HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 33-26RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO. Form 6220S
33-26 Ordinance No.——_—__. Passed. ,
AMENDMENTS TO ZONING CODE SECTION 153.002, 153.016,
AND 153.037-153.042 AND 153.236 FOR THE REMOVAL OF
DATA CENTERS AS PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES, THE
CREATION OF THE ID-6, RESEARCH TRANSITION DISTRICT
AND THE AMENDMENT OF DESIGN STANDARDS ASSOCIATED
WITH ID-6 IN THE WEST INNOVATION DISTRICT (WID),
AND THE CREATION OF THE WEST INNOVATION DISTRICT
SCREENING AND SETBACK DESIGN MANUAL (26-001ADMC)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin’s Zoning Code to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin, and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Zoning Code needs to be updated to provide clarity
and consistency regarding regulations to maintain the high-quality development
standards within the City, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended
adoption of the proposed amendment to Sections 153.002, 153.016, 153.037-
153.042 and 153.236 of the City of Dublin’s Zoning Code on May 7 and 21, 2026
because it serves to improve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City
of Dublin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Sections 153.002, 153.016, 153.037-153.042 and 153.236 of the
Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended and shall provide as
attached to this Ordinance:
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective on the earliest date permitted by law.
t
Passed this | day of J Le lu , 2026. cn ML a- Z~
Mayor - Presiding Officer
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan D. O’Callaghan, P.E., City Manager
Date: June 25, 2026
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Community Planning & Development
Jeremiah Gracia, CEcD, Director of Economic Development
Christopher Will, AICP, Senior Planner
Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner II
Re: Ord. 33-26 – Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153.002,
153.016, and 153.037-153.042 and 153.236 for the removal of data
centers as permitted or conditional uses, the creation of the ID-6,
Research Transition District and the amendment of design standards
associated with ID-6 in the West Innovation District (WID), and the
creation of the West Innovation District Screening and Setback
Design Manual. (26-001ADMC)
Summary
This is a request for proposed Zoning Code amendments to Sections 153.002, 153.016 and
153.037-153.042 for the removal of data centers as permitted or conditional uses, the creation
of the ID-6, Research Transition District and the amendment of design standards associated with
ID-6 in the West Innovation District (WID), and the creation of the West Innovation District
Screening and Setback Design Manual. The following updates and information address questions
and comments provided by City Council at the June 8 Council meeting.
Code/Design Manual Updates
Use Limitations
The ID-6 district intent has been updated to include measures about biosafety levels to address
comments made concerning specific uses within the transitional district. The intent statement
includes “Businesses designated at Biosafety level (BSL) -3 and BSL-4, as indicated by the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or uses of similar risk are not appropriate within the
District.”
Data Centers
Data Centers will remain in the uses table for the WID but will not be permitted within the entirety
of the district. This update was requested by City Council to make it clear that standalone data
centers shall in no case be considered in the district.
Opacity Implementation
Questions were raised about how 90 percent opacity was measured as part of the Setback and
Screening Design Manual. The design manual has been updated to clarify that 90 percent opacity
is the goal for the buffer, not the measured requirement. This opacity goal is achieved by meeting
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614.410.4400 • Fax: 614.410.4490 Memo
Ord. 33-26 – Data Center Removal / ID-6, Research Transition District / WID Screening and Setback
Design Manual
June 25, 2026
Page 2 of 4
the planting and mounding requirements as outlined in the design manual. Once implemented on
a site, the vegetation and mounding will mature to meet the opacity goal along our public streets.
Property owners are required to maintain the buffer to ensure the trees and other vegetation are
healthy and meet the requirements of the design manual.
Council Follow Up
Development Projects reviewed by ART
Since the creation of the West Innovation District, the Administrative Review Team (ART) have
reviewed development plan applications for new buildings or major additions within the WID,
which include:
• Nestle QAC Expansion (2013)
• Ohio University – College of Health Sciences and Professionals (2014)
• Command Alkon (2014)
• VA Data Centers (2015-2022; 5 buildings)
• Urban Air Jump Park (2018)
• 6777 Crosby Ct. – Flex Industrial building (2022)
The Planning and Zoning Commission was required to review and approve specific aspects of
several projects that did not meet the Code requirements of the WID, as outlined in the WID
review process. Examples of this process include the 6777 Crosby Ct. Project for parking
requirements, and Ohio University – College of Health Sciences and Professionals for parking
requirements and open space plantings. The review and approval of these specific items followed
ART’s approval of the Development Plan and was limited to the scope of these items.
Checklist Items for Development Plans
City Council raised questions about development plan application requirements when an applicant
is required to provide data to determine if the use will create any measurable increase of
hazardous emissions to neighboring properties [Section 153.042(D)(1)(b)]. Staff has outlined
below the types of information that could be required as part of their submission, including
acoustic data, emission rates, Phase 1 environmental site assessments, photometric plans, sewer
discharge volumes, solid waste generation projections, biosafety level ratings, emergency facility
response plans, or other similar information. Not every applicant would be required to provide
the same information, as it will be entirely dependent on the type of user entering a building or
property. These examples are provided for understanding of the types of information that could
be required and are not specifically cited in the Code.
