zone-in” I would NO! dislike anywhere else but this a good place for this type of cavernous development. Possibly only place in my opinion

Not happy with Columbus Zoning and possibility of 4 story buildings

I like the idea of the corridor transitions to make 4 all more conserve as you so up + down high street

We need a ‘Welcome to Worthington’ sign in this area. I think it’s silly our best sign marking our community is on Worthington-Galena+Huntly Rd.

yes! — Please DO upgrade RushRam. – Residential attached @ West Selby looks appropriate therre

No: Don’t really like the generic plaza stuff in the red zones, especially If no High access doors
No fake fronts!
more vibramei on front, please

I like that the idea is to create large pedestrian areas and setback the buildings on high st. I like that it specifically states the buildings will not be a wall of urban buildings.

We live on E Selby on the first block after the condos and apartments and we would not like to see large developments at the end of our street. We would love better sidewalks on high st towards old Worthington because they do not feel very safe at the moment.
We would not like to see the south high area to turn into large buildings like we see on lane Ave in UA or in Grandview yard. These buildings do not align in any way shape or form with the Worthington quaint, older style, look.

This board is missing integration of green infrastructure + stormwater retrofits that would allow redevelopment while uplifting Rush Creek.

This must be a priority (including Capital investment) if these are to Co-occur.

Nothing because all the suggestions are sadly horrible and all the suggested buildings are ridiculously ugly + Brutalist

NOT like Old Worthington —

We need to honor beauty, grace, + nature with our erections. Thank you!

I like the quiet zone for the rairoad crossing.

I would like to change the bike lane on east Worthington-Galena into a sidewalk. I would love for it to start at high street and go past the railroad tracks to Wilson bridge

the general time line on this project and more info on the gateway center east of Worthington-Galena

thank you for taking the community’s thoughts into consideration! Making East Worthington more walkable to High street and downtown Worthington would be awesome.

Having Indianola closed at Boundless.
I don’t have so much of a problem with some apartments as long as they fit the character of the area, that including the 1940s colonial Hills look. But, any kind of entertainment venue, whether it be restaurants, shops, take your pick, would be negatively viewed it swells the area and creates noise right next to a quiet neighborhood. Very few people even want apartments or housing over there so I can confidently say that no one wants the extra noise or congestion that entertainment would bring to that area.

I agree there is a need for more single family or senior patio homes. Both of which would be appropriate on the boundless site boardering colonial hills.

No multi story other than 2 story single family homes. Keep the road closed to through traffic at Indianola but incorporate hike and bike trail from 161 to park overlook for feral walkabilty.

Why would there be any consideration of apartments in this area. This is a family oriented active community but quite for the most part. Apartments would bring too many people on a small parcel and along with that would be noise, decrease on property values, less privacy and destruction of a great deal of the natural beauty of the site.

Redeveloped Proprietors road. Perfect area for modernized apartments to, townhomes etc. what is there now I’d run down, and attracts undesired activity and unsightly common areas, vehicles and common areas. High potential for improvement in that area! Connect to hike and bike into other neighborhoods

There is common theme throughout in that mixed use real estate is the desired type of development

Nothing

While tabled from tonight’s 5/28 meeting, the Elford development for rush run does not seem to fit the desire for mixed use whatsoever.

I like the idea of mixed use but it has to be done carefully”¦ you don’t want a “The continent” version 2.0 in 15 years. Especially with it being so close to that’s failed experiment.

I’d limit the stories to 3 and actually make any development done in the area actually be mixed use instead of just putting apartments on an institutional campus and calling it “mixed use”. Offices on bottom and living spaces on top.

I’m curious to know if there is any mixed use in the development plans for the apartments going in at boundless. Or if it’s just pack as many people in as possible to make profit”¦.

Multiuse- We need to find ways to bring in more taxes.

I like the concept of housing or multi function, however the inspiration images are way off. This neighborhood back up to small scale homes (ranch or capes). A three or four story apartment building dropped directly behind it will not give a continuous look/ feel of the neighborhood, now will it bring in more taxes

How anyone thinks that the apartments proposed for the boundless property fits goals in any way. It won’t bring in more taxes; it won’t be “affordable”; it will directly impact homeowners surrounding the area in a negative way; there is no way that that amount of new residents won’t effect traffic.

Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, New Albany all have senior living communities with patio homes. This type of residential is needed and more appropriate than high density apartments

I don’t.

I do not like the ideas of building 3-story, 246-unit apartments on the former Boundless property. This is far too many units for that piece of property. This will undoubtedly affect the already congested traffic on 161. If these apartments are rented by families with children, it may also burden the local schools which are already crowded. The fact that Elford is planning to place 3-story apartment buildings near the back of existing single-story homes in beyond disappointing and does not work well with the existing neighborhood. Colonial Hills is a quaint neighborhood. Park Overlook Drive is a quiet street. People moved to Colonial Hills for this reason. This will definitely harm the feel and the charm of the street and of the neighborhood. I am happy that they will not open Indianola to the new development, but I am concerned that it may happen in the future as traffic becomes an issue at the exit to 161. I am also concerned about the health of Rush Creek. There is no way that construction will have a negligible effect on the ravine and the creek. I have also been around apartments that border a ravine off of High Street. The ravine is always littered with trash because the raccoons and other wildlife get into the apartment dumpsters, dragging trash to nearby locations. How will this be prevented? The development proponents also mention that there will be a walking trail to connect Colonial Hills to 161. They fail to mention that there already is a paved road that connects the two. And it is surrounded by fields, trees, and a ravine which makes it a pleasant walk. I do not care to walk around a bunch of apartments – I would most likely avoid that property once it is developed. Shame on Worthington and Boundless for bowing to greed when selling the property to Worthington Schools could have better served the community.

Additional housing opportunities and increased walkability features such as restaurants and retail.

Commercial and multifamily residential development adjacent to the Colonial Hills neighborhood can be successfully integrated through a thoughtful and gradual transition in housing form, scale, and density.

To maintain compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, residential units closest to Colonial Hills should consist primarily of one-story duplexes, townhomes, or similar housing types. Building height and intensity may increase progressively deeper into the development, with two-story units becoming more prevalent farther from the neighborhood boundary.

Architectural design should reflect elements commonly found within Colonial Hills, including brick facades or high-quality, colorful siding, front porches, and the preservation or incorporation of mature trees. The development should also maximize opportunities for green space, walking trails, and bicycle paths to promote connectivity and reinforce the neighborhood’s pedestrian-friendly character.

To ensure consistency with the surrounding area, residential density should not exceed 12 units per buildable acre, resulting in a maximum of 168 residential units within the project area.

Accordingly, the Commission should require the developer to revise the current proposal to incorporate these modifications and demonstrate compliance with these neighborhood compatibility standards before any approval is granted.

Residents would like to keep the area bordering Indianola and Park Overlook as single family looking as possible. So the idea of apartments is not very appealing.

IF it has to be . . . patio single story apartments or condos in the immediate area, then only 2 story buildings from that point towards 161. And reduce the # of units per acre to more align with the 4 per acre single family homes. And the look of the buildings must be aesthetically the same as Old Worthington. The studies given for traffic and land use are a joke and not true to what is going to be happening. And there will be a lot more new students as a result adding to the current Colonial Hills school than provided in the Elford proposal – overcrowding this school. The “handshake” on the access from the development into the Indianola/Park Overlook neighborhood is just that and will change most likely with a city council vote to allow dumping traffic into that very quiet neighborhood. There needs to be significant changes to this proposal showing value to Colonial Hills residents vs. profitability for Elford.

Why not try building more AFFORDABLE housing for seniors? That seems to be a REAL concern as Worthington seniors have nowhere that is affordable to go to — the small ranches that were torn down to build the more expensive National Church Residence buildings near the middle school were affordable and were relatively nice – my mother lived there for a couple years and it was walkable to the grocery/drug stores, downtown, senior center, etc. Why not support seniors? We need a reduction in property taxes for seniors regardless of income as well.

I am NOT a NIMBY as the WADC group rudely posted recently. I support housing where it makes sense. This development does not make sense for the area. What happened to the land at the Children’s Home on High St. That’s a much more appropriate location to build 3 story apartments.

We are excited to support the proposed enhancements to the appearance and overall appeal of Proprietors Road! These improvements will directly benefit the Ohio Railway Museum, our neighboring properties, and the broader community.

We also enthusiastically back the plan’s focus on the care and environmental preservation of Rush Run. This wonderful natural corridor is one of the most scenic portions of our train and trolley rides. Protecting this beautiful space helps preserve an unforgettable visitor experience while actively advancing our shared environmental goals!

Finally, we welcome the plan’s broader transportation initiatives. We look forward to seeing how these exciting efforts will successfully tie our entire area together for everyone to enjoy!

