Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24-09 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 24-09 Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.258 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRAND ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET WEST OF AVERY ROAD FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO R-1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (6325 BRAND ROAD, CASE NO. 09-022Z). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned RI, Restricted Industrial District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code, and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this ~ day of , 2009. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council CITY OF DOBLIN,. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager wit/~ Date: May 28, 2009 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 24-09 -Rezoning of 6325 Brand Road, Indian Run United Methodist Church (Case No. 09-0222) Summary This is a request to rezone 5.258 acres at 6325 Brand Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential Dish•ict. Staff initiated this rezoning application at the direction of City Council at its March 16, 2009 meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the application at their April 16, 2009 meeting. First Reading -City Council Comments Development Review Pvocess At the first reading, some members of City Council expressed concerns that the proposed rezoning would not provide the City the ability to review site development and architectural details associated with future improvements to the property. Council members also raised concerns about the lack of opportunities for neighboring property owners to have input on the development and any impacts on adjacent properties. The City Manager suggested creating an approval process for churches and other comparable uses and community facilities, such as a conditional use permit or site plan review in standard zoning districts where these uses are currently permitted by right. Planning has evaluated this possibility and determined that the best available process is the conditional use procedure, which requires review by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the use and its impacts on the site and surrounding area. This process would allow the public the opportunity to comment on a proposal. The cun•ent conditional use process does not specifically include the review of the architectural character or site details, except to the point where they may affect the use. To account for this, it is possible that language may need to be added to the conditional use portion of the standard districts that addresses a desire to have high quality architecture that is coordinated with existing buildings and compatible with the area. If Council directs, Planning will prepare a Zoning Code amendment for consideration, based upon ensuring that institutional uses have the opportunity for public review and approval as part of the conditional use process. This amendment will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to Council. It is very likely that this amendment would be in place prior to the Church submitting any building plans for major future projects. Neighborhood Input After the Council meeting, the Church met with representatives of the adjacent Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision to discuss the Church's plans and the concerns of the neighborhood. The Church Meino re. Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning - 6325 Brand Road, Indian Run United Methodist Church May 28, 2009 Page 2 of 3 presented their concept plan and the neighborhood representatives expressed their concerns. The Church addressed each of the issues and overall the meeting was positive. The neighborhood representatives agreed to meet with the remaining neighborhood trustees and discuss the Church's plans and whether their support for the rezoning would change. Description The 5.258-acre site is located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Avery Road. The property is 400 feet wide and varies in depth from 675 feet to 525 feet from west to east. The site has frontage on Brand Road and contains asingle-family house, a detached garage, and a pond. The North Fork of Indian Run borders the southern property line. The property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as is the Shannon Glen subdivision to the north, across Brand Road. The Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision to the west is zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. The Indian Run United Methodist Church and the City parkland to the south are zoned R-1. History In 2003, the City rezoned the property to establish Dublin zoning of R-1 as part of a city-wide area rezoning. In 2004, City Council approved a rezoning request to PUD for nine single-family lots, open space and associated site improvements. The final development plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4, 2004. In 2005, the Indian Run United Methodist Church purchased the property. In working with church representatives on a planned expansion and other improvements, Planning deteiYnined that the previously approved PUD had expired. Section 153.053 (D)(4} of the Zoning Code provides that if construction is not initiated within three years of the approval of the final development plan, the PUD may be considered expired. The Cade then allows City Council to initiate a rezoning to change the zoning back to the district in place prior to the enactment of the PUD. The church opted to submit its own rezoning request to R-1 and requested a waiver of the rezoning fee of $4,560 fee at the March 16, 2009 City Council meeting. As part of the City Council memo related to the fee waiver request, Planning included information about the expiration of the PUD. Staff noted that the fee waiver would not be necessary if the City would initiate a rezoning request. Council then directed Planning to initiate the rezoning to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the rezoning request at its April 16, 2009 meeting. The Commission discussed the proposed zoning and expressed its preference to maintain the PUD zoning. The Commissioners indicated their desire for a planned development so that they would have the opportunity to review any proposed development for the church. The Commission recommended disapproval of the rezoning request to City Council based on their view that the proposed residential zoning did not comply with the Future Land Use designation of "Private Institutional" in the Community Plan. Community Plan and Proposed Zoning The Community Plan Future Land Use designation of "Private Institutional" includes land and facilities occupied by private uses and organizations such as hospitals, profit or non-profit facilities providing Meino re. Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning - 6325 Brand Road, Indian Run United Methodist Church May 28, 2009 Page 3 of 3 continuous patient care, religious centers/activities, private schools, etc. This designation would be inconsistent with the expired PUD, but is consistent with the proposed R-1 District that permits a variety of low intensity uses, including single-family residential, religious institutions, parks, and schools. Planning has researched the current zoning classifications of the known religious organizations and facilities within the city. A chart outlining this information is attached. Of the 24 churches investigated, seven were in planned developments, none of which are solely for the churches and include a variety of other development. Ad d itional I nformation Planning also encourages Council to authorize staff to proceed with the proposed conditional use Code amendment, which would provide a process for public review and approval of future improvements to institutional uses in standard districts. If Council prefers that this be addressed in 2009 instead of including it in the 2010 Zoning Code Update, staff will prepare the amendment for Council's review at the next available meeting. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 24-09. Per the Revised Charter, Section 4.09(C}(2} requires an affirmative vote of at least five Council members to adopt a zoning ordinance for which the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended disapproval. Office of the City Manger 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 M e m o To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foeglcr, City Manager 7--~/ Date: May 14, 2009 !!~ Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning - 6325 Brand Road, Indian Run United Methodist Church (Case No. 09-0222) Summary This is a request to rezone 5.258 acres at 6325 Brand Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R- I, Restricted Suburban Residential District. This rezoning application was initiated by the City at the direction of City Council at its March 16, 2009 meeting. The application was recommended for denial by the Planning and Toning Commission on April 16, 2009. Description The 5.258-acre site is located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Avery Road. The property is 400 feet wide and varies in depth from 675 feet to 525 feet from west to east. The site has liontage on Brand Road and contains asingle-family house, a detached garage and a pond. The North Fork of Indian Run borders the southern property line. The property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as is the Shannon Glen subdivision to the north, across Brand Road. The Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision to the west is zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. The Indian Run United Methodist Church and the City parkland to the south are zoned R-1. History In 2003, the City rezoned the property to establish Dublin zoning of R-1 as part of the City-wide area rezoning process. Shortly after, in 2004, City Council approved a request to rezone the property to PUD for nine single-family lots, open space and associated site improvements. The final development plan was approved by the Planning and "coning Commission on November 4, 2004. In 2005, the neighboring Indian Run United Methodist Church purchased the property. In working with church representatives on a planned expansion and other improvements, Planning determined that the previously approved PUD had expired. Section 153.053 (D)(4) of the Zoning Code provides that if construction is not initiated within three years of the approval of the final development plan, the PUD may be considered expired. The Code then allows City Council to initiate a rezoning to change the zoning back to the district in place prior to the enactment of the PUD. The church decided to submit its own