Building Standards & Fire Review Processes
Through the development process, proposed projects are first reviewed through the zoning
process outlined in the WID Code, which includes input from both the Building Standards
Division and the Washington Township Fire Department. This initial review confirms that the
proposed use and plan are consistent with zoning requirements and identifies any high-level
building or fire considerations early in the process.
More detailed regulatory review occurs during the building permit stage, where construction
plans are evaluated for compliance with all applicable Codes and requirements, including the
Ord. 33-26 – Data Center Removal / ID-6, Research Transition District / WID Screening and Setback
Design Manual
June 25, 2026
Page 3 of 4
Ohio Building Code and Ohio Fire Code. As part of this coordinated review, Building and Fire
staff provide a unified set of comments to ensure that all aspects of the building, including
construction type, fire protection systems, and life safety measures, meet applicable standards.
These codes also establish specific requirements for how materials are handled and stored,
including allowable quantities, hazard classifications, separation distances, and safety controls,
which are tailored to the type of use and level of risk.
Following construction and occupancy, ongoing compliance is maintained through the
Washington Township Fire Department. In accordance with the Ohio Fire Code, the Fire
Department conducts annual inspections of commercial properties and administers required
operating permits to verify that buildings continue to meet fire code requirements and that
material storage and operational practices remain in compliance over time.
Clean Production Principles
City Council asked about the use of the term clean production in the ID-6 district intent language.
This term was intentionally included to describe the desired performance and operational
characteristics of uses in the district, emphasizing efficiency, waste reduction, pollution
minimization, and careful management of hazardous materials, reinforcing the City’s goal of
supporting high quality, low impact employment uses. Clean production is not intended to
function as a regulated use. Instead, it provides guiding principles that distinguish the district’s
vision and the type of industries the City aims to attract. Because zoning definitions are tied to
enforceable uses, a formal definition was not established, as the term is intended to be descriptive
rather than regulatory.
Next Steps & Process
The following outlines the next steps in the process.
1) January 22, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission - Status Update / Discussion (no
decision)
2) May 7, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission – Code Amendments Introduction
3) May 21, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission – Code Amendments Second Review /
Recommendation to City Council
4) June 8, 2026 – City Council – Code Amendments First Reading
5) July 1, 2026 – City Council – Code Amendments & Rezoning Second Reading /
Determination
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
On May 21, 2026, PZC reviewed and recommended approval of the code amendments and design
manual with two conditions, which have been incorporated into the draft amendments.
1. Amend the “Intent” section as follows: (6) Research Transition (ID-6) District. The ID-6
District is intended to support economic development, fostering innovation and the
advancement of cutting-edge research, technology, and employment opportunities, while
providing a sensitive transition from established single-family residential neighborhoods.
Uses within the ID-6 District are expected to incorporate clean production principles that
minimize waste, hazardous inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharge; and
that minimize the use, storage, production, disposal, or emission of biohazard materials.
Land uses are expected to be of lower intensity and scale, and should not result in adverse
Ord. 33-26 – Data Center Removal / ID-6, Research Transition District / WID Screening and Setback
Design Manual
June 25, 2026
Page 4 of 4
impacts to surrounding properties, including but not limited to environmental emissions,
noise, traffic, lighting, other off-site effects, and other environmental impacts, including
but not limited to impacts occurring in containment or disposal of any minimized waste,
hazardous inputs, or hazardous and/or biohazard byproducts.
2. Amend the “Development Plan Applications” section as follows: Development Plan
Applications (b) Development plan applications within the ID-6 District shall include: (1)
sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed use meets the intent of the ID-6
District set forth in § 153.037(H)(6); and (2) data, using currently acceptable method(s)
of testing, that the use does not create any measurable increase of hazardous emissions
to neighboring properties.
Additional minor code improvements are not reflected in the conditions above but are
incorporated throughout the memo and in the draft code, where applicable.
Recommendation
Approval of Ordinance 33-26 at the July 1 City Council meeting.
WEST INNOVATION
DISTRICT (WID)
SETBACK & SCREENING DESIGN MANUAL
ID-6
DRAFT - June 18, 2026
WIDWID
Shier Rings Road
33
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
dCosgray RoadHouchard RoadPost Road
161
ID-6ID-6
ID-2ID-2
ID-3ID-3
ID-2ID-2 ID-1ID-1
ID-1ID-1
ID-1ID-1
PUDPUD
ID-5ID-5
ID-4ID-4 ID-2ID-2
NN
Intent of This Document
The West Innovation District (WID) Setback
and Screening Design Manual for ID-6 is
an extension of Chapter 153.040 - Site
Development Requirements of the City of
Dublin, Ohio Code of Ordinances. The
Design Manuel supplements the baseline
zoning requirements of the Code, providing
guidance for setbacks, landscape design,
implementation and strategies to address
unique conditions needed to achieve the
desired aesthetic and development pattern
for ID-6 as viewed from public rights-of-way.