Honestly, our involvement , or the lack of it. Right at your fingertips, you have a historic mode of transportation that ties the area together from north to south along both Indianola and Proprietors so naturally. We would love to engage more deeply in this process and help make the Ohio Railway Museum a more connected and integral part of the final plan!

How might the museum and Indianola Park be better connected…
How can we work together to clean up the eastern Hwy 161 approach into the city.

After 78 wonderful years, it would be deeply meaningful for the Ohio Railway Museum to be fully embraced as an active part of the community rather than remaining on the fringe. We know we are hardly the Village Green, but we proudly stand sentinel at the eastern gateway to the city! This unique position gives our museum a strong civic presence and a vital role to play within Worthington. We look forward to sharing this rich heritage and working together to build a vibrant, connected future for everyone.

Happy to see on the page titled “Boundless Mixed-Use Zone” that there are plans to make an official multi-use path connection between Indianola and Proprietors. Currently it’s only an unofficial cut-through, but very convenient.

I would consider adjusting the current “active transportation” map views to show a connection through the Boundless property

I live just outside of Worthington, but bicycle through it frequently

The idea of mixed use development in the area along 161.

The high density apartment development proposed for the back half of the development proposed on the Boundless Property that is bordered by Park Overlook Drive. I would like to see lower density, more in line with the Colonial Hills neighborhood. Like carriage homes, patio homes, etc. The current proposal uses acreage that is not buildable, making the development appear lower density than it really is.

How green spaces will be preserved with all of this proposed development. You can’t get land back.

Nothing

You have conflicting goals-you stated the desire to have more affordable housing but also preserve and highlight greenspace. As a Colonial Hills resident for 45 years, that is not the appropriate location for apartments. That will completely change, for the worse, the value of our homes, the busyness of our neighborhood and the safety for our children. You are ruining our neighborhood.
It’s also idiotic that you would tear down some of the most beautiful land when you say you’re trying to preserve green spaces.

Why not add these on high street where you have VACANT buildings sitting?! Buy them out and build there.

Not sure who you’ve been interviewing but I don’t trust you at all. This placement is not in the best interest of the city

Park space

More park less apartments

Why so much residential development and no parks?????

Please make this parks only space. Worthington has a pathetic amount of green space and historically significant park spaces. We don’t need more cheap housing that has to be rebuilt in ten years.

In order to create a multifamily residential development adjacent to the Colonial Hills neighborhood that is successfully integrated it must fit harmoniously.

To create that harmony a thoughtful and gradual transition in scale must occur. Buildings closest to colonial hills one story ranch homes should be one story, then as the complex goes further back the stories will increase in size and density. This creates more harmony with the neighborhood than the stark contrast of two and three story apartment complexes against single story apartments.

In order for the buildings to look like they belong in the neighborhood they must incorporate already existing architectural elements found in Colonial Hills, such as brick facades or high-quality siding, front porches, and the preservation or incorporation of mature trees. The development should also maximize opportunities for green space, walking trails, and bicycle paths to promote connectivity and reinforce the neighborhood’s pedestrian-friendly character. The green space should be easily accessible for all Worthington residence.

To ensure consistency with the surrounding area, residential density should not exceed 12 units per buildable acre, resulting in a maximum of 168 residential units within the project area.

Accordingly, the Commission should require the developer to revise the current proposal to incorporate these modifications and demonstrate compliance with these neighborhood compatibility standards before any approval is granted.

Please keep in mind that Hayhurst St. is directly behind the planned mixed use corridor on High St. Adequate barriers — currently greenery — needs to be planned as a buffer. In addition — 3 houses are currently on Caren — east of Hayhurst — I hope the plan is not to rezone those properties —

Bringing more economic activity to Worthington, taking existing vacant land and creating usable space (park space, mixed use etc)

Financial projections seem unrealistic – there’s already a LOT of vacant office space in worthington and the developments that have already gone ahead are not fully inhabited. Also think that the impact to schools of adding apartments or multi-family homes is unrealistically low – that will impact our schools at a time when existing homeowners are already paying for the major upgrades needed.

If there is actually tenant demand for mixed use development, clear vacancies at Worthington Gateway and Worthington Mall would indicate that there is not.

Infrastructure considerations – downtown in particular is already quite challenging and congested, and then adding apartments and mixed use development would likely make that considerably worse. How does quality of life for existing residents improve vs decline with densifying the community?

I appreciate how transparent and comprehensive the draft plan is in documenting the public engagement process. The plan clearly demonstrates that the process was iterative, community-driven, and informed by multiple rounds of public input across a wide variety of formats.

The inclusion of surveys, mapping exercises, speaker series events, webinars, small-group meetings, and committee working sessions reflects a genuine effort to engage residents, stakeholders, and business interests throughout the process.

would encourage the final draft to place even greater emphasis on how community feedback directly informed recommendations and strategic priorities throughout the document. While the connection is present, strengthening those examples could further reinforce public confidence in the process.

I am curious how the City plans to maintain public engagement and momentum during implementation once the plan is formally adopted.

I attended many of the public and committee meetings throughout the process and believe the consultant team and City staff worked hard to create a process that was open, professional, and responsive. No large public process is perfect, but the effort to educate, adapt, and engage the community was substantial and should be recognized.

As someone who uses the intersection of Rieber and Wilson Bridge twice daily, I’m concerned about the addition of “no turn on red”,that intersection and those streets can already see significant bottlenecks during morning and evening rush hours. I trust the context you have available, but a first-glance gut reaction is “oh no that will just make things more congested.” Olentangy turning right onto Wilson Bridge, however, could absolutely need right-turn assistance of some kind

Thank you again for all this work and for the opportunity to comment!

zoning – look at its adoptions-resolution history, to reveal and evaluate uncoordinated development decisions to not carryover and prevent pushing the Worthington program ahead

I appreciate that the plan is candid that Worthington lacks the regulatory tools peer communities use to protect tree canopy over time (such as lot-coverage limits), and that it values green space and canopy as community assets.

Two related asks. First, the comprehensive zoning and development code rewrite should explicitly include green-space and tree-canopy preservation tools, e.g., lot-coverage maximums, open-space set-asides, and tree-replacement standards, so the code actively protects these assets rather than leaving it to chance. Second, I’d like the plan to report a clearer parks/green-space typology: how much is active park acreage versus passive, how much is privately owned, and what percentage sits in the floodplain, so residents understand what we actually have and can protect.

I’m curious what share of our 255 park acres is truly active, accessible park space versus conservation or floodplain land that can’t be programmed. I’m also interested in how the development/redevelopment of land may impact existing parklands. For example, if we heavily develop the Wilson Bridge corridor, how will that impact the Olentangy parklands and the existing community that uses them?

I like that the plan calls for context-sensitive compatibility standards (12.1) and emphasizes high-quality materials and pedestrian-scaled design. The intent to let neighborhoods evolve while keeping their character is exactly right.

I’d extend the compatibility standards beyond scale, massing, and setbacks to also address architectural style and material variety, so new development responds to the distinct character of adjacent neighborhoods. More broadly, I’d ask the code to discourage monotonous “cookie-cutter” subdivisions built from four or five repeating designs with identical siding and doors, and instead encourage the architectural diversity our community already has.

I’m curious how other communities have written design standards that ensure compatibility without forcing bland uniformity, is there a model Worthington admires?

The plan is strongest when it connects housing creation to zoning reform, mixed-use redevelopment, reduced reliance on surface parking and more predictable development standards.

I would strengthen the plan’s housing implementation section so it is more focused on the actions most likely to create meaningful housing production. The plan should make zoning reform the top priority, with clear timelines for updating the development code, reducing discretionary approvals and allowing appropriate housing types by right in targeted areas.

I would also make sure the plan does not overstate the role of ADUs. ADUs may be appropriate as a homeowner flexibility tool, but they should not be presented as a meaningful housing-production strategy. Worthington’s housing needs are too significant to be addressed through scattered, homeowner-initiated accessory units. The plan should focus more directly on redevelopment of Opportunity Areas, mixed-use housing, townhomes, small multifamily buildings, senior-friendly housing, parking reform and predictable approval processes.

Finally, I would add more accountability. The plan should include an annual housing dashboard that tracks units approved, units built, housing types, affordability levels, approval timelines and progress in each Opportunity Area. A 1,300-unit goal is useful, but the city should show how it intends to reach that goal and measure whether the adopted policies are actually working.

I am curious about how the city intends to translate the housing goals in the plan into actual changes to the zoning and development code. The plan identifies a need for more housing and sets a target of 1,300 new units, but the most important question is how those units will be created in practice.

I appreciate the work that has gone into this plan and the recognition that Worthington needs more housing choices. However, I would encourage the city to be very clear-eyed about which strategies are most likely to produce meaningful housing.