rezoning request to R-1 and requested a zoning fee waiver at the March 16, 2009 City Council meeting. As part of the City Council memo for the fee waiver request, Planning included information about the expiration of the PUD. Staff and noted that the fee waiver Meino re. Ordinance 24-09 Rezoning - 6325 Brand Road, Indian Run United Methodist Church May 14, 2009 Page 2 of 2 would not be necessary if the City initiated a rezoning request. Council then du•ected Planning to initiate the rezoning to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the rezoning request at its April 16, 2009 meeting. The Commission discussed the proposed zoning and expressed its preference to maintain the PUD zoning. The Commissioners indicated that their desire for a planned development so that they would have the opportunity to review any proposed development for the church. The Commission recommended disapproval of the rezoning request to City Council based on their view that the proposed residential zoning did not comply with the Future Land Use designation of "Private Institutional" in the Community Plan. Community Plan and Proposed Zoning The Community Plan Future Land Use designation of "Private Institutional" includes land and facilities occupied by private uses and organizations such as hospitals, profit or non-profit facilities providing continuous patient care, religious centers/activities, private schools, etc. This designation would be inconsistent with the PUD as it exists but would be consistent with the proposed R-1 District that permits a variety of low intensity uses, including single-family residential, religious institutions, parks, and schools. Planning has researched the cui~•ent zoning classifications of the known religious organizations and facilities within the City. A chart outlining this information is attached. Of the 24 churches investigated, seven are in planned developments. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 24-09 at the second reading/public hearing on June 1, 2009. Per the Revised Charter, Section 4.09 C 2 requires an affirmative vote of at least five Council members to adopt a zoning ordinance as to which the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended against approval. In~entary of existing churches and associated zoning classifications CHURCH NAME LOCATION ZONING CLASSIFICATION Alleluia Lutheran Church 6201 Avery Road CC Berean Bible Church 7541 Dublin Road R-1 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day St 7135 Coffman R-2/R-4 Church of the Redeemer 3883 Summitview Drive R-1 Congregation AM Brit 5600 Post Road (DCRC} PUD Dublin Baptist Church 7195 Coffman Road PUD Dublin Christian Church 2900 Martin Road R-2 Dublin Church of the Nazarene 7200 Coffman Road Rural Dublin Community Church 81 West Bridge Street PUD Dublin Presbyterian Church 5775 Dublinshire Road PUD Faith Community Church 5762 Wilcox Road R-1 Indian Run Methodist Church 6305 Brand Road R-1 Life Family Church 600 Metro Place (Clarion Hotel) CC Meadowbrook Christian Fellowship 6608 Dublin Center Drive CC Northwest Chapel Grace Brethren Church 6700 Rings Road Rural Northwest Presbyterian Church 6400/6488 Post Road PUD/R-1 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 5475 Brand Road PUD Radiant Life Church 7100 Post/7055 Avery (Activity Center) Rural/R-1 Scioto Valley Christian Church 7855 Dublin Road R-1 St. Brigid of Kildare Catholic 7179 Avery Road R-1 St. Johns Lutheran Church 6135 Rings Road R-2 St. Patrick Episcopal Church 7121 Muirfield Drive PUD Vineyard Christian Fellowship at Tutttle 5300 Avery Raad R-1 Vista Communit Church 6780 Coffman Road (Dublin Coffman High School) Offices: 6063 Frantz Road, Ste. 201 Rural ~ PuD PuD Pu PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUd ~ PUD PUD pUD i PU^ . PUD:... .PUD PUD i PU^ PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD pUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD pUD i PUD PUD i ~ PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD' PUD ~. PUD , i * PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PU • PUD PUD PUD. PUC ~ i :PUa - ~ PUD • PUL PUD IPU[7 , PU PUD. ~ PU^ ~ ~ PUD PU^ PUD PUD PUD ,PUD PU PUD ' - PUD,PUD, i • PUD PUDPUD pUD, PUD PUD PUD ' - i PU^ PU^ 'i i ~? ~t PUD==i~ PLFi PLR PLR _ - PLR /'~ PLR ~ PLR ~\ PLR ~ ~\~ PLR ~~~ PLR PLR PLR I- PLR PLR ~ PLR SIT E PLR T-L PLR /~f UD ~ PLR I PLR PLR PLR. PLR PLR . PLR PLR ~~ PLR PLR . PLR PLR 'PLR. PLR , i PLR PLR ' PLR PLR i' i `` PLR PLR PLR . `~ ' ~- ~ PLR' ~' I- PLR' PLR PLR - PLR PLR .. PLR PLR ~ PLR -~ 1 ~ PLR :PLR 'i PLR PLR` PI.R PLR PLR yl, PLR . PLR ~ PLR .PLR .PLR ;PLR PLR '~i PLR PLR, PLR ~-'1 R-1 PUD PUD PUD PU 1 ~ti ' R-3 ~ 1 R-1 R-t PUD PUD PUD O i PUD PUD PU D R-1 PUD R-i R-3 R-3 R-3,R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3R-3 R-3 ~,.~ ~ ~-N „ R_3 R.3 R'3 R-3 iR-3:R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 N 09-0222 City of Dublin Standard District Rezoning a Land Use and Indian Run Methodist Church o 125 250 500 crrY~nFOi;eun_ Long Range Planning 6325 Brand Road Feet CITY OF DUBLIN Land u:e and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dubin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/TDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153.232) I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ^ Informal Review ^ Final Plat (Section 152.085) ^ Concept Plan ^ Conditional Use (Section 153.055(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) ^ Preliminary Development Plan I Rezoning ^ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) ^ Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ^ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign (Section 153.115) ^ Amended Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) Standard District Rezoning (Section 153.018) ^ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ^ Minor Subdivision ^ Right-of-Way Encroachment ^ Other (Please Specify): Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address(es): ~ ~j Z 5 ~j rkv.el (L~,~ Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): Z?3 - voo 3`10 Parcel Size(s) (Acres): ll.g3S(s.zsg~ Existing Land Use/Development: '~" Tr,l"r "~ / IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use/Development: ~i~~~ ~ ~) ~~ Total acres affected by application: 5 , 2 S~ I III. CURRENT PROPERTY DWNERf51' Plaace attach additional chawtc if npadad_ Name (Individual or Organization): 'A ~ n1 I. ~ V~,~~(~,~.~ l W~ vuw l ,~,~ ~L vl l', ~ ~ ~ Mailing Address: 1 w~~ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ~~ l ~ ~ ~ J~~~ Daytime Telephone: f~- ~ 7~ ~ ( Fax: ('J'(f ~ ~ ~O~ O {, Email or Alternate Contact Information: hy~r ~, ~ 1 ~~~a~~ ~. ~~-(~ . ~,~~-,~ 1/ ,... Page 1 of 3 t ~ ! N - ~ t" IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: ~~p ~ ~ ~^,,1 ,~ „~ ` l , L1n ~~,~,~,/~{,~Applicant is also property owner: yes ^ no~ Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): ~~ ~ ~~ 2 ~~ Malling Address: V ~ ~/ ~ 1 _ I (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ~2~ ~a/V YW K~ ~ l~/NY/~ ~ ~ f-1,~Q Daytime Telephone: ~l~Q L+~oO I Fax: (~lo ~.{.-~ ~ 7 Email or Alternate Contact Information: V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT /PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: ~ ~ 1/lf'dY~'Ll,~ t/) Y W,V r 6~ I~Uw~K ~~l,Q,, ~ r_"'"_0_ Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): / _ t _ _ ~fY"' T--. ~ ~-~,., ViT1~ Ui~ l~J Mailing Address: }~ 1 ` ,~ 2 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ~(~~ ~v~/l.T~/V ~ ~ V~ ~~ ~ d l~ v` J~~ Daytime Telephone: ~ `~ ~ („~ ~ou Fax: (.1 ~ O _ 1 ~~ ~J Email or Alternate Contact Information: J ~~ Vls ~ C~'~/ ~~ . O~ ~ LCyO.. ~ J a~~~Q ~lK-.'hS VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. I .the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicant or representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: ^ Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representative(s) Is attached as a separate document Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 20 State of County of Notary Public VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner/Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. I ,the owner or authorized representative, hereby I authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: l Page2of3 FILE COPY ~:~,'~~.{':y, `~,~~` { d; VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant. I ~ ~ ~ Q~CT! ~~ the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge t approval is re oast does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide a al servic su afar a war facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant. Signature of a licant or a ho zed representative: Dater ~ ~ IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be compteteo ana nutarizeo. I / err read and un laformation ~u the owner or authorized representative, have the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Date: Subscribed and sworn to before me th[s . ~ ~ -day of ~ ~ FI !'"L" i 1_ , 2!) ~_. r State of _~~]I County of ~ '' ~] ~~16~ Notary Pubf LINDA L. SLICK Votary Public-S1aie of Ohio ;ommission Expire: iv~ay 19, 2009 FUFt ^FFIC~ USE ONLY Amount Received: ~ J~ i v Application No: ~ ~ (~~~- j ~, ~ . 4 P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: Receipt No: ~{ F~ Map Zone: Date Received: ~ I ~ ~~^ Received By: ~~ A _ City Council (First Reading): City Council (Second Reading): City Council Action: Ordinance Number: Type of Request: .~ F 'r~~'~E' W (Circle) Side of: ,~`~ l,7 ~ ~ - [ ~ r 4 ` ~'~.L~~ ~~ ' ' y 1 N, S, E~fil~Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: ~j ~~,• '~ .` ' [.' -~' Distance from Nearest Intersection: ~ ~}L~i~1 ,~~~a_ :~ Existing Zoning District: ~r ~ "(~ Requested Zoning District: i~il~'~a~~ ~ ~~ Page3of3 FOIE CQPY ~,~~!~.' '~ .~.<<~,~~ Rezoning Statement: Case Number 09-022L -Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road The existing PUD, Planned Unit Development District zoning has expired per section 153.03 (D) (4) and City Council directed staff to rezone t(le properly at 6325 Brand Road to the R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District zoning in place prior to the approval the PUD. The proposed rezoning to R-1 is consistent with the existing and surrounding residential, religious, recreational, and educational land use character. The proposed rezoning to R-1 is consistent with the Community Plan Future Land Use Map that indicates '`Private Institutional." PY ,. EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF 5.258 ACRE SOUTH OF BRAND ROAD WEST OF AVERY ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO May 5, 2005 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, being located in Virginia Military Survey No. S 162/6152, being all of that 0.920 acre tract and all of that 4.341 acre tract, both as described in deeds to John E. Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn J. Humbert, of record in Official Record Volume 5786, Page E15 and Official Record Volume 5798, Page H08, respectively, all references herein being to the records located in the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning FOR REFERENCE at Franklin County Engineer's Monument FCGS 6647 located at the centerline intersection of Brand Road and Avery Road (to the south), widths vary; thence North 81° 12'33" West, along the centerline of Brand Road, a distance of 791.21 feet to a point at the northwesterly corner of that 6.900 acre tract as described in a deed to Northwest United Methodist Unian of Columbus District, of record in Official Record Volume 1169, Page C18; thence South 15°06'17" East, along the westerly line of said 6.900 acre tract, a distance of 32.81 feet to an 1" hollow iron pin found at the northeasterly corner of said 0.920 acre tract, the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; Thence South 15°06' l7" East, along the common line between said 6.900 acre tract and said 0.920 acre tract, passing an 1" hollow iron pin found at the southeasterly comer of said 0.920 acre tract at a distance of 194.27 feet, passing an 1"iron pin found at a angle point in the northerly perimeter of that 52.067 acre tract as described in a deed to the Village of Dublin, of record in Official Record Volume 0826, Page A20, at a distance of 428.21 feet, a total distance of 528.24 feet to an 1" hollow iron pin found at the southeasterly corner of said 4.341 acre tract and at angle point in said northerly perimeter; Thence South 76°32'55" West, along said northerly perimeter, a distance of 367.09 feet to an iron pin found at the southeasterly comer of Reserve "C", as shown and delineated upon the plat "Meadows at Wyndham Village", a subdivision of record in Plat Book 87, Pages 75 and 76; Thence North 15°06' l7" West, along the easterly line of said "Meadows at Wyndham Village", passing an iron pin found at a distance of 680.22 feet, a total distance of 713.03 feet to a mag nail set in the centerline of Brand Road at the northwesterly corner of said 4.341 acre tract; Thence South 81°12'33" East, along said centerline, a distance of 250.33 Feet to a mag nail set at the northeasterly comer of said 4.341 acre tract; Thence South 08°46'35" West, a distance of 30.00 feet to an 1" hollow iron pin found at the northwesterly corner of said 0.920 acre tract; FI:E COPY 4`i ~ 1 r, ~ _ I;ll~: 04'-u~,-7-~ Page 2 - 5.258 Acres Thence South 81°12'33" East, along the northerly line of said 0.920 acre tract, a distance of 164.28 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 5.258 acres of land. Bearings herein are based on "Meadows at Wyndham Village", a subdivision of record in Plat Book 87, Pages 75 and 76; South 81°12'33" East for the centerline of Brand Road. This description was prepared by M•E Companies, Inc., Civil Engineering Group, based on information obtained from an actual field survey performed in June 2003. ~~~ ~• DAVID ••'~O L. +>' ~ CHIESA ~ ~ ~, ~ 7740 ~o.r , •~'FC/S'tf.4''• ~~ '- - - -~ R~t_ o~ (a~3~ r~o~ r 39~ M•E Companies, Inc. Civil ' gi Bering Grau ~ s/os/ ~ avid L.. Chicsa Registered Surveyor No. 7740 PRELIh91NARY APPROVAL FRANKLIN COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPT. DATE: I oS gy; 'r.G' AI E6D 02~cJ,NAt ~4PT Fc2 ~Ek, Sv.~.~cy U~SL`KiY'r[UI+1 VF.AiF'~ IZRAH C. RntGt~ D-E.PS. 6Y:~~ ,~~~~~~ .. - ~,~ ' , l i '' ~} a ~i~ ~ ~r - u ~ ~ ~ Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results 6786620/405578 The selection distance was 300 feet. The selected parcel was 273-000390. To view a table showing the 39 wrcela within the displayed proximity, scroll down. =~ Get Report ~.~ Print Window ~ Back to Proximity Report Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. I[ is comltikV Fran r¢cwded daedsr survey peals, and ocher public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the publk primary information source should be consulial fpr v~rdicalKln W the informpliw+contained pn this map. The county and [he mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on th'N. map. Please no[ily the FIAnklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Hlnt: To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down [he left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag [he mouse to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the m ouse button. 4. Select Edit dopy From the menu bar. Ypu can [hen Paste the report into another applkation. Parcel Owner Name Address 273-011252 ABU-BALER WALID ELGHOUL LIMA 6426 RINGSEND CT 273-007794 ARMED ROWNAK ARMED SHAHANARA 6518 CAMDEN ROW RD 273-010271 BATTLES JOHN B TR 6206 ENKE CT 273-011254 BODEMPUDI VENKATESWARA R MUSUNURI K 6491 RINGSEND CT 273-011253 BROTHERS MERRILL M @(2) 6418 RINGSEND CT 273-009467 CITY OF DUBLIN WILTSHIRE DR 273-009468 CITY OF DUBLIN WILTSHIRE DR 273-007621 CITY OF DUBLIN CAMDEN ROW RD 273-010284 CITY OF DUBLIN 6195 BRAND RD 273-010285 CITY OF DUBLIN 6205 BRAND RD 273-010028 CITY OF DUBLIN OH SHANNON GLEN BL 273-009459 DIGEORGE ALAN D 7889 WILTSHIRE DR 273-011250 DOAN CHI-HUNG DOAN PAULA J 6442 RINGSEND CT 273-009448 ELSHIRE SEEMA S ELSHIRE J ANDREW 7858 WILTSHIRE DR 273-007795 GAWNE ARON K GAWNE JENNIFER A 6510 CAMDEN ROW RD 273-007792 GRAY GREGORY A & PAULA J 6534 CAMDEN ROW RD 273-009460 HARTITZ MARCOS D HARTITZ CINDY L 7865 WILTSHIRE DR 273-011255 HOMEWOOD CORP RINGSEND CT 273-011249 HOSSAIN QUAZI SARWAR NAURAT P 6450 RINGSEND CT 273-009450 HUNDLEY SALLY A HUNDLEY MARKS 7874 WILTSHIRE DR 273-010855 INDIAN RUN UNITED METHDST CHURCH OF BRAND RD 273-000390 INDIAN RUN UNITED MTHDST CHRUCH OF BRAND RD 273-009455 IZENSON KIMBERLY K 7921 WILTSHIRE DR 273-009454 JOSEPH DONALD T & MICHELE M 7914 WILTSHIRE DR 273-009456 KHAN ZAKI A KHAN ARIJ A 7913 WILTSHIRE DR 273-007819 KITANO EIKO 8002 LOMBARD WY 273-009457 KO CLEMENT 7905 WILTSHIRE DR 273-009449 MCCLAIN MATTHEW L & ELIZABETH A 7866 WILTSHIRE DR 273-009458 NABAR CHAITANYA N NABAR MANJIRI 7897 WILTSHIRE DR 273-011251 NGUYEN ANHTHU N 6434 RINGSEND CT 273-009453 PAN SUIHUA DENG CHENGHUI 7906 WILTSHIRE DR 273-007796 SHALTAMI ARMED NABBUS AHLAM M 6502 CAMDEN ROW RD 273-009451 SIANO SALVATORE A & CATHY C 7890 WILTSHIRE DR 273-009452 SNODGRASS RONALD L & KANDI M 7898 WILTSHIRE DR 273-010270 STATE TRUSTEE SERVICES LLC TR 6214 ENKE CT 273-007791 TRINITY HOME BUILDERS INC 6542 CAMDEN ROW RD http://fcgis2.metacama.com/scripts/gis~roximity report_display.pl Page 1 of 2 3/19/2009 Image Date: Thu Mar 19 14:41:47 2009 Proximity Report Results 273-000368 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN OHIO 273-007793 WEYER BRIAN K WEYER EVELYN 273-008077 YANG LIMEI WANG WEIFENG 7401 AVERY RD 6526 CAMDEN ROW RD 7746 MACRENAN LN ~Ivt ~ http://fcgis2.metacama. com/scripts/gis~roximity_report_display.pl Page 2 of 2 3/19/2009 Walid Abu-Saleh & Rownak & Shahanara Ahmed 09-0222 Indian Run Methodist Liam Elghoul Church -6325 Brand Road 6426 Ringsend Court 6518 Camden Row Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 John B Battles tr Venkateswara R & Musunuri K. Merril M. Brothers Bodempudi 6206 Enke Court 6418 Ringsend Court Dublin, OH 43016 6491 Ringsend Court Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Alan D. Digeorge Chi-Hung & Paul Doan Seema & Andrew Elshire 7889 Wiltshire Drive 6442 Ringsend Court 7858 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Aron & Jennifer Gawne Gregory & Paula Gray Marcos & Cindy Hartitz 6510 Camden Row Road 6534 Camden Row Road 7865 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Quazi Hossain & Sally & Mark Hundley Kimberly Izenson Naurat Sarwar 7874 Wiltshire Drive 7921 Wiltshire Drive 6450 Ringsend Court Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Donald & Michele Joseph Zaki & Arij Khan Eiko Kitano 7914 Wiltshire Drive 7913 Wiltshire Drive 8002 Lombard Way Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Ko Clement Matthew & Elizabeth McClain Chaitanya & Maniri Nabar 7905 Wiltshire Drive 7866 Wiltshire Drive 7897 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Anhthu Nguyen Shuihua Pan & Ahmed Shaltami & Ahlam Nabbus 6434 Ringsend Court Chenghui Deng 6502 Camden Row Road Dublin, OH 43016 7906 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Salvatore & Cathy Siano Ronald & Kandi Snodgrass State Trustee Services LLC tr 7890 Wiltshire Drive 7898 Wiltshire Drive 6214 Enke Court Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Brian & Evelyn Weyer Limei Yang & 6526 Camden Row Rd Weifeng Wang Dublin, OH 43016 7746 Macrenan Lane Dublin, OH 43016 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and APRIL 16, 2009 Long Ranga Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone/TDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy DWQf~4 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Indian Run United Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road. 09-0222 Standard District Rezoning Proposal: A proposal to rezone 5.25 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to permit residential, religious, parks, and educational uses. The site is located on the south side of Brand Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Avery Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a standard district rezoning under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Terry Foegler, City Manager; represented by Steve Langworthy, Director. Planning Contact: Jamie Adkins, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410-4644, jadkins@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend disapproval of this Rezoning to City Council because the proposed R-1 zoning does not comply with the "Private Institutional" Future Land Use designation in the Community Plan. VOTE: 5 - 2. RESULT: A negative recommendation for this Rezoning will be forwarded to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION Jamie Adkins, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission D ~ ~ ~ ~ April 16, 2009 -Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 24 3. Indian Run United Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road 09-0222 Standard District Rezoning Chair Chris Amorose Groomes explained that this case involves a Legislative matter, so the public is welcome to express their opinions during the public comment portion of the hearing. Jamie Adkins presented this request to rezone part of the Indian Run United Methodist Church property. She said one of the reasons it is before the Commission is that the Church went to City Council recently requesting a fee waiver for the rezoning of this property from the PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. As Planning was researching the site and history for that request, it was discovered that the PUD had