Future updates to the Design Manuel may
address setbacks and screening for other
WID zoning districts. Specific standards
in this document may differ from Chapter
153.040, but this document establishes the
preferred standards for achieving the desired
aesthetic and development pattern for ID-6.
All references to setbacks within this manual
include building and pavement, and are
measured from future ROW conditions.
Executive Summary
Maintaining Rural Character
The current ID-6 landscape character is primarily
agricultural and rural, the approach to planting
and design within development (building and
pavement) setbacks should aim to maintain
this character, as recommended in the Envision
Dublin Community Plan.
Aiming to preserve this historic character in an
evolving district, landscape requirements in these
standards include overlapping and undulating
earthen mounds, meadow expanses, tree row
preservation, and native layered plantings and
tree massings.
The Key objectives for the WID and ID-6 through
this screening approach are:
• Screen the view of future ID-6 buildings,
service areas, and parking from future public
ROW (streets, sidewalks, trails) and existing
residences,
• Apply sustainability practices to the district,
• Protect economic viability/development
potential of properties, and
• Establish clarity and predictability in
expectations for screening/buffering,
• Establish a greenway edge network through
the WID.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Document Intent .......
WID Zoning Map .............................................
Section 01: ID-6 Existing Site Features
Existing Site Overview ......................................
Existing Site Features ........................................
Section 02: ID-6 Implementation
Approach
Overall Framework Plan ...................................
Design Intent & Approach ................................
Cosgray Road ...................................................
Shier Rings Road ...............................................
Local Streets .......................................................
Section 03: ID-6 General Design
Guidelines
Setback Components ........................................
Mound Grading ................................................
Mound Planting .................................................
Property Boundary ............................................
Tree Row Preservation .......................................
Stormwater .........................................................
Shared-Use Paths ...............................................
Section 04: ID-6 Special Conditions
Roundabout ........................................................
Existing Farmsteads ............................................
Cosgray Entry Drives .........................................
Utility Easements ................................................
Section 05: ID-6 Landscape Planting
Planting Guidelines ...........................................
Landscape Maintenance ..................................
i.
ii.
03
05
09
11
13
17
19
23
25
27
29
30
31
32
35
37
39
41
45
50
Figure 01 ID-1: Research Office DistrictID-1: Research Office District
ID-2: Research Flex DistrictID-2: Research Flex District
ID-3: Research Assembly DistrictID-3: Research Assembly District
ID-4: Research Mixed Use DistrictID-4: Research Mixed Use District
ID-5: Research Recreation DistrictID-5: Research Recreation District
ID-6: Research Transition DistrictID-6: Research Transition District
PUD: Planned Unit Development DistrictPUD: Planned Unit Development District
iiiDRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Existing Site Features
ID-6
Section 01
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SHIER RINGS RO
A
D
SHIER RINGS RO
A
D
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROADCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
±144-ACRES±144-ACRES
ID-6ID-6
ID-6ID-6
RA
I
L
L
IN
E
RA
I
L
L
IN
E
WEST PROPERTY WEST PROPERTY
BOUNDARYBOUNDARY
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADNN
NN
NN
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
Existing Site Overview
ID-6 is bordered to the north by Darree Fields
and a future Shier Rings Road extension; to the
east by Cosgray Road; and to the south and west
by an existing rail line. ID-6 is made up of five
properties totaling approximately 144-acres.
The presence of existing residential uses
directly east of Cosgray Road represents the
most sensitive edge condition within ID-6. The
screening and buffering standards established in
this document are specifically designed to ensure
a compatible transition between those existing
neighborhoods and future development west of
Cosgray Road.
Figure 02 depicts the existing site boundaries of
ID-6.
Figure 02
43
ID-6 Site Boundary
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
NN
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
Existing Farmstead at Cosgray
Road & Barronsmore Way
Existing Jewett Farmstead on
Cosgray Road
JEWETT JEWETT
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
GEASE GEASE
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
OVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
Existing tree line on
Cosgray Road
Existing Site Features
The approaches to planting and design of
setbacks within ID-6 are intended to maintain
the historic rural and agricultural character of the
area, as recommended in the Envision Dublin
Community Plan. In addition to the natural
and cultural features to be preserved, there
are existing site infrastructure conditions that
future development will need to acknowledge
and accommodate. Key approaches for
implementation include:
• Preservation of existing mature tree rows and
stands of trees. Windbreaks or shelter belts
have historically been implemented in rural or
agricultural contexts for property delineation
or soil conservation.
• Planting native grasslands/prairie and open
canopy plantings along roadway corridors.
• Preservation of periodic small structures/uses
close to the road (houses, barns, gas stations,
churches, graveyards, etc).
• Preservation of periodic vistas with long views
into space (farm field, pasture, horse farm,
prairie).
Features to Preserve
There are two primary site features to be
preserved within the ID-6 boundary (Figure 03):
existing farmsteads and existing mature tree rows
throughout the property.