Worthington’s housing challenge will not be solved through symbolic or low-yield strategies. Accessory dwelling units may be appropriate as a property-rights or homeowner-flexibility tool, but they should not be treated as a meaningful housing-production strategy. The city’s focus should be on reforms and redevelopment opportunities that can actually create homes at scale.

The plan should prioritize zoning reform, mixed-use redevelopment, townhomes, small multifamily housing, senior-friendly housing, reduced parking barriers and predictable approval processes in the identified Opportunity Areas. If Worthington is serious about a 1,300-unit housing goal, the city should be able to show where those units are likely to go, what code changes are needed to allow them and how progress will be measured each year.

I would also encourage the city to focus on predictability. Projects that are consistent with the comprehensive plan should not have to start from zero politically each time they are proposed. Clear standards, transparent expectations and a more predictable process will be essential if Worthington wants to attract quality redevelopment while still maintaining community character.

Overall, I support the plan’s direction, but I believe the final version should be more specific about implementation, more focused on high-impact housing strategies and more accountable in measuring whether the city is actually producing the housing it says it needs.

Support upgrading design Standards to balance historical standards + modern needs + aesthetic.

1971 zoning code- wow! – Yes, modernize update. allows mixed use

upzoning

WE NEED MORE HOUSING! please build more houses. I’ll cry if not cause I’ll have to live here in a tent.

Changing restrictive zoning laws.

Old town feel, walking neighborhood, restaurants + facilities + activities

Concerned about high density building @ UMCH site

Concerned about the Hayhurst/High st. area/buffer zone & potential for 2-4 story buildings on Both sides of High Street forming a concrete canyon

No concrete canyons! Feels BAD

I like focusing on updating our zoning and development code. I like the areas designated at mixed-use. I like the alignment with the Vision Worthington priorities.

In the North High Street Opportunity Area, I would create a framework for some of the smaller individual parcels to be able to be updated/redeveloped independently of the large land parcels. This can be completed by allowing for mixed use, higher density, higher building heights, and update building design standards. We should also look at updating our signage and parking code in this corridor.

I’m curious if we will focus on making any of our design standards more predictive so there is more transparency to businesses and developers. I know there is lost opportunity because the market feels our standards are too subjective.

I believe we need to change public perception and make it easier to do business in Worthington. We need to promote all housing types in all areas. We need to embrace that it’s okay to have a mix of modern and historic building types right next to each other. We need to remember that the more strict we are with certain standards that it can cause projects to not be financially feasible. We need to find ways to be creative and figure out how to offer solutions. We need strong leadership to implement the findings of this plan and not cater to the vocal minority.

Questioning the phrase “(e.g. 2026 parking survey)”,has this survey already gone out, or is this referencing a to-be-issued survey?

Thank you so much for all the work that’s gone into this plan, and for the opportunity to comment!

I like the idea of green space and mixed-use, particularly retail, but I think priority #4 could be strengthened in this area.

UMCH could be a really amazing spot to hang out, shop, eat, and let kids play that is close to downtown, but has more space and activities for families. I don’t like turning it into a primarily residential area. And just adding/keeping green space doesn’t feel like enough. Things like a play structure, splash pad, amphitheatre etc. especially when flanked with some food options would be amazing. We have a lot of green space in old worthington, but there is not much to actually do in it unless there’s an event. I would much prefer a bulk of the housing to be north and south in Worthington and expanding the spaces where people and families can spend time in closer/walkable to downtown.

I am excited for change and curious to keep learning more! The draft plan is great but a little hard to trudge through all of the pages. It would be amazing to see a visual video mockup of what this could look like.

A few side notes:
* There are not many parks on the west side of Old Worthington as compared to the east side, especially for littles.
* Be thoughtful about reducing lanes right in front of St Michael’s as school drop off/pick up are already quite congested.

I liked the proposed Corridor Mixed Use placement and concepts in that category. It is important to consider creating safe and inviting pedestrian experiences in these areas (the current condition with 3′ sidewalks, with a 2′ tree lawn next to a street where cars regularly exceed 40 mph does not feel safe). 2-4 stories seems like an appropriate scale.

I think the proposed used around the Wilson Bridge corridor are appropriate. It seems those uses align with the proposed Crawford Hoying project, which I think would be a great addition for our city and ultimately improve the viability of a future development for the Worthington Mall.

I agree with concepts presented in 2.1, that suggest the city should aid one or two catalytic redevelopment projects or areas. I also strongly support the concepts presented in 2.3.

In the two main redevelopment areas (being UMHC and the Anthem site), I liked how the suggested building heights taper down as they get closer to the low density residential area, but believe there should be more flexibility on the UMHC to do Residential, Small Lot and Attached housing.

Has the city done any traffic analysis on East Wilson Bridge Road? It would seem the access to commercial properties along that corridor would need to be significantly improved to allow for the uses proposed in that area.

Why are we trying to shift the Huntley Road corridor to include more mixed-use, as opposed to trying to make that a strong industrial base and income tax driver for the city?

Appreciate the focus on the economy while making an effort to also offer more variety in housing options

concerned about the quality of development/building design/construction in key opportunity areas (along high street and wilson bridge). How can we make sure the mixed-use developments have enough character, depth, materiality that they will stand the test of time and be a positive impact on the character of Worthington?

Mixed use (MU) should be tested on the Wilson Bridge development before it is put into a Comp. Plan. If we like it there, then we can adopt it more broadly.

Reduce the MU recommendation on High St. until we see it work on Wilson Bridge–“reserve” the MU recommendation as “potential MU”. Scrap the bias for comprehensive Zoning Code rewrite–the only way this is favored is due to your survey bias as presenting it a something that MUST be done merely because that is the only option you are presenting.

Why was there not a more rigorous statistical analysis of who said what in the process (i.e. is the respondent a Worthington resident? taxpayer? M/F? which age demographic? This lack of data alignment undermines the recommendations as potentially starting from a bias toward physical development rather than focusing on economic development to strengthen the city’s finances and continue to make Worthington an attractive place to live–in line with our “aspirational” Visioning statements (i.e. we are definitely not there yet in terms of our Visioning, and this Comp Plan won’t get us there).

For the UMCH property–you should at least mention the City Council amendment of the prior Comp Plan in 2022. Attach it as an Exhibit to your plan. Your plan for the UMCH property MAY be read consistent in some ways with this amendment. At least that resolution was specifically thought through and followed our processes of government. The fact that LC took the city to court over it shows that one out of city investor only wants to take advantage of the city for their own economic gain vs. what the community wants.

Nothing about any of the plans except for the Wilson Bridge corridor. Worthington must keep it’s unique look. WE DO NOT WANT TO LOOK LIKE, IN ANY WAY, UPPER ARLINGTON OR DUBLIN!

Everything except the Wilson Bridge corridor. New residential homes need to remain, at the max, 2 1/2 stories, 8 foot easement minimum between buildings, NO ADUS. We need more patio homes for local seniors so they can downsize, open up availability of their existing housing for new buyers, and remain in Worthington with their friends and volunteer opportunities.

Why do you think we want to look like any other suburb of Columbus? We have a unique historical district of which we are proud, jealous to guard, and which makes us the most desired suburb to live in for all of those folks who don’t like the “typical builder” look of the other suburbs such as Upper Arlington and Dublin. Those two cities have become carbon copies of all developer take overs. Their former look and unique character has been totally destroyed by new Comprehensive Plans developed by you same people. Why should every city and developed area look the same? Why can’t individual character of each different city be maintained? Every “developed” city now seems to want to look just like the robot next door.

Throw out this entire plan and actually come to the city with an open mind, a Worthington specific plan, and better yet, City Council – hire a new team This one just doesn’t cut it.

Building codes should include 6″ (rather than 4″) walls to accommodate more insulation in renovations and new builds. Insulation in roofs should be maximized. The upfront expense reduces the long term energy costs.
It may be that Worthington cannot develop our own building codes. In that case an informational document outlining all the energy saving options should be prepared for everyone applying for a building permit. All other energy saving options (windows, heat pumps, etc) should be included in this also.

I like that SP4 recognizes quality of place as an economic driver, and that the chapter’s own examples, the Trophy Mixed-Use vision, and case studies such as The Domain and Fishers District celebrate dining-and-entertainment districts and a “live-work-play” experience.

I’d amend the priority’s framing from “live, work, shop, and eat” to also include “play”, entertainment as an explicit goal, and add specific actions to support it, delivered both through private business (music/performance venues, food halls, breweries) and public works (festivals, events, and a community gathering space). Entertainment has a direct impact on a city’s economic vitality.

The chapter’s own public input notes that many residents currently leave Worthington for entertainment in Dublin, Hilliard, and elsewhere, I’m curious how much spending we’re exporting, and how much we could recapture by becoming a destination ourselves.