expired, per Code, because no work had been done on the PUD since the Final Development Plan had been approved. Planning presented it as an option to City Council, and they directed staff to rezone the property because the PUD had expired. Mr. Freimann, who pulled this case from the consent agenda, chose to forego the formal presentation for this application. He pointed out that the Planning Report stated that once the approval has expired, City Council may initiate a rezoning to change the zoning back. He said it was a discretionary option and asked why they would want to do this. He said he had seen a memo prepared by Steve Langworthy and the City Manager to the City Council saying that Dublin's Zoning Code is so disastrous that what we need to do is scratch it and start all over again. He said rather than have this land be under the control of a well thought out, well developed PUD, we are going to go a straight zoning, and as long as the Church comes forward with something that meets our Zoning Code, which the Planning Director and City Manager tell him are bad, that they can build it. He said he visited the site and it is beautiful, pristine land surrounded by wonderful neighborhoods on three sides; south, west, and north. He said to the point that if the Church wants to build a recreation center or playground or anything else, he thought they could come before the Commission with an amendment and say they would like to do something besides the nine homes that have been approved here. Mr. Freimann said he needed something really compelling as why they should just revert this back to straight zoning. Ms. Adkins said the Church would have to rezone regardless of what they wanted to do because the PUD was so specific. She said the route the Church was considering was rezoning to a straight district because that matched the zoning on the remaining portion of the property. Ms. Adkins said it was Planning's opinion that they have developed the property very well under the current zoning, and that their intention is not to do anything overly intense. In addition, the R-1 standards for churches are not as bad as some other sections of the Code. She said that it does comply with the Community Plan and it was Council's direction to rezone it back to R-1, so they obviously felt it was appropriate. Todd Zimmerman explained that the Church was looking for a fee waiver, and instead City Council directed them to go in front of the Commission and rezone the property and if it is done through the City, there would be no fee and they are done. Mr. Walter concurred with Mr. Freimann that a PUD was the preferable way to develop, especially in an area that is already well developed. He said St. Brigid's Church on Avery Road has done a lot of infill and it has been very carefully crafted to fit. Mr. Walter said he did not particularly believe that Indian Run United Methodist Church had done as sensitive of a job in their expansions. He said it is clearly an expansion and clearly misaligned, so he would like to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission n~ ~ n ~ ~ April 16, 2009 -Meeting Minutes ~(~' ~ /~~\ Page 18 of 24 have a little more control in that development process when it happens. He said he was resistant to giving the Church R-1 and letting them go wherever they want. Ms. Adkins clarified that R-1 permitted Residential at one-unit per acre, churches, parks and schools. She said the original purpose for the PUD is intended to allow for the kinds of development that the straight zoning districts did not. She said it is different in this case because the Church already has developed on R-1, and wants to expand on property that they already own with the same type of zoning. She said the R-1 accommodates that goal. Mr. Walter pointed out that the property abuts Avery Park and the stream. He said it was a beautiful vista. He said if this is approved, he could see the Church putting a gym in the back, and he would like to have a little more say in the development of the site. He said he could be sensitive to a fee waiver if City Council wishes, but he thought to come before the Commission to try to get around a fee process is surprising. Richard Taylor said it felt to him that the Commission was being asked to approve a hardship, and maybe the fee was a hardship of some kind. Claudia Husak said it was not exactly what was happening. She said the applicant in this case is the City. She said the Church did go to Council to ask for the fee waiver to be the applicant on this application and Council said if the PUD was actually expired, they were going to direct staff on the behalf of City Council, to revert the zoning back to what it was originally. Ms. Husak said there was no Church applicant tonight asking for the Commission to approve a rezoning. Mr. Taylor reiterated that it felt as though the Commission was being asked to look at this as if it were a hardship because obviously someone does not want to pay the fee. He said it seemed to him, as Mr. Walter said, if they took away the current PUD, then they lose a great deal of control of what happens here. He said a fee waiver, instead of the change from a PUD to another type of zoning of some type that needs to be done in order to approve a project that is brought to the Commission seems like a better way to address this. He said once the Commission knows what it is that they are being asked to approve on this site that gives them the ability to use the rezoning process as part of the consideration of all of this. Mr. Taylor said he did not think that any of that rules out the possibility of the fee waiver for the applicant later on, regardless of who they are. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the Commission be further educated on the matter by Ms. Husak. She asked what happened when a PUD expired. Ms. Husak said the Code states that it is basically up to City Council to decide whether or not to revert the zoning back, and only Council can do that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what happens if Council does not revert the zoning. Ms. Husak said nothing would happen and the Church could still continue to develop the final development plan under the PUD. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 16, 2009 -Meeting Minutes (~ ~ n ~ ~ Page 19 of 24 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the Church's options were to revert the property back to its original zoning or to continue with the expired PUD, and if at any point, they deemed necessary to develop that land, the expired PUD reigned over the development of that piece of property. Ms. Husak said the PUD only expired if Council said it was expired and the zoning was to be reverted. She said other than that, it was not really considered to be expired. Steve Smith Jr. confirmed that Ms. Husak had provided a very good legal opinion. Mr. Freimann stated that if the Church hypothetically came and said they have five acres and want to be sensitive to everything; they want to put in a beautiful cultural hall or something that is architecturally pleasing, fits well with the land, and meshes with the Church under the R-1, assuming it met our Zoning Code, they could put that in without ever coming to the Commission. Ms. Adkins said that would be correct if they obtained a building permit. Mr. Freimann asked if the PUD remained, would the Church have to come before the Commission and formally request review and approval of a new final development plan for that area. Ms. Adkins explained that the PUD text language is specific to the nine lots on a certain amount of acreage, so it would not be an amended final development plan, because it was too much of a change; it would have to be a full rezoning. She said the option to amend a preliminary development plan at the final development plan stage is very narrow, so it would not meet those criteria. Mr. Walter asked what was wrong with Mr. Taylor's recommendation to say that it remains as it is until such time as a valid project is before the Commission. He said one of the things he was concerned about, quite frankly on this property is that five years ago, there used to be a tremendous barn on this property and it got taken down and he did not know why. Ms. Adkins explained that removal of the barn had Commission approval as part of the PUD. Mr. Walter said that approved project did not get built and the barn is now gone. He asked what was going to happen next when they indicate they say that they want to remove the trees in the back because they are planning on building on nine lots and then change their mind. He said he was very much in favor of Mr. Taylor's suggestion. He said it gives some context to what is occurring. He said he understood that Council has directed Planning to try to revert this zoning. Mr. Walter said he heard at least some consensus that the Commission may have a recommendation and Council can still do what they want to do with that. Mr. Freimann asked if the Church sold this land to somebody else, as is, and a new developer came in with a new idea and did not like the PUD, what would be recommended and how would they be encouraged to get their new idea for that land before the Commission. He asked what Mr. Langworthy's recommendations would be to that private enterprise and how would they be walked through the process. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~~ ~ ~ ~j April 16, 2009 -Meeting Minutes u Page 20 of 24 Mr. Taylor clarified that Mr. Freimann was saying that when it came to Planning, it still has an expired PUD and it had not been rezoned. He asked how the new owner would get the parcel to an R-1 District. Mr. Langworthy explained that if the original PUD was still in place, a development text applied and it would have to be developed in accordance with that text. He said there may be some amendments that could be made to the text that would reduce the number of lots, for example. Ms. Kramb asked if a new developer could ask to rezone the site. Mr. Langworthy said that actually was what the Church had originally done. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if it would be a more attractive item to a developer if it were out of the PLTD and just R-1 than if it would come in under the PUD and attempt to amend the text. Mr. Fishman said a developer would not have to amend the existing text. He said the developer could come in and apply for a new PUD which gave the Commission much better control than an R-1. Mr. Walter said if it was zoned R-1, the parcel could be sold with the expired PUD and no conditions, which would consequently complicate the sale of it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they could rezone it with relative ease if they had an attractive project. Ms. Husak said the Community Plan calls for Private Institutional on this site. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought the Commission was trying to drive to the heart of what is the Church's plan for this piece of property; are they looking to develop it and perhaps put a gymnasium there, looking to sell it to someone who is going to build nine units; or what their intention is and why they came. She said the Church probably could have just gotten a fee waiver. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not hear that there is a lot of support from the Commission for this rezoning without real compelling evidence. She said she thought there was hesitation among the Commissioners to do something without really knowing why they are headed down the road to do that. Ms. Adkins said she could not speak to what the Church is planning to do, but she did know that they have not finalized their plans and that they are still in the fundraising phase which will determine the extent to what they can do. She said she met with them last year to talk about what the process would be and as far as she understood then they are looking at ball fields and play area for the expansion they just completed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that someone might come in with a significant contribution and maybe the Church would build some sort of structure. Ms. Adkins said that the Church had just completed a significant addition. Mr. Fishman pointed out that if the current zoning remains and the Church decides to do anything, they would simply come to the Commission for review and approval, and if it meets the Dublin standards as far as its pretty and is aesthetically viable, then it is changed. However, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~ D~ `~7 nd April 16, 2009 -Meeting Minutes lJ ll ~! ~ ~ Page 21 of 24 he said if the parcel went back to R-1, that protection is lost. He said in other words, they could build a metal gymnasium building there because it was straight zoning. Ms. Adkins agreed and said that the Commission had the rezoning question in front of them and that they needed to use the criteria to approve a rezoning. Ms. Husak explained that this is a rezoning request to a standard zoning district, and the criteria is whether it meets the Community Plan, because they are not asking for a planned district, just a standard district. Mr. Freimann said, specifically addressing the example that Ms. Adkins just made, he thought the land would look wonderful as activity grounds and things like that, but certainly, after the Commission's recent experience with Dublin Jerome High School, there are some great homes that border there, and they could come forward, he thought everyone would be excited about more green space or the continual use as green space with the appropriate amount of screening and that sort of thing. He said he did not imagine that the Church is going to have much problem getting whatever it is that they want; he thought he spoke for the Commission saying that they would just like to see what it is that they want to do out there and the Commission is willing to work with them. He said to the point that cost is an issue; the Commission would certainly recommend to City Council that they approve any fee waiver requests. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the applicant would like to table this case or would like the Commission to vote on this request. Ms. Adkins said she would like the Commission to vote on the rezoning tonight. Ms. Kramb said if the only criteria is to tie it to the Community Plan, the Community Plan is extremely broad because it takes into view the entire community, not just the math that says it is classified as this. She said when they bring in the whole entire Community Plan, it's our vision, beliefs, and what they want things to look like. She said they could tie anything into the Community Plan, so she did not think they had a problem. Motion and Vote Mr. Walter made a motion to recommend disapproval of this Rezoning to City Council because the proposed R-1 zoning does not comply with the "Private Institutional" Future Land Use designation in the Community Plan. Mr. Taylor seconded the motion. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that a `Yes' vote on the motion meant that the Commissioner was recommending disapproval of this application. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, no; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kramb, no; Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Motion for Disapproval 5 - 2.) Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that a `Yes' vote meant that "it would not get rezoned." CITY OF DUBLIN. land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax:614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 2009 Indian Run United Methodist Church 09-0222 6325 Brand Road Standard District Rezoning Proposal: A proposal to rezone 5.25 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to permit residential, religious, parks, and educational uses. The site is located on the south side of Brand Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Avery Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval of a standard district rezoning under the provisions of Code Section 153.234. Applicant: City of Dublin, Terry Foegler, City Manager; represented by Steve Langworthy, Director. Planning Contact: Jamie Adkins, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410-4644, jadkins@dublin.oh.us Case Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a change in zoning from PUD, Planned Unit Development District, to R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District fora 5.25-acre parcel. The site contains asingle-family house and detached garage and a pond. Planning recommends approval of this rezoning. Case Background In 2003, the City rezoned the property to establish Dublin zoning of R-1 as part of the city-wide area rezoning process. Shortly after, in 2004, City Council approved a rezoning to PUD to permit nine single-family lots, open space and associated site improvements. The final development plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4, 2004. In 2005, the neighboring Indian Run United Methodist Church purchased the property. While working with church representatives on planned expansion and other improvements, Planning determined that the previously approved PUD had expired. Per Section 153.053 (D) (4) of the Zoning Code provides that if construction is not begun within three years after approval of the final development plan the PUD may be considered expired. Once the approval has expired City Council may initiate a rezoning to change the zoning back to the district in place prior to the enactment of the PUD. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 16. 2009 -Planning Report Case No. 09-0222 -Page 2 of 3 The church decided to move forward with its own rezoning request and at the March 16, 2009 City Council meeting requested a waiver to the required application fee. As part of the City Council memo for the fee waiver request information was included about the expiration of the PUD. City Council voted to direct Planning to initiate a rezoning of the property to the previous R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Site Description: Location The 5.25-acre site is located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 1,000 feet west of Avery Road. The property is 400 feet wide and varies in depth from 675 feet to 525 feet from west to east. The site has frontage on Brand Road and contains asingle-family house, a detached garage, a pond, and the North Fork of the Indian Run runs along the southern property line. Surrounding Zoning and Uses The property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as is the Shannon Glen subdivision to the north, across Brand Road. The Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision to the west is zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. The Indian Run United Methodist Church is zoned R-1 as is the City parkland to the south of the site. Proposed Rezoning: The R-1 District permits a variety of low intensity uses included single-family residential, religious institutions, parks, and schools. SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS: Standard District Rezoning The objective of this process is to rezone the existing site to a zoning classification that is consistent with the future land use recommendations in the Community Plan. Planning has determined that the proposed rezoning is appropriate for the land uses expected for this portion of the city. Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Community Plan Future Land Use: The adopted Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan depicts the site as "Private Institutional. "This land use classification includes a mixture of private for profit and non profit uses and organizations providing care, religious activities/centers, private educational facilities/schools and cemeteries, utilities or other similar uses. Future Land Use met: Planning considers the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the Future Land Use designation of "Private Institutional" and the low intensity character of the general area. SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval City Council directed the change in zoning based on the expiration of the PUD and to ensure that future use of the land is compatible with the adjacent context. Planning is recommending approval of the request based on Council direction and compliance with the Community Plan. After the Planning and Zoning commission makes its recommendation, the rezoning will be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. With a positive recommendation Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 16.2009 -Planning Report Case No. 09-0222 -Page 3 of 3 from the Commission, a simple majority vote is required for passage. A negative Commission recommendation requires five votes for City Council passage. If the ordinance is approved, it will take effect in 30 days. N 09-0222 City of Dublin Standard District Rezoning Land Use and Indian Run Methodist Church o 125 250 500 ~in•neo~.~iun. Long Range Planning 6325 Brand Road Feet Future Land Use Classification - Private Institutional Private institutions include land and facilities occupied by private uses and organizations such as hospitals, profit or non-profit facilities providing continuous patient care, religious centers/activities, private schools, private cemeteries, utilities, private educational facilities and other similar uses, with intensity to be determined based on use and location. 