The Jewett Farmstead is located just south of the
Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road intersection.
This property has been acquired by the City of
Dublin to ensure proper preservation of the site.
There is an additional farmstead located at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Barronsmore
Way that consists of an existing farmhouse and
barn (Gease Farmstead). Screening requirements
around the north, south, and west edges of these
farmsteads are detailed in Section 04 Special
Conditions.
Additionally, there are existing, mature tree rows
along the existing east/west property lines within
ID-6. Preservation and screening requirements for
existing tree rows is detailed further in Section 03
General Design Guidelines.
Overhead Transmission Line
An overhead electrical transmission line runs
along the western edge of ID-6, crossing
the future Shier Rings Road extension. Future
development within ID-6 must account for this
corridor when designing required mounds and
landscape plantings. This condition is detailed
further in Section 04 Special Conditions.
Figure 03
65
Mature Tree Row
Jewett Farmstead
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Implementation Approach
ID-6
Section 02
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADNN
ID-6ID-6
AApproximately 110-120 pproximately 110-120
Developable AcresDevelopable AcresOverlapping & Undulating Mounds
Source: Adobe Campus Landscape, Lehi UT. WRT Design.
Dense, Layered Planting
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
100’ Setback (Future Shier Rings Road)100’ Setback (Future Shier Rings Road)200’ Setback200’ SetbackOVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
Overall Framework Plan
The primary approach to preserving the rural
character of the defined WID boundary through
the setback and screening requirements in this
document is the establishment of a greenway
edge network. This greenway corridor will
be established through the required setbacks
within each development site, and align with the
landscape design manual.
Figure 04 illustrates the extent of the described
greenway edge network around ID-6.
Figure 04
109
Required Setback
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Dublin Rural Character
more screened less screened
sculptural moundssculptural mounds
evergreenevergreen
deciduousdeciduous
no-mowno-mow
summersummerwinterwinterno-mowno-mow
mownmown summersummergrassesgrasses
shrubsshrubs
mownmown summersummersummersummerwinterwinterwinterwinterdense layered plantingdense layered planting
Primary Screening (Cosgray & Shier Rings Road)
(Service Areas, Buildings, Parking)
Limited Condition Screening
(Service Areas, Parking)
Gateway Opportunities
(Entry Experience, Roundabouts, Transition Zones)
unique Dublin characterunique Dublin character
Source: Adobe Campus
Landscape, Lehi UT. WRT Design.
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
Source: Auckland International Airport,
New Zealand. Surface Design.
stone stone
wallwall
PRIMARY STREETS LOCAL STREETS ROUNDABOUT
except for special conditions described in Section
04, or in instances with setback constraints.
Primary Streets is the required condition of
Cosgray Road and Shier Rings Road along the
edges of ID-6.
The Local Streets condition is for public streets
internal to ID-6 and instances approved for
limited screening, such as limited setback
requirements or other special conditions.
The Roundabout condition is reserved specifically
for the identified gateway opportunity at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Shier Rings
Road.
Design Intent & Approach
Three primary approaches will be utilized to
implement the desired landscape condition of the
ID-6. These approaches vary based on the site
location, roadway typology, and/or immediate
site adjacencies. This design manual describes
the overall desired landscape condition of ID-6
and required design approaches.
As illustrated in Figure 05, Requirements for ID-6
are described by edge, including:
1. Primary Streets (Cosgray Road & Shier
Rings Road)
2. Local Streets (Internal)
3. Roundabout (Cosgray & Shier Rings Road
intersection)
The described condition for Primary Streets is
the preferred condition throughout the WID.
This condition is intended for external, public
roadways and should be utilized in all instances
1211
Figure 05
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Conceptual Illustration of Future Cosgray Road Enhancements & Intended Edge Screening Character
COSGRAY ROAD
14
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Cosgray Road
Given the importance of Cosgray Road as a
primary arterial street through the WID, and
considering the adjacent residential uses, the
setback along Cosgray Road on the eastern
edge of ID-6 should be generous to maintain
the rural character and to provide maximum
screening of future development west of Cosgray
Road from the public ROW. In addition to
the required screening of development along
the western side of Cosgray Road, it is being
enhanced to add two drive lanes, street trees,
and a planted center median. Figure 06
provides a conceptual illustration of the planned
enhancements to Cosgray Road, and the
preferred screening condition along the eastern
edge of ID-6.
Chapter 153.039-040 of the City of Dublin’s
codified ordinance should be reference for
additional setback requirements along Cosgray
Road. To achieve the desired condition outlined
in the following spread (Figures 07-08), a 200’
building and pavement setback, with a 14’ tall
planted mound is required along Cosgray Road
on the eastern edge of ID-6.