I appreciate that the plan already seeks to balance competing goals. For instance, the Economic Vitality chapter states that fiscal outcomes must be weighed against non-fiscal priorities such as quality of life, affordability, and environmental stewardship. The guiding principles provide a helpful shared compass.

: I’d suggest adding an explicit “balanced design” guiding principle: that redevelopment and new development be evaluated on how well they address several community challenges at once (housing diversity, fiscal health, mobility, green space) while minimizing negative impacts on neighborhoods, transportation, and open space. With limited developable land, we tend to get one chance at each site, a small patio-home project and a large apartment block each solve one problem while creating others. A balanced-design lens would push proposals to do more than one thing well and to weigh trade-offs deliberately, rather than on a site-by-site basis.

I’m curious whether the City could use a simple, transparent scorecard at the rezoning/redevelopment stage to make that balancing visible to residents and developers alike.

This principle ties together several of my other comments (housing placement, green space, and architectural compatibility).

Most of the plan. I like the aim for economic diversification and increasing a diversity of housing stock, while also focusing on historic preservation.

See below.

Are 31 and 35 W. Stafford included in the Old Worthington Core? They should be, along with 38 and 40 W. Stafford.

All four of these houses represent a unique period in the history of our town and even the U.S. These four homes are Sears kit homes, built in the late 1920s, when Sears was the biggest homebuilder in the U.S. The cluster is unique because it offers a rare grouping of four kit homes together on one street. Each one is a variant of the “Walton” model, the most popular design out of the 150-plus offered by Sears. Each of the four is an example of the Craftsman-style aesthetic, popularized by designer Gustav Stickley in the early 1900s, a reaction to the depredations of the Industrial Age.

The homes were built by Robert Buzzaird in 1927 as an antidote to the affordability crisis brought on by the hyperinflated stock market of the Roaring Twenties. They will be 100 years old next year, and the niche they occupy in the housing market is no less vital today.

The homes at 31 and 40 W. Stafford were included in the 2016 Worthington Historical society’s tour of homes and attracted record turnout for the tour that year, plus a profile on the front page of the Columbus Dispatch’s Home section:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/lifestyle/home-garden/home-decor/2016/07/01/worthington-home-garden-tour-includes/23283197007/

The story of Sears kit homes was recently recounted in the Columbus Dispatch on the front page of the Business section on May 10 as part of their “USA 250″ series. The story is profile of Sears as an iconic American brand, and the article begins by highlighting the importance of the kit homes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usa250/2026/04/15/sears-once-offered-american-dream/88605479007/

See the article about the homes, “MEET THE WALTONS,” by the late Worthington historian, Virginia (Jennie) McCormac.

I appreciate that the plan acknowledges Worthington’s need for additional housing types and a broader range of price points. The reality is that Worthington is a fully built-out community with strong demand and limited supply, and the resulting imbalance has made it increasingly difficult for many people to live here , including young professionals, workforce employees, empty nesters, and even residents hoping to stay in the community long term.

I also appreciate that the plan recognizes the importance of focusing much of this growth and reinvestment within targeted corridors and redevelopment areas where infrastructure and access already exist.

I would encourage the plan to be more direct and confident in embracing density and mixed-use redevelopment as necessary components of Worthington’s future. Density itself should not be viewed negatively. When designed thoughtfully with appropriate transitions, buffering, architecture, and public realm considerations, higher-density development can strengthen the tax base, support local businesses, improve housing availability, and create more vibrant destinations.

I would also encourage the City to modernize zoning and development standards in ways that make it easier,not harder,to deliver additional housing supply in appropriate locations. Predictability and flexibility will be critical if Worthington hopes to remain competitive and attainable for future generations.

I am curious how aggressively the City intends to pursue zoning modernization and redevelopment opportunities in order to meaningfully address long-term housing demand and market pressures.

Worthington cannot realistically preserve long-term affordability or economic vitality if housing supply continues to lag behind demand. The plan appropriately recognizes that reinvestment and evolution are necessary for the community’s future success.

The areas already zoned commerical are sufficent for increased tax revenue.The City just needs Better Economic DEVELOPMENT EXECUTION

ELIM – MIXED USE FROM LARIMER SOUTH”
ELIM. SMALL LOT ATTACHED IN FAVOR OF A WASHINGTON COMMONS FOR OLD UMCH

upzoning

Upzone MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLY!! We need 200,000 housing units in central Ohio. Build a lot more housing in Worthington! Why only add 1300 units when we could add thousands or tens of thousands more!

Where will our children pitch their tents if we don’t build enough housing?

We enjoy the Worthington area and their preservation of the historic buildings. We enjoy walking to the farmers market.

We would like to see more Community parks, Specifically on the UMCH land — We do not want large-scale apartment buildings.

We are not in favor of high density housing by of high density devlopment. Traffic on Evening Street would be greatly impacted by high-density apartments in a negative way

We love the old town environment and local shops, and we are grateful for the wonderful restaurants & small businesses. We are concerned about traffic on North St. and Evening Street

Would add ‘VACANT and COMMERCIAL’ INDUSTRIAL

I strongly support the plan’s recognition that Worthington’s aging office and commercial corridors represent one of the community’s greatest opportunities for reinvestment and long-term economic sustainability. The draft appropriately acknowledges that modernization is not simply an economic development issue, but also a fiscal one. The emphasis on mixed-use reinvestment, walkability, and corridor activation is thoughtful and realistic for a built-out community like Worthington.

I also appreciate the plan’s emphasis on creating places where people want to live, work, shop, and gather. That focus on quality of place is critical to retaining employers, attracting talent, and keeping Worthington competitive within a rapidly evolving Central Ohio region.

I would like to see the implementation section go further in identifying specific redevelopment and modernization tools the City could pursue. Examples could include:

* corridor reinvestment programs,
* CIC-led modernization incentives,
* public-private partnerships,
* office/common-area modernization grants or loans,
* energy-efficiency incentive programs,
* and more predictable zoning and design standards for targeted corridors.

The draft does an excellent job describing the “why,” but the “how” could be strengthened further.

I would also encourage the plan to more formally recognize the Worthington Mile concept as a long-term focus area and economic development corridor. Even if major infrastructure investments occur incrementally over time, formally establishing the framework and identity can begin encouraging private reinvestment immediately.

I would be interested in understanding how the City envisions prioritizing and sequencing implementation efforts, particularly related to aging office corridors and redevelopment opportunity areas.

I am also curious whether the City intends to explore more flexible or innovative economic development tools through the CIC or other partnerships.

One of the draft plan’s greatest strengths is that it acknowledges Worthington cannot remain static if it wants to preserve its long-term quality of life and fiscal health. The plan strikes a thoughtful balance between respecting the community’s character and embracing strategic reinvestment.

I like the emphasis of variety + mixed use – grandview park – don love the Hilliard area by Crooked Can

I don’t think we need some lights as Big as Bridge park, but more variety then we have today

Where do the taxes from Farmers Market vendors go?

Can we capture?

FOCUS ON ACTIVITIES THAT PRODUCE INCOME for the city

How is the CITY going to INCENTIVIZE Forge FUND

We need a 40-Acre Public Park at UMCH!

Allow more business mixed use and high density housing. All of these are good for the economy and municipal revenue.

Businesses diversification

Add software as target industry

add multifamily and 55 plus housing with a pato or balcony for each unit

Nothing matters regarding the City’s priorities if the funding capability is not present through industry-generated tax dollars. That said, the City’s priority focus should be on generation of tax revenue by targeting industries that align with growth and employment opportunities.

Dedicate City staff to working with regional partners to feature Worthington as a good place to do business, then support them (not with tax dollars necessarily) in their relocation efforts.

Why the City isn’t more proactive in generating and supporting companies to bring them to Worthington when the revenue base depends on attracting and keeping businesses in the area.

Most all of it is good.

I would like to see more market information. What Worthington needs business-wise. The section on market business size trends was interesting but it felt like there is more to the story on needs to make Worthington thrive.

I like that the Forge Fields target industries already include forward-looking, R&D-oriented sectors, an aerial autonomous vehicle (drone) supply chain, electric systems, and life-science supply chains, and that the chapter frames Worthington as part of the regional innovation economy.

I’d explicitly add the aerospace / space-economy supply chain and supporting services to both the Citywide and Forge Fields target-industry lists. The Voyager Institute for Space, Technology and Advancement (VISTA), the nation’s first science park dedicated to in-space research, at Ohio State, is being built on West Dublin-Granville Road (Route 161), effectively on Worthington’s western doorstep. The suppliers, vendors, and talent it generates are exactly the kinds of advanced firms our Forge Fields district and corridors could capture, if we name the sector and plan for it.

I’m curious whether the City has begun any conversation with Ohio State, JobsOhio, or VISTA’s partners about how nearby communities can plug into that ecosystem.