090222 Standard District Rezoning Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION f NOVEMBER 4, 2004 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Division oI Planning SB00 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phoae: 614-410.4600 Fax: 614-410-4741 Web Sile: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Final Development Plan 04-t32FDP -Freshwater Farm - 6325 Brand Road Location: 5.092 acres on the south side of Brand Road, 500 feet east of Townsend Road. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Request: Final development plan review under the provisions of Section 153.053(E). Proposed Use: Single-family subdivision including nine lots and one acre of open space. Applicant: Kathryn and John Humbert, 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016; represented by Michael Close, Wiles, Boyle, Bringardner Co, LPA, 300 Spruce Street, First Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215: Staff Contact: Mark Zuppo, Jr., Planner. Contact Information: Phone: (614) 410-4654 or E-mail: mzuppo~dublin.oh-us- MOTION: To approve this Final Develoment Plan because it provides the opportunity for a high-quality residential development, consistent with the Community Plan, conforms to the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and Bikeway Plan, and will be compatible with adjacent residential development, with 10 conditions: I) That the three-strand wire fence be removed, prior to site construction, subject to staff approval. 2) That all bike paths be installed with the infrastructure improvements and that Lots 6 and 7 be developed with the maximum sideyard setback adjacent to the bike path easement; 3) That the proposed front building setbacks be varied to meet the requirements of the text; 4) That the sanitary sewer drawings be revised to include existing trees; 5) That all improvements, including stormwater management facilities, street pavement restriping, including left turn lane, if constructed, and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 090222 Standard District Rezoning Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION RECORD OF ACTION NOVEMBER 4, 2004 4. Final Development Plan 04-132FDP -Freshwater Farm - 6325 Brand Road (Continued) 6) That an architectural diversity matrix be submitted and applied where appropriate; 7) That the No-Build-Zone along Lot 4 be revised and extended at an angle consistent with the other lots within the development; 8) That the final plat be amended to include Note F on Lot 7; 9) That the development plans be revised, based on comments within the report, prior to approval of building permits; and 10) That all revisions be made to the final plat prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council. * Mike Close, Wiles, Boyle, Bringardner Co., LPA, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 3-2-1. RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved. 090222 Standard District Rezoning Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road STAFF CERTIFICATION Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 4, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Ghidotti stated that re urateurs would not t to be located in t ~s location. Mr. Gerber summe ug the discussion a reiterated the nee or the applicant to dress the traffic concerns. a thanked the appli nt for his time. 2. R Wing 04-0212 - G way Professional ter - 6750 and 670 iterroan Road Th` case was postponed riot to the meeting. otification was mai d to the adjacent pr+ ers. The case is a ected to be heard at a November 18 mee ~ g. 3. Condit' al Use 04-14bCU - uckeye Check Cas g - 7001 and 7003 ost Road Mr. Ger r said that staff had ' dicated the applica for this case had a ed to the conditions as li din the staff repo There was no on n the Commission r in the audience i Gated there were iss s or questions to be ressed on this case. Mr. Gerber swot n those who intend to testify in regard this case. Brian Se` ,architect, representing t applicant, agreed to a five conditions as ' ted below. Mr. G er moved for appr al of this Conditio 1 Use application cause the proposed can 'tonal use is consiste with the intended p ose of the buildin ~xisting on this site, d i .ill further the City's conomic Developm _ t strategies, with fiv onditions: 1) That document 'on of parcel combiJ~ Lion of the two par s within Franklin unty be provided prio o issuance of occupa~ricy permits. 2) That the A parking signs be ought into complian with current Coder uirements; 3) That landscape non-co Lances and site ma` enance issues be r olved by May 31, 20 ,subject to staff appr al; 4) at the applicant sub rt a set of "as built" rawings depicting t existing landscapin nd site layout, prior to ~ suance of occupanc ermits; and 5) That any futur tgnage must meet de and the applicaa must obtain the nec nary sign permits. Mr. Same tz seconded the m,~ Con and the vote wa as follows: Ms. Re` s, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; .Zimmerman, yes- r. Sprague, yes; r. Saneholtz, yes d Mr. Gerber, yes. (A roved 6-0.) 4. Final Development Plan 04-132FDP -Freshwater Farm - 6325 Brand Road Mr. Gerber said that staff had indicated the applicants for this case had agreed to the conditions with minor amendments. There was no one on the Commission or in the audience who indicated there were issues or questions to be addressed on this case. Michael Close, attorney, representing the applicants, was sworn in. Mark Zuppo said the following changes to Conditions 5 and 6 had been made since the staff report was distributed: 090222 Standard District Rezoning Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 4, 2004 Page 7 5) That all improvements, including storm water management facilities street pavement restriping, including left turn lane, if constructed, and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 6) That an architectural diversity matrix be submitted and applied where appropriate; Michael Close, representing the applicants, agreed to the amended conditions: 1) That the three-strand wire fence be removed, prior to site construction, subject to staff approval. 2) That all bike paths be installed with the infrastructure improvements and that Lots 6 and 7 be developed with the maximum side yard setback adjacent to the bike path easement; 3) That the proposed front building setbacks be varied to meet the requirements of the text; 4) That the sanitary sewer drawings be revised to include existing trees; 5) That all improvements, including storm water management facilities street pavement restriping, including left turn lane, if constructed, and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 6) That an architectural diversity matrix be submitted and applied where appropriate; 7) That the No-Build-Zone along Lot 4 be revised and extended at an angle consistent with the other lots within the development; 8) That the final plat be amended to include "See Note F" on Lot 7; 9) That the development plans be revised based on comments within the report, prior to approval of building permits; and ' 10) That all revisions be made to the final plat prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council. Mr. Gerber abstained from the vote [as he worked for the same firm as Michael Close, attorney for the applicants] and asked if there was a motion. Mr. Zimmerman made a motion to approve this Final Development Plan with the above ten conditions because the proposed final development plan provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, consistent with the Community Plan; the proposal will conform to the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and Bikeway Plan, and, the proposal will be compatible with adjacent residential development. Mr. Sprague seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Reiss, no; and Mr. Gerber, abstain. (Approved 3-2-1.) 5. Administrative R uest - 04-d80 M - Amendm is to the Carri or Development District (CDD) Dann Bird expla~ ed that the Corri r District is loca ci in the southea portion of Dubli . It contains about 55 acres and is b nded by I-270, wmill Road, Riv side Drive, and t road fronting on artin Road. E entially, the pu ose of the ame ment to the C munity Develop nt District is to c rift' existing regu Lions pertaining .the design of st etures and 090222 Standard District Rezoning Indian Run Methodist Church 6325 Brand Road Minutes of FORM NO. 10148 _ Meeti.~ Page 4 -- 20 support the as Mr. Reiner noted that belind lot 25, there is an pen field area. Th retention basin i~ located behind lot 46~Why wasn't the reten ' n basin moved be 'nd lot 25? Mr. Hale respondedthat there is a ravine at affected the loc ion of the retenti n basin. Mr. Reiner as~~why lots 25, 26 and ?~~were not pushed ck into the unfopested area? Was it too 16se to the road? Mr. Hale ~sponded that they tri to maintain the 200 oot setback. WFth the planned refores~q, the lots will not be. isible from Riversid rive. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council June 21.2004 The Association whole e'artedly endorses this prQj'ect and asks that Co r(cil rezoning. Mr. McCash a ed if any of the open spa a is being dedicate the City as Ms. Wanner esponded that she believes that all of the open pace will be d~ parkland t the City. Mr. Reiner asked if the cente stand includes a retenttion or detention ba 'n. Mf!Hale responded that th~area is a retention b si . Mr. Keenan moved appr al of the rezoning the 17 conditi s of P&Z, the mcSdified /condition #14, condif s #18 and #19 outli din the staff re mmendation, a d with the additional conditio # 20 that Lot 52 be s fted to be adjace t to Lot 41. Mrs. Boring seC nded the motion. / Vote on the , otion: Mr. Reiner, ye , Mr. Keenan, ye ,Mrs. Boring, ye ,Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher es; Ms. Salay, yes; . Lecklider, yes; Mrs. McCash, yes. Mr. ale asked if Council w Id consider revi ing the Final PI for Post Preserve aT thi p nt on the agenda. / t was the consensus Council to modif the agenda to d o. rnlai r1a~ - rva~ 1GJGI VC JGI..U VII L Mr. Gunderm stated that this p at contains 67 lots n 61.3 acres and i zoned PLR. The Commissio ecommended a royal by a 5-0 vot on May 6, 2004, subject to ten condition . Mr. Le lider moved appr vat with the condi ~ ns of P&Z. Mrs oring seconded emotion. V eon the motion: rs. Boring, yes; .Keenan, yes; M .Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici- zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Le lider, yes; Mr. Cash, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES REZONING Ordinance 144-03 Rezoning Approximately 5.092 Acres Located on the South Side of Brand Road, Opposite Lombard Way, from: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. [Case No. 03-1502 -Preliminary Development Plan -Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road.] RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council _ DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC., FORM NO. 10148 _ _.