1413
Figure 06Figure 06
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Development Screening ResidentialROW
45’
200’
200’
~35’~35’
~35’~35’
5’5’
5’5’
150’150’
150’150’
14’ Mound (Height)
14’ Mound (Height)
Swale
Swale
Buffer
Buffer
10’ min10’ min
10’ min10’ min
Setbacks measured from future ROWSetbacks measured from future ROW
Buffer
Buffer
Cosgray Road
Cosgray Road
Pavement
(i.e. access drive, parking)
Building
Figure 08. Cosgray Road 200’ Setback, Layered Planting, and 14’ Tall Mound
Figure 07. Cosgray Road Intended Screening Condition
Cosgray Road
Figures 07-08 provide conceptual illustrations of
the intended setback and screening condition for
Cosgray Road along the eastern edge of ID-6.
Figure 07 depicts the layered planting,
mounding, and overall transition/screening
between existing residential uses east of Cosgray
Road and future development west of Cosgray
Road.
Figure 08 illustrates the desired condition within
the required building setback, including mound
height, slope, and general depth. Additionally,
Figure 08 illustrates the use of layered planting
strategies to provide year-round screening.
Implementation of the combined mounding
and planting standards is necessary to meet
the required screening opacity. The intent for
Cosgray Road is to provide a minimum of 90%
opacity screening from the public ROW within 5
to 8 years of installation.
Additional details for slopes, grading, and
planting can be found in Section 03 General
Design Guidelines.
An additional consideration to be determined
along with the City of Dublin is the existing utility
lines along the western edge of Cosgray Road.
An easement may be required to incorporate
this utility corridor (above or below ground)
without interfering with the required mound and
landscape. This condition is detailed further in
Section 04 Special Conditions, and may result
in an expanded buffer zone between the public
ROW and the start of the mound (~30’).
Summary
Mound Height: 14 feet (front slope of 6:1and
back slope of 3:1
Setback: 200 feet from future ROW
Stormwater: Site stormwater and all required
swales to be located on the private side of the
mound.
Planting:
• Evergreen clusters on interior (private) slope of
mounds, deciduous clusters on public slope
• Meadow grasses on front slope of mound
• Mown turf in buffer between ROW & mound
Evergreen
clusters
Evergreen
clusters
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Mown
turf
Mown
turf
1615DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NNCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADSHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
45’
100’
100’
90’90’
90’90’
8’ Mound (Height)
8’ Mound (Height)
10’ min10’ min
10’ min10’ min
Buffer
Buffer
Shier Rings Road
Shier Rings RoadPavement
(i.e. access drive, parking)
Building
Evergreen
clusters
Evergreen
clusters
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Mown
turf
Mown
turf
Setbacks measured from future ROWSetbacks measured from future ROW
Figure 09. Shier Rings Road 100’ Setback, Layered Planting, and 8’ Tall Mound
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Shier Rings Road
Darree Fields is located north of Shier Rings
Road, adjacent to ID-6. Therefore, the setback
along Shier Rings Road on the northern edge
of ID-6 should also be generous to maintain
the rural character and to provide maximum
screening of future development south of Shier
Rings Road from the public ROW. In accordance
with the Future Thoroughfare Plan, Shier Rings
Road is intended to extend west of the existing
roundabout at the intersection of Cosgray Road.
The roundabout at the intersection of Shier
Rings Road and Cosgray Road is identified as
a gateway moment. The desired character if
this intersection is further detailed in Section 04
Special Conditions.
Chapter 039-040 of the City of Dublin’s codified
ordinance should be reference for additional
setback requirements along Shier Rings Road.
To achieve the desired condition outlined on
the following page (Figure 09), a 100’ building
and pavement setback, with an 8’ tall planted
mound is required along Shier Rings Road on the
northern edge of ID-6, transitioning west from the
roundabout condition at the intersection of Shier
Rings Road and Cosgray Road. The typology
transition should start approximately 350-400’
west of the centerpoint of the roundabout. The
illustrated condition includes the required building
setback, including mound height, slope, and
general depth. Additionally, Figure 09 illustrates
the use of layered planting strategies to provide
year round screening. The intent for Shier Rings
Road is provide a minimum of 75% opacity
screening from the public ROW. Additional
details for slopes, grading, and planting can be
found in Section 03 General Design Guidelines.
Summary
Mound Height: 8 feet (front slope of 6:1and
back slope of 3:1
Setback: 100 feet from future ROW
Stormwater: Site stormwater and all required
swales to be located on the private side of the
mound.
Planting:
• Evergreen clusters on interior (private) slope of
mounds, deciduous clusters on public slope
• Meadow grasses on front slope of mound
• Mown turf in buffer between ROW & mound
17 18DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NNCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADSHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
Example Internal Example Internal
Public StreetPublic Street
STORMWATER INCORPORATION SHOWCASE HIGH-QUALITY ARCHITECTURE DENSE LAYERED PLANTING
Development ROW Development
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
Source: Stevens Coolidge House & Gardens,
North Andover MA. Mikyoung Kim Design
Source: Wal-Mart Headquarters, Bentonville
AK. SWA Group.