Connects to my Opportunity Areas comment proposing a western/Linworth gateway area (VISTA sits on that same Route 161 corridor). Reference: Voyager VISTA announcement (investors.voyagertechnologies.com).

Economic vitality is important –
Clearly. And we need some
more businesses – however –

Businesses should not
cause property values to go
down – specifically along the

north corridor – from the
Children’s home property to
Wilson Bridge – houses with
ability back up to these
buisnesses, what will happen?

keep this in mind.

Four way stop at Larrimer + Mayhurst

High speed along Larrimer high speed from light to Evening Street

update Bike/Ped (Bus Transit) scooter master plan

If you can see a school,park, bus stop,library, rec centre, you should be able to get there NOT using a car.

Funding
Expenses
If it is a tax supported structure- complete street (lanes?)

Implement
Complete Streets
Policy
Prepared for transit
– COTA
– scooters
-bikes
-others

Include safe routes to school, parks, pool
City hall on foot + bike + scooters

How can we build on residents + closer community
members to better be?
take bus/transit, park.

I like the green “boulevarding”!

May I also suggest planters and tables and benches in more places.

Like what we have near Graeter’s etc.

looking for something that can take pedestrians across Bridge to downtown Worthington like a trolley

Using to segment
to provide wider
sidewalks for
disability access

Yes all things transit

preparing for high capacity transit w/ adjacent development

fantastic!

HIGH ST. FUTURE LOOKS WAY TOO MUCH – TRAFFIC FOR OUR SMALL TOWN

appreciate making High Street more Walkable

see otherside

S 161 Eastbound is already over capacity at peak evening times. Traffic backs from high st. singal all the way to the river. with only a little more demand it will start backing up onto 315 Northbound. ODOT will not tolerate the safety hazard of stopped traffic on teh Freeway.They will force higher capacity on 161 est,i.e, secoud eastbound lane through village geen. Narrowing the lanes on high street will only reduce the capacity of High & 161. Study this intersection amd yje Fall queue before you add 50% demand.

Everything under 9.1 → 9.4

It would be advantageous to invest In Hubs / Stations that support bike/e-bike rentals so Community residents can travel with ease.

I would like the opportunity to advise what I don’t like about things – ADUs, Apartments , parks etc because my only option is putting a green dot on what I do like.

Identifying specific improvements that could implement multi-use paths along main and neighborhood corridors

We use our sidewalk systems like multi-use paths. We need to expand the width and surface of sidewalks along main and neighborhood corridors

The top chart is a little concerning: Right now, cars parked on both sides of residential streets allow for a little wiggle room (with one car pulling over to indicate “no, after you”), at least in the Rieber/Caren/Worthington Estates area. But these renderings look more like some streets in Grandview, where there’s parking on both sides and literally no recourse and nowhere to wiggle if two cars both turn onto one end of the street at the same time

Thank you so much for all the work that’s gone into this plan, and for the opportunity to comment!

I appreciate that the City is taking a structured look at mobility, connectivity, and development impacts. The survey reflects an effort to understand how proposed changes could affect traffic, safety, and neighborhood character. It’s encouraging to see planning happening before issues escalate.

Even with these positive steps, the process would have been stronger with clearer, earlier communication. Providing simple summaries of what is being considered and why , instead of long documents , would have helped residents understand the goals of the review and feel more prepared to participate.

The scale of the proposed changes makes it concerning that many residents were unaware this review was underway. When people don’t know zoning changes are being considered, they lose the chance to understand the implications and participate in shaping the outcome. Limited communication channels left large portions of the community uninformed, which naturally reduces trust in the process.

For a process of this importance, the City needed broader outreach , mailed notices, neighborhoodlevel meetings, temporary signage at neighborhood entry and exit points, and using the firehouse’s flashing sign to display the response due date. Notices through schools and the library would also have helped ensure residents actually knew the survey existed and understood the potential impact.

I’m curious how the City determined that its outreach was sufficient for a process with this level of impact. I’d like to understand what alternatives were considered, how feedback will be weighed, and how input from residents who never received notice will be incorporated. I’m also wondering whether the City plans to adjust the process if it becomes clear that many people were unintentionally left out.

A clearer explanation of how the City evaluated its outreach strategy , and how it plans to address gaps in participation , would help residents better understand the process and feel more confident that their input is valued.

The City has an opportunity to strengthen the overall process by making it easier for residents to understand what is being considered and how decisions will be made. People want clarity about the goals, the alternatives, and the reasoning behind each option. Transparent, accessible communication builds trust and leads to better longterm solutions.

Looking ahead, the City could support broader participation by offering multiple ways to stay informed , earlier communication, clearer explanations, and opportunities for residents to ask questions directly, through neighborhood volunteers. These steps would help ensure that future planning efforts reflect the full range of perspectives in Worthington.

I value the strong sense of community in Worthington , the walkability, the familyfriendly neighborhoods, and the way residents look out for one another. I appreciate that the City is asking for public input as it plans for the future.

The plan does not address the dramatic increase in population , and therefore daily travel , coming from the highdensity housing just outside the City of Worthington but inside the Worthington School District. These residents use Worthington Schools, drive through Worthington neighborhoods, and use Worthington parks and roads, yet they are not counted in the City’s population numbers.

This creates a growing mismatch between who uses our infrastructure and who is included in the City’s planning assumptions. Our streets were never designed to function as regional cutthrough routes, yet that is exactly what is happening. Any longterm plan must acknowledge and measure this impact before proposing additional development.

am curious whether the City is actively measuring the true volume of cutthrough traffic, especially during peak events. This past weekend made the issue impossible to ignore.

On Saturday during the Farmers Market, Google Maps appeared to route thousands of vehicles through Worthington Estates. Cars unfamiliar with the neighborhood were speeding down residential streets. Children on motorized ebikes and electric skateboards were weaving between cars. Toddlers were playing near the roadway. Neighbors were out walking their dogs, trying to stay safe between fastmoving vehicles that had no understanding of the area or its people.

It was chaotic and genuinely unsafe.

On Sunday, traffic was lighter , and I was grateful. Three middleschool boys were selling lemonade in front of Evening Street Elementary. One even laid down in the road to get attention. If that had happened on Saturday, the outcome could have been tragic.

These are not hypothetical risks. They are real, visible, and happening now.

Given what we experienced this weekend, the idea of adding even more highdensity housing at the top of our neighborhood is, frankly, unconscionable. Our children’s safety is at stake.

Before moving forward with any rezoning in the North High Street Opportunity Area , and especially the UMCH property , the City must first acknowledge, measure, and publicly report the real traffic and safety impacts already affecting our neighborhood.

This includes the impact of residents from nearby highdensity apartments who attend Worthington Schools, drive through Worthington daily, and use Worthington’s parks and roads, even though they live outside city limits. Their presence affects our traffic, our safety, and our infrastructure , and must be part of the planning conversation before moving forward.

Worthington’s neighborhoods deserve a plan that protects the people who live here , not one that overlooks the daily risks we are already facing.

I like individual single family houses for new home owners

I think the updated plan, especially on the old Methodist children’s home property and Wilson bridge, will be incredibly unsafe and dangerous. We already have seen massive increase in traffic due to the increase in students at the schools, and with the traffic flying through the neighborhood. With high density housing at both ends of the Worthington Estates development, our children are going to be at great risk due to the massive number of units and associated drivers in such a small area, this plan is going to get children and pedestrians hit and killed. Turn the old children’s home into a green space for residents. High density housing is unwanted for many reasons, but the safety of our walkers and our children. Is of the utmost importance. That many new drivers in a small area is so unbelievably dangerous. We sued and won to prevent this due to the massive danger to our kids from the increased traffic and lack of infrastructure to manage it, and we won. Why is this returning? Please consider our children and walkers in this small, quiet neighborhood. High density housing on both ends will make it unsafe for cars as well die to the lack of infrastructure and roads not build for thousands (if 1000 total units and two drivers to each for instance) of more people in such a small area is going to be unmanageable with many traffic accidents and pedestrians getting hit by the speeding drivers. Please reconsider this plan for the safety of your residents.

Dislike 35mph design speed and 12ft lane widths. Design speed needs to be sensitive to mixed use development in neighborhood. Pictures of large trucks going fast in 12ft lanes is not conducive to MIXED used.

Put range of speeds in innovation district of 25-35mph and reduce vehicle lane width to 11 ft. 12ft lane width should be reserved for freeway vehicle lanes only.

Why is this plan highly prioritizing private vehicles moving fast through Worthington? Is the point to have people live and work in Worthington or just to speed through Worthington?

Commenting on the context classification map (page 83) – Hard to tell the difference between avenue and neighborhood connector

I strongly agree with the advantages of roadway redesign. The impact on the adjacent streets in Old Worthington need to be addressed at the same time. Speed bumps need to be installed on Evening, Morning, North and South. Those that I have seen elsewhere are not bumps of asphalt, but smooth gradual rises and descents that allow for emergency vehicles and reduce car speeding.