__.. June 21, 2004 Held M_eetng_ Page 5 20 Ms. Wanner stated that this site is located in the general northwest area of Dublin, along Brand Road. The site lies between Wyndham Village on the west and Indian Run Methodist Church to the east. Shannon Glen lies to the north, and Avery Park to the south. There is an existing farmstead on the site with a number of outbuildings. Surrounding zonings are R-1 for the church and Avery Park, PLR for Wyndham Village, and PUD for the Shannon Glen subdivision. The site plan includes nine lots around a modified cul de sac. Open space is along the south side of the development, as well as a pond. There is a setback along Brand Road with landscaping and a bikepath. The application was forwarded by Planning & Zoning Commission with a positive recommendation. Staff acknowledges that the applicant had not been directed to dedicate parkland to the City prior to this point. However, given the fact that dedication of the open space is consistent with the goals of the Community Plan and that the connection of this open space will retain a streamside connection with Avery Park, staff is now recommending that the applicant dedicate the required parkland. In this case, the required dedication would be .6 acre. Staff is also recommending that a bikepath be included in the plan from the cul de sac to the existing bikepath to create interconnection to Avery Park and further on to the greenway along the Indian Run. Staff recommends approval with the two added conditions from the memo: Condition #6. That the development text be amended to require the dedication of proposed open space to the City, and that all dedicated open space areas be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association; and Condition #7. That the developer be responsible for the installation of a bikepath through the southern open space connecting to the existing municipal bikepath system. Mr. Lecklider noted that there was extensive discussion at the last hearing about building setbacks for the church along Brand Road, and the developments to the west and the north. Has staff had an opportunity to compare these? Ms. Wanner responded that the first house in Wyndham Village is set back approximately 150 feet from the right of way. It does not have a full 200-foot setback. The pavement setbacks for the church are much smaller. The setbacks for house pads in an adjacent development run between 100 and 120 feet. Mr. Lecklider asked about the building setback for the church. Ms. Wanner responded that she is not certain of this exact figure. Some houses on the other side of the road are setback between 150 and 200 feet. Discussion followed about setback from pavement versus setback from right of way for adjacent areas. Mr. Reiner asked if Brand Road has a 200-foot setback in all locations except for this proposal? Ms. Wanner responded that, in general, Brand Road does have a 200-foot setback. Mr. Reiner noted that this is the only project that would violate that - in fact, some portions along Brand Road have an even larger setback. Was there any way to address these issues with the applicant, subsequent to the last hearing? Ms. Wanner stated that the amount of open space and the small number of lots might have impacted the feeling about the setback issue. Mr. Reiner stated that Brand Road has a cadence and this would break it up. This would be his only objection to the project. Michael Close, 7360 Bellaire Avenue, Dublin, representing the applicant noted that one of the difficulties with setbacks is where they are measured from -from right-of-way or from pavement. There his not a specific and consistent policy for this in Dublin. He noted that the existing house on the property is 55 feet from the pavement and the existing barn is 80 feet and will be in the right-of-way if not moved. Under the existing R-1 zoning, an additional four houses would be permitted on the site. For the subdivision to the west, the house is 200 feet from the centerline, but there is pavement, curb and fence in that space. On the east side of the property, the church property, there is a fence and parking lot within 55 feet of the roadway. Houses on the north side of the street are setback 160 feet, including pavement. There is nothing in the area with an unbroken vista of open space. The project was approved by Planning Commission on February 5. A week prior to the Council hearing on June 7, the applicant received a request for the parkland dedication as described by Ms. Wanner. The applicant does not want to dedicate the parkland in the area specified by staff. The applicant also does not want to connect the bikepath as shown on the plan by staff. They believe it is appropriate to make the connection, but they would like more flexibility in the exact location of the connection, not that it be specifically RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin. City Council __ OAYTON~LEOAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148 Held June 21, 2004 Meeting Page 6 ~ 20 conditioned upon being located next to the two southernmost lots. In addition, he cannot recall another instance where land was donated as parkland, located contiguous to City parkland, with the developer or homeowners then required to maintain it. This was a surprise to him at this late date. In the past, the City maintained land donated to the City. He recommends that the City maintain the land. At the concept plan stage, the setback was discussed. The reality is that the economics of the site are that its size does not provide the economy of scale as that of a larger development. Houses have been removed from the proposal; the floodway/floodplain at the rear constricts the plan; and they are restricted by the need to have the maximum setback at the front of the plan. It is not possible to do anything further with the setback. Because of the interior lot setbacks, the setback will be 135 feet at its closest. Given the surrounding areas, which include fences and roads in front, the setback is adequate in this case. The neighbors to the west want quality homes on this site, and these homes will be more expensive than those to the north and to the west. All of this needs to be considered in Council's decision. Mr. McCash asked how much of the back portion is floodway versus floodplain. Mr. Close responded that this information was assembled quickly in response to the request for parkland. There are portions where the floodway and floodplain are virtually identical. Ms. Wanner stated that the back half is consumed by floodway and floodplain. Mr. McCash noted concern that the City will ask them to maintain the open space in a floodway, knowing the concerns in other areas of the City with flooding and the burden for small homeowners associations to address them. Mr. Hahn stated that, given the fact that the City maintains the adjacent land, it would not be much of a burden for the City to maintain the dedicated parkland, as it is proposed to be natural. Mr. McCash suggested that because this came up as a parkland dedication issue and most of this is undevelopable floodway/floodplain, would it make more sense to allow them to pay the fee and use this as a conservation easement for the City? This would protect the floodway/floodplain and provide access, yet allow development of parkland in another location. Mr. Hahn responded that the intent of the dedication would not be for development purposes. Avery Park is located on both sides of the stream, and the rationale for this dedication is that the City would want the stream area as well. Whether it is held under a conservation easement or deeded to the City is not an issue. The desire is to protect both sides of the stream corridor and to have the land set aside for public use, not for a neighborhood park development. Mr. Lecklider noted in regard to the bikepath connection, that if the path is not installed in the location proposed by staff, the connection might be difficult. Mr. Close responded that they are merely asking for some latitude to shift the connection by a lot if necessary. There has not been adequate time to do the study. Mr. Hahn stated that the important point is to secure a connection from the modified cul de sac to the existing bikepath, and this will meet the intent. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that the applicant believed he had the option of paying a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. How is this amount determined, and where are the funds deposited? Ms. Wanner responded that the land value per acre is established by ordinance and regularly updated. The fee is currently $39,500 per acre and is calculated based upon the requirement of land for dedication. The funds are then deposited into a parkland acquisition fund. Mr. Lecklider commented that he remains concerned about not achieving a large setback with this development. He is seeking a compelling reason why this development should be permitted to encroach within that desired scenic setback along Brand Road. Another concern is with the future of Brand Road and the potential need for widening, especially for the portion from Hyland Croy to Avery as a result of the development, including the high school. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider, although he acknowledged that the applicant made great efforts to improve the plan. There has been a 20-year battle to retain Brand Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS __ ___ _ ___Minutes of,_ Dublin City Council _ _ Meeting. June 21, 2004 Page 7 as a scenic roadway, and he can't see the justification to break that tradition and reduce the setback. There is a big difference between a house in the setback and a fence. The fence still provides a sense of openness and spaciousness. Mrs. Boring commented that she agrees with Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner in that this has been an ongoing battle. While the existing house might sit close to the roadway, the desire is for improvement in conjunction with development. She agrees that the setbacks in this area are very important. Mr. McCash stated that not having a road within the 200-foot setback benefits any development. The new access road installed along SR 161 is not attractive, and he would prefer having open space. In the case of the Humbert property, the site has a constraint on the backside that cannot be changed, and there is a need to balance the economics of development. This applicant has done a good job with a difficult piece of property to develop. Mr. McCash asked Council if they want to include condition #6 regarding maintenance of open space, given the input from staff. Ms. Wanner stated that the City would accept either the open space or the conservation easement. Mr. McCash asked the applicant's representative to respond. Mr. Close stated that he has not discussed a conservation easement with his client. It is likely insignificant, if it results in credit toward the parkland dedication requirement. Mr. McCash clarified that what he is proposing is that the applicant pay the fee as well as provide the conservation easement to protect the floodway from development. Mr. Close stated that he could not commit to a conservation easement without consulting with his client. He does have the authority to commit to the parkland donation. Mr. Hahn clarified that the desire is for the protection of the stream corridor and to provide public access. That can be effected with a conservation easement. Mr. Smith clarified that what is being requested of the applicant is a conservation easement, which is a no-build with access, as well as a parkland dedication fee. Mr. Close responded that he would agree to the parkland donation that will provide the desired public access. Mr. McCash stated that he was trying to balance the setback issue by providing another compelling reason to approve this. He moved approval of the rezoning with the dedication of the parkland as recommended by staff, with the open space areas being maintained by the City and not a homeowners association, and with condition #7 -that the bikepath be installed through the southern portion, subject to working out a location at the final plat stage. Mr. Keenan seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no. (Motion carried 4-3) Vote on the r~tion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. ~.4 enan, yes; Mr. Rei ,yes; Ms. Salay, ye Mayor C ~ nici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Lec t' er, yes; Mr. McCas ,yes. Vote the Ordinance: Mr. Keena es; Mr. Reiner, yes;, r. Lecklider, yes;j cCash, ye ,Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, ; Ms. Salay, yes; M~Boring, yes. TAX BUDGET Ordinanc 6-04 Adopt' the Proposed Tax Bu et for Fiscal Year 2005, and- eclaring an Eme gency. ~. Brautigam reported th state law requires that this b n place by July 20, < therefore so emergenc action is being requested. Mr. Reiner moved f emergency passage. Ms. Salay seco ed the motion. n RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ _~inute~f_ Dublin City Council _ ____ __ October 20, 2003 this rezoning ha not taken place yet, s there is no need idation from P to approve the ordin ces as submitted. V1~I~eting_ Page 2 t~~(e noted that Ordinary~e 66-03 or the Buckn property is located i he middle of the Muirfield area. It is ~ old farmstead and is roposed to change t he R-1 classification. In the township zo ng class, it was listed s an FR1. Because t e City did not have a comparable zoni ,staff selected an R- zoning as the long-e 'sting zoning maps ha indicated such. Ithough staff reviewe all of these in public eetings, Mr. Buckner he property owne did not have a full un erstanding of the cha e. Mr. Buckner and s son met with sta today and have indic ed their preference fo an R-Rural classifica ' n. There are any similarities betty n the R-Rural and R- classifications. Both equire 40,000 s are feet for a single f mily home. Using the ural classification on is property would li it them in terms of th number of lots they c Id create, should the want to use the zo~ng classification in pl ce. Mr. Buckner indic ted a desire to retain e ability to kee some horses on the operty, and therefore refers the R-Rural ca gory. Staff does no see a problem with c nging this. Council c Id by motion amend rdinance 66-03 to c ange these two parr from the proposed 1 classification to the -Rural Mr. Reiner moved to mend Ordinance parcels under disc sion. Mrs. Boring seco ded the motion. Vote on the mo ~on: Ms. Chinnici-Zuer~ Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ma Mr. Gunder an noted that Planni. approval o the other four ordinan~ Mayor cCash noted that two pE Buck rand his son. The were present in the a ienc~ Co ncil's motion to amen . to provide an R-Rur~ zoning for the two yes; Mr. Reiner, s; Mr. Kranstuber. ish, yes; Mrs. Bo ng, yes. fission, by a vo of 7-0, recommender have and declined X/ote on the Ordinance s amended: Mr. L yes; Mrs. Boring, ye , Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. to testify on this ordirl~nce, Mr. speak, indicating their satisfaction with yes; Ms. Salay, y s; Mr. Kranstuber, ;i-Zuercher, yes; ~/layor McCash, yes. Ordinance 84-03 Establishing D lin Zoning for 26 P Gels Comprising an rea of Appro: 112 Acres, A Annexed from Was ngton Township in 1 6 and 1973, L~ Generally A ng the North and S th Sides of Post Ro ,Between Aver Drive and R 161/1-270, as R-1, estricted Suburban sidential District Limited I dustrial District. (C e No. 03-0732 -Post oad/Avery Road to Vote o the Ordinance: Mr. einer, yes; Mr. Kranst er, yes; Mrs. Boring, y s; Ms. Chin ~ci-Zuercher, yes; Ms. slay, yes; Mayor Mc sh, yes; Mr. Lecklider es. O dinance 85-03 stablishing Dublin Wing for 12 Parcels omprising an Area of Approximately 83 Acres, as Annexed om Washington Tow ship in 1965, 1973, 1 80 and 1988, Located General/ on the South Side of rand Road, East of ffman Road and West of Dublin ad, as R-1, Restricte Suburban Residenti District and R, RuraY District. (Case o. 03-0722 - Coffma oad to Dublin Road, etween Brand Road a d I-270) Vote on the rdinance: Mr. Lecklid ,yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; ayor McCash, yes;j Boring, yes Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher yes; Mr. Kranstuber, y~ s; Ms. Salay, yes. rice 86-03 shing Dublin Zoning or 13 Parcels Compri ing an Area of Appro imately 24 as Annexed from shington Township ~ 1973, Located Genedally on the Side of Brand Ro ,West of Coffman R d, as R-1, Restricted~Suburban ~ntial District. (C se No. 03-071 Z - Coff an Road/Brand Road) ~ the Ordinance: Mr. Kranstuber, yes; s. Boring, yes; Mayor cCash, yes; Ms. ;i-Zuercher, ye ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay~yes. Ordinance 87-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 18 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 150 Acres, as Annexed from Washington and Jerome Townships in 1973 and 1999, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS __.__ Minutes of ___ Dublin City Council __ _ Meeting____ 4YTON LEGAL BLANK. INC .FORM NO. 7C748 - _ _ _ October 20, 2003.. Page 3 - Held 20 --- Located Generally on the North Side of Post Road, South of Brand Road, Between Hyland-Croy and Muirfield Drive, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R, Rural District. (Case No. 03-0702 -Post Road to Brand Road, West of Muirfield Drive and East of Hyland-Croy Road) Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. IIV I I~VUUV I IVIY/rIR 1 RCFIUIIYV - RUIIY!'11Y AGREEMENT Ordinance 114-0 Authorizing they ity Manager to nter into an Municipal Prosecutor in the De aware County Mr. Lecklider i~itroduced the or 'Hance. Ms. Brautigal!n stated that this elates to an an Delaware unicipal Prosec or. The cost ha E based o the volume. Mayor cCash noted tha a second readi /publ Nove bet 3 Council m tinq. Ms. Salay intro ced the ordinan e. Mr. Hahn offer d to respond to uestions. Ms. Salay no ed that at the ti this was I concerned bout the locatio of the future residents end has their co ort level imprc Mr. Hah stated that a m ting with the re the par plan. They ma have concerns subs quent to the P& hearing. The re u app opriated for the kepath project, aff their various conce s. The design ginE project whi i project is AWARD OF B1D q'~dinance 115-03 ~-ccepting the L estlBest Bid f r the Westbury concerns about at future b plan reviewed y P&Z. The has appropri ed funding. Mr. Leckli er asked if this Mr. Hah responded that E satisfa orily. The e will be a seco readi pany has do have done ev /public eating NT! NAL USE a~gropriations ar available in a fu re year. ~ 'Ordinance 117-63 Amending Se tion 153.236 o the Dublin i for Authori ' g a Condition Use" (Case Ms. Salay i troduced the or finance and mop Ms. the per, r, yc the Project. performed rese ed to P&Z, the esidents seeme bik ath. Have me ings been held ith the w ? dents took plac prior to the P& hearing on ith the 2005 bi path project th arose ents were inf med that when nding is will work wi individual resid nts to address erinq fort project will not e done until the/ cement with icipal Court contract fors ices prov i reduced fr last year's hearing I be scheduled residents may ave ongoing separate from e park develop e ~ved adminis atively. after Co cil playground :ral such pr at the No4E for the City for the City 3 ;odi ied Ordinances entitled "Proce u N .03-32ADM). referral to Planni g & Zoning Lecklider, yes; ayor McCash yes; Ms. Boring, yes; .Reiner, yes. res, on the North est Corner PCD, Planned C mmerce Dis 19Z - Riversid Hospital, PC[ Mr. Rein r introduced the o dinance. Ms. Ch' nici-Zuercher mo/ ed referral to Ms. S lay seconded the (notion. Mr. ecklider asked th staff ensure that thi was previously c nsidered. Such no the Code. ~ , Sala ,yes; Ms. Chin 'ci-Zuerch Z N1NG rdinance 118- Rezoning App oximately 24.3 and Avery-M infield Drive, fro Commerce istrict (Case No Revision, ubarea A). & Zoning to: PCD, parties are noti 'ed who were went beyond e requiremer the ned when Pied in From: Jamie Adkins To: Council Packets Date: 5/13/2009 11:46:56 AM Subject: Fwd: Citizen Emails Received re. ORDINANCE 24-09 Rezoning - Indian Run United Methodist Church, 5325 Brand Road Comments: "I believe that this rezoning is a great opportunity for the City of Dublin to allow Indian Run UMC to expand its ministries to reach those in need in our community. With the close proximity of Dublin Jerome High School, our youth will have an opportunity for easy access to faith-based principles and personal growth." name: Howard Baulch email: hbaulch@columbus.rr.com CnmmPnts: "I would like to lend my support to IRUMC's hope to house a charity at this site. I think that, especially in times like these, we need to reach out to all members of the community through acts of giving and receiving. That is what makes Dublin such a wonderful place to live!" name: Briana Senland email: brianasenland@amail.com C"nmmPn t ~ c "Please support and approve the re-zoning of this space AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is absolutely imperative in this economy that the Welcome Warehouse, a non-profit that supports those in need in the Dublin community, get operating once more." name: Nicole Lietz email: n.lietz@vahoo.corn Comments: Would like any additional information as to the planned use of the property as well as considerations under review for maintaining traffic. Thank you. Merrill M. Brothers 6418 Ringsend Court name: Merrill M Brothers