Option for stormwater
behind screening
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Local Streets
Local Streets internal to ID-6, includes “loop
roads”, access drives, and through roads. The
setbacks along Local Streets are intended to
preserve the desired character of the WID, but
not reduce development ground in the same
manner as a roadway. Any illustrations of
Local Streets in this document are conceptual
and intended only to serve as examples for the
purposes of this design manual.
Buffer Planting
The typology along Local Streets should utilize
dense planting with a mix of native evergreen
and deciduous trees and grasslands for year-
round screening and interest. Opportunities for
low, undulating stone walls and/or stormwater
can be considered depending on the width of the
setback. Stormwater may only be included on
the private side of the screening components. See
Landscape and Planting Guidelines in Section 05
for specific planting requirements.
The Local Streets condition can be implemented
with or without mounding based on the setback
condition. Additionally, if there are opportunities
to showcase or expose high-quality architecture
and facades along internal streets, openings or
an increase in transparency can be considered
for those areas.
Figure 10 provides a conceptual illustration and
supporting imagery of the desired condition/
character along Local Streets within ID-6.
This condition is further detailed in Section 03
General Design Guidelines.
The City of Dublin’s codified ordinance should
be reference for additional setback requirements
along Local Streets. To achieve the desired
condition outlined on the following page (Figure
10), a 35’ minimum building and pavement
setback from the ROW, with layered planting is
required along all Local Streets within ID-6.
2019
Figure 10
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
General Design Guidelines
ID-6
Section 03
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
More subtle slope on
the public side (6:1)
Steeper slope on private side to
reduce land impact (4:1 to 3:1)
Potential underground
drainage pipe
Right-of-WayBuilding or Pavement
Runoff
Space between mound
and building face or
pavement for drainage,
user access/circulation,
and emergency access.
Development
Stormwater
& Mound Runoff
Space at the base of back
side of mound for water
runoff. This zone can be
utilized for development
stormwater requirements.
Mounds
Height of the mound:
8’to14’ (determined
by adjacent corridor
and adjacent land
uses)
Utility or Shared
Use Path Easement
(When Applicable)
Swale
Building or
Pavement Buffer Public RoadwayMound
Setback ROW
Setback Components
Setback components may vary based on
location, adjacent corridors, and adjacent land
uses, but the desired character and landscape
approach should remain. Figure 11 highlights
a typical approach for setback component
configuration. As detailed in this section,
dimensions between the public ROW and base
of the mound may vary based on potential utility
easements and/or multi-use pathways. The
distance between the base of mounds on the
private side, and on-site development may vary
based on internal site circulation, stormwater,
and drainage needs.
Note that any approved site fencing should
not be placed within the required setback, and
should not be visible from the public ROW.
Figure 11. Setback Components
2423DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
3:13:1
3:13:1
6:
1
6:
1
6:
1
6:
1
SwaleDevelopment Buffer Public RoadwayMound
2’
6:1 Slope3:1 Slope
Setback
Overlapping Overlapping
MoundsMounds
ROW
Mound Grading
• Mound grading shall undulate and vary in
both vertical and horizontal dimensions, with
a maximum slope of 6:1 on the public side
and 3:1 on the private side.
• Mound heights are identified in Section 02
and are dependent upon roadway and use
adjacencies. The top of mound widths should
range from 2-4’
• The back slope (private side) of the mound
should be sloped at a maximum 3:1 gradient.
• In special cases (identified in this section)
where the mound height is unable to be met,
plantings that provide 100% coverage at full
foliage may be utilized to meet screening
requirements (as approved by the City). This
condition should not exceed more that 30% of
the entirety of the ID-6 site edge condition.
• Plant species list and maintenance guidelines
can be found at the end of this section.
Figure 12. Overlapping / Undulating Mounds
6:1 average slope (max) on public side of mound for a naturalized condition.
3:1 slope on the private side to reduce mound depth.
Figure 13. Mound Grading & Undulation
2625DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Option for formalized
shrub planting at key
moments.
No-mow grasses on slopes,
mown grasses beyond mounds.
Building runoff. Space between
mound and building face for
drainage, user access/circulation,
and emergency access.
Mown grass/minimal
planting.
Development stormwater
& mound runoff. Space at
the base of back side of
mound for water runoff.
Additionally, this zone can
be utilized for development
stormwater requirements.
Flow path and edges
to be mown grasses.
Right-of-way.
Mown tree-lawn and street
trees.
Avoid planting trees at
peak of the mound.
Deciduous trees in
staggered clusters
at front slope.
Staggered clusters
of evergreen trees
at back of slope.
Source: Roaring Book, East
Haddam CT. Reed Hilderband
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley, OH. Reed Hilderband
Figure 15. Screening Components: PlantingsMound Planting
• With or without mounds, planting should
occur in three to four layers of naturalized
“drifts” or organic groupings of trees.
• Mounds shall have a simple mix of meadow
and tree/shrub groupings placed in massings.
• Tree installation sizes: Tree sizes to be mixed
in at least three different sizes ranging from 2”
to 3” caliper. No more than 50% of trees shall
be 2” caliper
• Tree plantings shall include a minimum of 5
species per property. No single species shall
comprise more than 40% of the total quantity
of trees within the required buffer planting.