Does this plan include burying more utility lines along High Street and other places?

Since Worthington is a cut through community with two major roads (23 and 161) moving through it, does the plan include strategies to funnel or force pass-through motorists around the city instead of through it? Reducing lanes on 23 and 161 and implementing a city-wide 25 mph speed limit on more streets might be a couple of strategies. These could also help the local environment.

High St. Boulevard North and South of
Old Worthington.
Making the Green smaller in any way is a big mistake.

East and West Dublin-Granville Road between Morning and Evening Streets should not be widened for vehicular use. It will bring heavy vehicles, semis, commercial vehicles with continuous beeping when stationary, all much closer to homes in Old Worthington. None of the properties on West Dublin Granville Rd. in Old Worthington were built in the 21st century. Heavy vibrations that are currently experienced in these homes will increase and with it the increased potential for structural damage.

The representation of West and East Dublin-Granville Rd. in Old Worthington, detailed as both a Boulevard and an Avenue on pages 88 and 89 is unclear and confusing. Wider roads always lead to increased traffic.Traffic on High Street rarely stays under 25MPH as the speed limit dictates. More lanes will encourage greater speeds, and more vehicle and pedestrian negative events and hostility since many left-turning drivers do not seem to be cognizant of pedestrians. A wider collection of lanes will further remove pedestrian awareness with many drivers.

Direct communication with property owners on all the streets subject to change should be a basic requirement of the City’s information gathering process. Direct invitations to those property owners to share their input should also be required in the information gathering process.

Dublin-Granville Road in Old Worthington should not be widened to accommodate more traffic as it will only increase through traffic to compensate for the lack of Bethel road being a thoroughfare. This will in no way benefit Worrhington residents.

I like that SP7 frames active transportation around people of “all ages and abilities” and crash reduction, and that the design toolkit already includes both separated bike lanes and shared-use paths.

I’d ask the plan to set a clear hierarchy rather than treating buffered (painted) and separated (physically protected) bike lanes as interchangeable: require physically separated/protected facilities on higher-speed and priority corridors, and prefer them elsewhere where feasible. A painted buffer next to traffic isn’t a facility most kids, older adults, or less-confident riders will actually use, so if we mean “all ages and abilities,” separation should be the default. New Albany’s separated trail network is a strong regional model.

I like that the crash analysis is data-driven (2019″“2023 ODOT data) and that SP8 is framed around both intersections and corridors. I also appreciate that the plan is willing to name issues that require coordination with other jurisdictions.

The crash trends are scoped to crashes within city limits, which leaves out the regional facilities that are the front doors to Worthington, Route 161 west through Linworth and the I-270 interchanges in the Worthington corridor. Even though these are ODOT-controlled, I’d ask the plan to (1) include their crash/safety picture where data is available and (2) add an action to advocate, with ODOT and MORPC, for safety and access improvements there. If people and freight can’t reach Worthington safely and reliably, it affects who wants to live and do business here, so this is an economic-competitiveness issue as much as a safety one.

I’m curious how Worthington’s regional access compares with peer suburbs’, and whether congestion or crash rates on 161/270 are already shaping perceptions of access.

I like that the plan engages seriously with transit through COTA and the LinkUS bus rapid transit initiative.

As a long-term aspiration (not a near-term commitment), I’d ask the plan to keep passenger/commuter rail and a possible future station on Worthington’s radar. Columbus is currently the only major U.S. city without passenger rail, but the regional 3C+D corridor and the federal Corridor ID program are advancing, and there’s an active rail corridor running through Worthington. I’d simply ask that the plan not foreclose the option, and ideally protect that corridor, so we’re positioned if regional rail materializes.

I’m curious whether the existing rail line through Worthington could ever support a commuter stop, and what it would take to preserve that possibility.

Builds upon our history of having an electric trolley stop.

I like how the Opportunity Areas translate citywide priorities into place-specific direction, and that they cover the north, central, south, and east. The framework is a strong way to guide change as it comes.

I’d propose adding a sixth Opportunity Area along Worthington’s western edge, the Linworth / Route 161 corridor that serves as our gateway to Dublin. The plan currently has no opportunity area on the west, yet change is already arriving: a large apartment development near Linworth, and the Voyager VISTA aerospace research park on West Dublin-Granville Road (161). Designating this area now lets the City shape that growth deliberately. The lead rationale is economic/fiscal, capturing jobs and tax base from nearby growth; second, proactively managing spillover from the booming Dublin/161 area; and third, mobility and safety (the planned 161 widening, and grade-separating the rail crossing to ease congestion and improve pedestrian safety). I recognize the jurisdictional complexity, some land is in Columbus or the township, and some is residential, but the City’s existing tools fit: the CIC, a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD), and strategic acquisition/annexation, all of which the plan already contemplates elsewhere. Road-adjacent, mixed-use development along a widened 161 (in the spirit of Upper Arlington’s Lane Avenue) could be transformative.

On the residential parcels, I’d note that over this plan’s 10″“15-year horizon, surrounding growth may make redevelopment of some properties likely anyway, so I’m curious whether designating the area now (with clear edge protections) is better than reacting site by site later.

Variety is housing great.

Need a bike / pedestrian + transit infrastructure

Need green space measurements for high density housing

? Worthington + Killbourne
Middle School + Evening St.
(school property) have green space although the school district

mise the [ch…]… compared, a neighbourhood is compared by having green space in these areas. Need more green space within & around these areas — Not just housing concentrated on ? Parking: Apt on street parking [also] whole a problem. [solu…]

I am not in favor of large, poorly constructed housing. I am not in favor of it. Scale poorly constructed housing like – of poorly constructed housing like – a the District in Worthington. the Church Residences near library are more fitting style and scale

Building 1300 units of housing, ADUs, Higher density

Build WAY More housing! Allow duplexes and ADUs everywhere! Let people build big apartments! Let people live in the mixed-use areas!

Those are rookie numbers! Can you bump it up to 5 or 10,000 units?

If I could put all my dots on expanding housing options I would. This City has been held hostage for too long.

Preserve + Honor Neighborhoods of Single-Family Homes. Thank you!

like the idea of duplex, triplex, ‘patio’ type homes, where empty nesters can downsizes and be walkable downtown

The standards listed are weigh nonspecific – we need actual number of stories. residents in high-density that is written is very open to interpretation. Non helpful. Very concerned about high density homes

I like the idea of coordinating safety improvements with redevelopment. too many times we integrate density but are not pedestrianized the area

Please make these priorities more less ambiguous. There are so ambigions that I don’t know what I am actually supporting.

I like that Worthington is committed to ensuring that new housing matches the character and style of the community.

Worthington cannot solve the challenge of high real estate costs in central Ohio. We should not diminish the value and quality of the current housing stock by building high density housing options on the UMCH site. The UMCH site should have mixed use development along high street, senior-living patio homes or large lot residential homes next to the mixed use corridor along high street, and a park that preserves the Tinker Creek nature area on the rest of it. The Worthington Green is not large enough for some events. This is an opportunity to preserve a public green space. There is nothing better for the environment than preserving space with grass and trees.

I am curious who said that Worthington needs to provide 2000 living units. I am curious how many people in Worthington want high-density housing units built in Worthington. I am curious why the administration of the city keeps pushing for high density housing on the UMCH site.

DO NOT approve any high density housing on the UMCH site!!! Build a mixed use development along High Street and preserve a green-space, public park on the back portion.

I do not agree with this plan at all

I do not think we need to increase housing this much as our schools are already full. We do not have the resources to take on more people.

I am curious when you are going to allow citizens to actually put these decisions to a vote

I can’t go to these meetings because it’s maddening what is happening to our town. Worthington is such a great place but it will
Be ruined by overcrowding

I like the character of the neighborhoods and love the idea of investment and zoning to assist with those updates in older homes.

I want to limit giant apartment complexes which do not match the character of our town or surrounding neighborhoods. They overtake the area and are ugly to look at. They often are not an affordable option either. I recommend doing smaller options like townhomes, or fourplexes that provide great housing options while assimilating well into the area.

How to modernize our office buildings that are sitting empty.

Our schools are already at capacity. Class sizes are too big. What will be the plan for fitting in more students to our school?

I like keeping the historical aspects and green spaces.

There is absolutely no need for any building 10+ stories high anywhere. And all you have to do is drive around Dublin at 3pm to see the apartments are full of kids. And most of the “Mixed Use” areas around town have been infiltrated by gangs. Don’t be so naive.

There are constant water main breaks now, how is adding apartments of people going to effect this? And what about crime? There have been several robberies at gunpoint at my son’s apartment in Dublin. Have you really paid attention to what too much growth has done to the cities around us or are you just looking at the dollar signs.

I agree that growth is inevitable and there is a lot of space for improvement. But cap buildings at 4 stories, limit multi family structures and make many adult only & 55+ to attract young adults and retirees and so the schools and infrastructure won’t be overwhelmed.

Creating paths towards modernization and ensuring the space is a net fiscal positive for long term sustainability.

I’d love a community asset for youth… eg. ice rink with field house.
We could combine with a mixed use development that can all play off each other positively.

Continued support of strong economic base and residents that bring great tax revenue along with healthy living (eg. Physicians).

I do not like anything about this.

I would remove the design to add dense housing/ apartments to this space.

Whether we can have more parkland preserved for outdoor use/ activities.

We cannot dilute the beauty of this land and ruin it by adding apartments. While some single family homes would be beautiful in that area, more parkland- like our sister cities of Dublin, Hilliard and New Albany would be appreciated and supported.

I would like to see broader acceptance of duplex/triplexes. They can fit into many neighborhoods without looking out of character, and would offer more affordable housing options. On the rare occasion that a house burns down, I’d like to see duplex or triplex as an option when rebuilding.

I appreciate that the plan names the importance of low-income / workforce housing. As a faith leader in Worthington, I regularly encounter those who need rent and utility assistance.

do not want additional high density housing

There are a lot of generally good ideas and even better background data in the plan. It’s thorough and clearly presented.

I admit I only read it through once (it’s 149 pages, that’s a lot of focus to commit to something nobody’s paying me to study.) But I don’t see much mention of one of the key sources of local traffic in Worthington. Family activity transportation, and crosstown travel trips 5 miles or less. It’s discussed in the report that after-school activities drive a lot of the traffic flow around school facilities. But largely unmentioned is the fact that parks and fields that are used for rec sports (soccer, baseball, lacrosse, etc.) are spread out all over town and create moderate local traffic jams all over the city.

One solution popular in the metro area is to dedicate a large area to rec sports. Other first-ring suburbs have managed to carve out modest centralized areas for sports fields, and all of the outer-ring suburbs have, sometimes multiple. Obviously there’d be a significant cost associated with that, but perhaps some revenue as well.

The other solution painted only in negative space by its absence is the notion that public transit innovation would be a matter of Worthington just waiting for COTA or MORPC or some other outside entity to come up with something. Why not a local public transit solution? Having a circulator trolley/bus system could significantly decrease traffic, make Worthington a place that someone could realistically live “car-free” which builds diversity, offer the opportunity for non-drivers to better utilize local amenities, minimize traffic impact of improved mixed use areas by visitors…there are a lot of benefits. Of note, readily available local circulator trolleys can also be used to justify allowing businesses to reduce available parking, making Worthington more of a city designed for people rather than for cars. The precedent for this that I’m familiar with is in Manatee County, FL. Granted, Worthington is not a barrier island chain. But having a circulator (perhaps operated in concert with Worthington Schools, because they consistently have trouble hiring and retaining bus drivers due to the odd hours and modest pay) could be a massive asset to residents. Overall decreased crosstown traffic, free time for parents and caregivers, simplified transportation for older kids who need to get around/across the city to activities or simply to meet friends when a bike might not be appropriate…the benefits would be difficult to quantify but if the people who researched the rest of this report went hunting I’m sure they could find the research to support the idea.

I see Worthington residents getting in cars and driving to Lewis Center to (hate their lives and) shop, take their kids to activities, and generally spend money at innumerable midsize locally-owned businesses who don’t have a viable way to locate themselves in Worthington. I would like to see the sharp research eyes that developed this plan look hard at where Worthington families spend their money and why, and then ask the hard questions “why do they have to leave town to do that?” “what are they leaving town for?” and “what can we do to lure back the vendors for which Worthington residents now feel the need to get in a car?” Once a resident has to get into their car for a product or service, the geographic area with which Worthington competes expands to essentially a 15-minute circle. Easton to Polaris to Dublin to Clintonville, essentially. Clockwise. If they can get what they need on their bike, it’s a time benefit to them and an economic benefit to the local community. Anecdotally, why is my kid’s taekwondo gym that used to be conveniently walkable at the Worthington Mall now located in Lewis Center despite trying for years to locate in Worthington? There are a lot of SMBs that have relocated nearby…why?

I have been trying to use the word “extractive” to describe businesses owned by big PE firms that sneak into communities and bamboozle residents into spending with them. It impacts more sectors than anyone is fully aware of: medical, veterinary, automotive, service sector, retail, restaurant, health/wellness, grocery…everything. Your allergist is owned by private equity. Ditto every chain restaurant, muffler shop, furniture store, gas station, etc. Don’t even get me started on banks. 40% of the money that goes in, leaves Worthington and never comes back. In the context of my transportation comments above, we should be doing our best to incubate the sort of businesses that are owned and grow HERE, and keep their money HERE, so we can be sustainable through whatever might come of the economy writ large over the next 10-15 years.

Wide variety of focus areas across the city. Start with a focus on the south High Street and north High Street portions along with Wilson Bridge.

Push for height if needed to get things done.

Don’t let the vocal minority in our community kill things.

concept good

put the road/bike agenda above the zoning agenda, so land owners can so land owners don’t get rolled over

Could we think about creating a community-led fund for commercial solar panels or wind energy

Interested in the whole board

Parks & recreation continue. pavestment and sports to existing parksand sports facilities/structures — incl. basketball court improvement at Pingree

Trees, Green & park planning.

I am not sure what update park plan truly means. I do NOT like hearing about average green space. I do NOT wish us to Be near average — Way more natural green please (not facilities per say)

City has opportunity to lead by example with Capital investments with Rush Creek Plan, with Franklin SWCD, that will leverage grant funding for green infrastructure + so far has neglected to do so. Please implement this vision by engaging in the collaberative oppurtunity to address real problems with water quality.

Greater density makes walking / biking / public transit easier, and is therefore good environmental Stewardship

Lots of great Components

Strengthen environmental standards + Integrating green infrastructure are listed seperatly, Green inferstructure is the standard + also should be listed as climate resilience for managing drought + flood.

Support green infrastructure!

Integrating sustainability and lifecycle thinking into both public and
private investment strengthens long-term performance, reduces costs over time, and protects community character.

This should be where planning begins. It should not be an afterthought.

Overall the

It would be great to create a city initiative around managing mosquitos, ticks and other biting insects. Mosquitos are bad in our area and other biting insects are moving further north as average temperatures rise. I pay for mosquito prevention services today from Orkin and it’s very expensive. It would be nice if the city could help manage this health issue for its residents both at a macro level but also contract with local companies to make opt-in options more affordable. I think the city could also help with standing water and drainage to help prevent developing environments where these insects thrive.

I like that Worthington already does a lot here, solar design guidance in the Design Guidelines, a PACE financing program, and 100% wind-matched electric aggregation, and that SP14 is about leading by example.

I’d ask the plan to use zoning and policy to actively encourage green building and on-site power generation, rooftop and parking-canopy solar, energy-efficient/LEED-style performance, for both private development and City-owned buildings and structures. I’d lead with incentives (density/height bonuses, expedited review, PACE, “solar-ready” requirements) rather than mandates, so we stand out among central Ohio communities without discouraging investment, while not ruling out codifying standards over time. SP14.1’s coordinating sustainability plan should also set measurable “power-offsetting” targets, which it currently lacks.

As a longer-term aspiration, I’m curious whether Worthington could position itself for community-generation co-ops / community solar as Ohio’s enabling legislation matures, identifying candidate sites now so we’re ready.

I love that “creating a new, large gathering park for events, concerts, and informal recreation” is one of the most common things residents asked for, and that the plan grounds its vision in equity, removing barriers for people of all ages, abilities, and income levels.

I’d ask the plan to specify that this gathering park include a purpose-built amphitheater, scaled to genuine community events. It’s worth clarifying what “large” means: comparable to New Albany’s Hinson Amphitheater, Westerville’s Alum Creek Park, or Hilliard’s Homestead, a real stage with tiered/lawn seating, not a roughly 200-capacity setup like the current summer concert series on the Village Green, which is constrained by limited space, noise spilling into adjacent homes, and traffic and parking safety concerns. I’d tie the commitment to the equity case in the plan’s own data: nearly 18% of households earn under $50,000 and a large share of renters are cost-burdened, so accessible public gathering and programming spaces matter.

I’m curious where a central, well-buffered site with adequate parking and transit access might be found, and whether the Parks & Recreation Master Plan update could evaluate candidate locations.

At what point does the water infrastructure need to be replaced to accommodate all the new development? Water taps, Sewers, etc.

Looks like the plan in suggesting we move away from the 5+ traffic lanes along High Street and developing center medians that could be planted with shade trees.