• Tree spacing shall vary randomly in a
staggered pattern between 6’ and 10’ on-
center to achieve a naturalized appearance.
A minimum of 30 trees shall be provided per
100 linear feet of setback.
• Trees shall be under-planted with native
meadow or shrubs.
• Only the back (private) side of the mound can
be mown, maintained turf grass. This condition
should not be seen from the public ROW.
• For plant health and growth, trees should not
be planted at the peak of the mound.
• Plant species list and maintenance guidelines
can be found at the end of this section.
EVERGREENEVERGREEN DECIDUOUSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSHRUB TURFTURF
Figure 14
2827DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Roadw
a
y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
R
O
W
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
R
O
W
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
Roadw
a
y
Property Boundary
Recognizing that individual properties may
develop at different times, it is important that
mound forms are able to continue in a natural
manner across each property.
Mounds approaching a property edge shall
transition to a maximum 4:1 slope to gradually
taper at their terminus. To support a visually
continuous landform across properties, mound
edges shall be shaped to suggest continuation
beyond the property line, creating a subtle
“overlapping” effect when viewed from the
public right-of-way. This effect can be achieved
by tapering inward or outward opposite to
adjacent property mounds, as illustrated in Figure
16 .
Where an adjacent mound is not yet present,
the mound terminus may be tapered either
inward toward the development or outward
toward the public right-of-way. In all cases, any
area beyond the mound terminus shall still be
planted in accordance with the required planting
conditions to avoid open viewsheds between
properties.
For side-yard conditions where adjacent
properties remain undeveloped, planting shall
follow the Local Streets condition, or a City-
approved equivalent.
Tree Row Preservation
As identified in Sections 01 and 02, the
approach to planting and design of setbacks
within ID-6 should aim to maintain the historic
rural and agricultural character of the area, as
recommended in the Envision Dublin Community
Plan. This includes preservation of existing mature
tree rows and stands of trees.
There are existing mature tree rows along the
east/west property lines within ID-6. Existing
stands of trees shall be protected-in-place in their
entirety. When existing mature trees are located
within the perimeter area, mounding may be
omitted/interrupted and the existing trees should
be utilized to achieve the required screening.
Total amount of required screening will still be
applicable and, therefore, additional landscape
plantings may be necessary to meet the stated
requirements.
As illustrated in Figure 17, mounds should taper
near tree rows to provide a clean, natural
transition from mound to tree row (both sides of
tree row).
3029
Figure 16. Property Boundary Mound Approach - Example Condition Figure 17. Tree Row and Mound Interruption Approach - Example Condition
Outward
taper
Inward
taper
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage. : Source: Thalie Park, France. Urbicus.
Source: Thalie Park, France. Urbicus.
Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail, Cuyahoga County
OH. National Park Service.
Source: City of Dublin, OH.
Stormwater
In ID-6, when stormwater is located along Shier
Rings Road or Cosgray Road, it is required to
be located on the private side of the mound and
should be screened by the required mound and
planting conditions.
In the case of internal public streets, stormwater
should remain on the private side of the screening
components, but can be designed/integrated
into the landscape setbacks where space allows.
Please note that all other City stormwater
regulations for location and proximity to ROW
still apply. Additionally, positive drainage will
need to be maintained at all times through the
required setbacks so that there is no standing
water in areas outside of designated stormwater
management areas.
Shared-Use Paths
Any planned or future multi-use pathways along
Cosgray Road and/or Shier Rings Road should
align with the described rural character in this
design manual. Therefore, public pathways along
the edges of ID-6 should undulate and weave in
and out of the landscape. In some cases, this may
result in pathways weaving out of the public ROW
and being integrated into the setback landscape.
Pathway alignment should be coordinated
with the undulation of the mounds and provide
opportunities for smaller mounds and consistent
plantings to be interspersed along the pathway.
This may require easements for public access
when pathways undulate into private property -
coordination with the City’s Engineering Division
will be necessary during design.
The widths of shared use paths and sidewalks are
to be consistent with Envision Dublin (6-feet for
sidewalks, 11-feet for shared use paths).
3231DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Special Conditions
ID-6
Section 04
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
Conceptual Illustration of Future Shier Rings Road & Cosgray Road Roundabout & Edge Screening Character
Source: Boston Children’s Hospital,
Boston MA. Mikyoung Kim Design.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley, OH. Reed Hilderband
Roundabout at Cosgray Road & Shier
Rings Road
As referenced in Section 02, the roundabout at
the intersection of Shier Rings Road and Cosgray
Road is identified as a gateway moment. Figure
18 provides a conceptual illustration of the
desired condition at the existing roundabout
(Shier Rings Road/Cosgray Road intersection)
at the northeast corner of ID-6. Additionally, the
illustrations on this page provide examples of
treatment quality and material considerations.