With undisputed climate change, the plan needs to address improving the City’s tree canopy. According to a 2022 assessment, the canopy was measured at only 26%. I suggest Worthington should have a canopy goal to at least match Columbus’ 40% goal. Many more street trees are needed along residential, commercial, transit, and school streets. Worthington should have a planting goal for all streets (e.g., one street tree every 20′ or 30′).

Where will the money come from for all the suggested changes? Developers? Residents? Government or NGOs?

For The Methodist Property: Create a Special use district when Parks-type homes are built, the community. District would include a Special Assessment to be created a funding source for The city. That would substitute for income tax to teh city that would come from commercial development.

I LIKE THE ORGANIZATION

THE HEADER # SHOULD NOT HAVE A BOX IT WAS CONFUSING TO PUT YOUR DOT IN THE RIGHT PLACE

I’m curious. How will this DATA BE COMPILED EFFECTIVELY

This was total chaos. No clear instructions until 6:50 PM when speeches were made. No instructions prior to the event. Instructions were too much(?). About the Event. The proposed plan is very frustrating. Poorly Planned. The key issues to be obscured.

About the Event? About the proposed plan? The event was poorly planned. The poster board obscured the key issues, such as UMCH Property plan is very frustrating

How do we know that the people filling out cards and surveys are even VOTING residents in Worthington

This whole process has been flawed

Support affordable housing in Worthington! Also support ADUs

Glad to see the city is looking for ways to make more parts of the city connected: (not sharrows) + bike paths + sidewalks

Ensure there is separation between car traffic + bike traffic with bushes or a curb or wall, not just a stripe on the side of the road (aka NOT like Wilson Br.Rd ).

Why are the options only dense development? Are you NOT giving options to keep green space?

Is this a fair approach or a sham?

Please get a plan for public restrooms in the Old Worthington area.

Multi-use Developments — makes the community front and walkable

Very comprehensive & well thought out

2 dates + different places

Why more buisnesses don’t locate in Worthington.

I like the different options presented. Higher density, cottage homes, mixed use public space while holding true to Worthington’s character. We bought our home in Worthington Estates area on Hayhurst St 20 years ago because of broad appeal, established tree canopy and ease of traveling around town with quick access to highway or a straight shot down High St. We’ve seen neighbors age in place, die, new families with young children move in, couples who recently retired act as pseudo-grandparents. It’s a beautiful place to be.

I would love to see increased access to our gem of a city with affordable housing options for your professionals and young families. I hope to have pedestrian/bike friendly travel options including dedicated bike lanes. I hope we continue to work toward sustainable choices.

I hope Worthington will take action with all of our talk. Do we have a timeline? Will UMCH ever be redeveloped?

Our city is historic, beautiful and idyllic. I love living here. It could use some vibrance to attract younger people, some outdoor gathering areas that include places to eat and hang out for its residents and visitors. It could use a real hotel. It could use an event space. It could use some additional aging in place housing options.

Need absolute guarantee that their traffic will not ever use Indianola Ave. Will there be an additional access to Route 161 from that area? Have you studied traffic flow from the additional population in the planned apartments?

That I can’t access the file?

That I COULD access the file

The file

No

It’s taken 26 years, but with this comprehensive plan Worthington has finally entered the 21st century. Unfortunately, at the rate things happen this plan contains 100 years of work. As always, implementation is the challenge. City leaders expecting the public to make decisions is the biggest hindrance to progress. For the 40 years I’ve lived here, the vocal minority has had too much sway.

It does appear you tried to buffer existing neighborhoods like Worthingway/Worthington Estates from high density, but…

…the meeting at the Rec center felt misleading. Two problems: 1. The categories presented such as Suburban Residential and Small Lot bear no connection to existing zoning levels. It feels squishy and seems like the City is setting itself up to slide on its commitment to residents. 2. The pictures shown at the Rec center showed “cottage homes” sitting maybe ten feet apart as representative of “suburban residential”. I would argue they are not and that the presentation was at best ambiguous and potentially flat-out misleading.

How will you reconcile having Council members who are conspicuously taking money from builder interests voting on decisions re future building. The appearance of impropriety is undeniable and shakes resident confidence that Our City is really ours. Those who take money from builders while in this elected role cannot be afforded blind trust; they are and will remain highly suspect with respect to integrity.

There is a clear reason for the high desirability of Worthington real estate with many houses in town selling for considerably more than their asking prices, with several near us having sold in the last six weeks for $60,000 and $90,000 more than the asking price. Worthington lands twice on USA today’s 10 best small-town lists. What a unique honor!
Listen to those of us who bought into what is special about Worthington and don’t change it. We are not looking for the look of the Kingsdale area in Upper Arlington nor Dublin Bridge Park with their concrete canyons. That’s not what we are. This is your chance to get it right, to show our unique personality and not mimic surrounding cities.
Those of us who have invested in Worthington chose it for its very specific charm, for its special look and historical character. Worthington has a brand all its own and you need to honor and respect that.
We are very concerned with the two entry/exit points for the housing nearest Evening Street due to the fact that it allows drivers to cut through the neighborhood to avoid multiple lights on High Street including at 161. Any significant increase on this already narrow portion of Evening Street is unconscionable. Certain times of the day, traffic already backs up to Highgate. Hayhurst neighbors already continue to report drivers using their street to avoid High Street. Adding a faster, easier way to access Evening Street is a flawed plan that ignores and exacerbates an existing issue.
Evening Street from 161 to the Highgate/Evening intersection is already perilous, with people driving above the speed limit to take shortcuts to avoid the High street/161 light, bicyclists, narrow sidewalks, MUCH closer to the road than in nearby neighborhoods, with all ages of children walking to and from school. Add to that, parked cars sometimes on either/both side sides of the street, kids without helmets on electric scooters riding more slowly than car traffic and sometimes two-wide, on this sometimes curvy and sometimes narrow road. During rush hours, it is commonplace for traffic to back up from 161 almost all the way to Highgate. This all is further complicated by FedEx/UPS/Amazon trucks regularly stopping/parking along this stretch to make deliveries.

Whoever took the time to put all of this information together, well done! Thank you.

It would have been cool to see the topics broken down into short videos, with captions adding the link to the document and survey. I would have appreciated a bigger push to get this into the hands of juniors and seniors in the school district to attract a very young demographic – reach out to social study teachers or student government! Did an email go out to the district parents/members? If this work is going to be over many years, young people in the community should be a priority.

Did copies of this extensive plan get printed and placed in local businesses in the historic district? Library? Schools? Besides social media posts and public meetings, how was this information shared? Did someone who specializes in marketing or social media partake in this plan? Why was this plan not partially printed and displayed in the Worthington Mall? I understand it’s rather empty but it’s still a focus area of the plan with decent foot traffic from community members.

This took an extensive amount of time to read through, rightfully so. For the parent or younger person who glanced at this quickly and saw it was 190 pages – what if a shorter summary version was available? Or break the 190 pages up into smaller topic chunks/individual links to attract more thorough readers? For the amount of time and money this took to create, the response should exceed expectations.

Nothing

Nothing change, no build

You agenda

We have no room for growth

I would like the city to remove flock cameras. These cameras, and other services like them, don’t seem to make us safer for the privacy and ethical concerns they pose to us. I’m also concerned with how these companies use our data without our consent.

I would like to see broader acceptance of civic/non-profit use, particularly in the Northeast corridor. These nonprofit organizations are helping Worthington families and students and should be welcomed in our community.

I appreciate that the plan sets ambitious target industries, software, cybersecurity, AI, and other data-driven sectors, and that Mobility & Connectivity takes physical connectivity seriously.

I’d add a technology / digital infrastructure component to the plan; right now there’s no strategy for the connectivity those target industries require. I’d give equal weight to three legs: (1) fiber-to-the-home and digital equity for residents; (2) a business-grade fiber backbone for competitiveness; and (3) reliable cellular/5G coverage, downtown and other areas have notably poor service (I recently couldn’t load my bank’s app on Verizon inside Huntington Bank on High Street). Every neighbor we compete with has made municipal fiber a deliberate economic-development tool, Dublin’s citywide fiber-to-the-home partnership with altafiber and its Dublink business network, Hilliard’s city-owned HiFiO, and Westerville’s WeConnect. Worthington isn’t starting from zero: we reportedly already have shared access to Westerville’s WeConnect data center, and the Columbus FiberNet duct system already runs through the city. The plan should set a strategy to leverage those assets.

I’m curious what it would take, a regional partnership like Westerville/MORPC, or a Dublin-style AltaFiber agreement, to bring competitive fiber and better cellular coverage to Worthington’s homes and businesses.

The cellular piece largely comes down to small-cell siting in the public right-of-way, which could fold into Land Use action 1.4 (engineering/infrastructure standards).