The final design of this gateway corner should
be coordinated directly with the City of Dublin
Planning Staff in coordination with the extension
of Shier Rings Road.
3635
Figure 18Figure 18
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
Conceptual Illustration of Future Jewett Farmstead & Intended Screening CharacterCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADJEWETT JEWETT
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
GEASEGEASE
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
Existing Farmsteads
As described in Section 01, the approaches to
planting and design of setbacks within ID-6
are intended to maintain the historic rural
and agricultural character of the area, as
recommended in the Envision Dublin Community
Plan. One key approach to maintaining this
condition is the preservation of periodic small
structures/uses close to the road (houses, barns,
gas stations, churches, graveyards, etc). Today,
two well maintained farmsteads exist within ID-6
along Cosgray Road as identified in the map
above.
The Jewett Farmstead is located just south of the
Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road intersection.
This property has been acquired by the City of
Dublin to ensure proper preservation of the site.
There is an additional farmstead located at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Barronsmore
Way that consists of an existing farmhouse and
barn.
Enhanced screening approaches are required
around the northern, southern, and western
edges of the existing farmsteads. Similar to the
Local Streets condition along roadways, the
enhanced side yard screening should utilize
dense planting with a mix of native evergreen
and deciduous trees and grasslands for year-
round screening and interest. Additionally, small
mounding should be incorporated where possible
(4-6’ height in consistency with the screening
character along Cosgray Road. The intent is to
provide a minimum of 75% opacity screening
between ID-6 development and the existing
farmsteads to avoid any harsh windows into
development and to preserve the rural character
of the existing farmsteads. Screening around the
farmsteads should be coordinated with the City
through the plan approval process.
Figure 19 provides a conceptual illustration of the
future condition of the Jewett Farmstead and the
desired screening of ID-6.
3837
Figure 19Figure 19
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Stone Retaining WallStone Retaining Wall
Entry Drive
Roadw
a
y
Source: Avery-Muirfield Drive Bridge at
U.S. 33, Dublin, OH.
Road
w
ay
Ent
r
y
Retaining Walls Retaining Walls (Dublin Limestone)(Dublin Limestone)
Road
w
ay
Ent
r
y
Example preferred Example preferred
stone veneerstone veneer
Cosgray Road Entry Drives
The following standards apply to primary
vehicular entry drives for employees and visitors.
Primary entry drives and service drives should be
avoided along Cosgray Road when possible. In
coordination with the City, access from Cosgray
Road should only be considered if access is
unable to be provided via alternative streets.
Service drive standards should be referenced in
the City of Dublin’s codified ordinance.
• Width: drives shall be a maximum of 24’
wide.
• Radii of curbing from entry drive to road
should be 25’ maximum.
• Entry drives should curve within the setback
dimension to allow for overlapping mound
condition (visually), provided maximum
screening into the site. An example of this
condition is provided through Figure 20 on the
following page.
• To retain the required mound height when
there are breaks in the mound for entry drives,
stepped retaining walls with limestone veneer
should be implemented with a maximum of
12’ distance between retaining wall and drive.
• Stepped Retaining Walls: Limestone veneer
should be Great Lakes Limestone per Dutch
Quality Stone (Beige color) or approved
equal. Stones should be placed in a random
Ashlar pattern similar to Avery-Muirfield
Bridge over U.S. 33/S.R. 161 in Dublin,
OH. Reference City of Dublin Standard
Construction Drawings for limestone veneer
specifications.
• Pathway adjacent to entry drive should be 4’
wide minimum, and 6’ wide maximum.
4039
Figure 20. Primary Entry Drive Approach - Example Condition
DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
OVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
More subtle slope on
the public side (6:1)
Steeper slope on private side to
reduce land impact (4:1 to 3:1)
Potential underground
drainage pipe
Right-of-WayBuilding Runoff Development
Stormwater
& Mound Runoff
Mound Utility Easement
(When Applicable)
Existing Overhead Transmission Line
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE DARREE
FIELDSFIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
Utility Easements
In certain circumstances there may be existing
utility easements to work around, or the need
for a new or modified utility easement within the
required setback. In these instances, there will
need to be coordination with both the City of
Dublin and any applicable public/private utility
companies to coordinate details and impact on
mound and planting requirements.
Figure 21 Highlights an instance of an existing
overhead transmission line. This line is within
the ID-6 boundary and will require the land
owner to coordinate directly with the City of
Dublin and applicable utility companies to
discuss transmission line infrastructure placement
and impact on mounding and plant typologies
along Shier Rings Road. At a minimum, no mow
grass should be planted along the entirety of
the mound within this easement, and all other
planting guidelines should be followed as
allowed by applicable utility companies.
As illustrated in Figure 22, in cases where
underground utility easements are adjacent
to required roadway mounding, the easement
should be located between the public ROW
and the base of the mound. When possible, the
mound should not overlap the easement to allow
for easier, less disruptive access to utilities.
Additionally, no manholes or cleanouts should
be placed within the mounds. In cases where
underground pipes have to cross under the
required mounding, placement of manholes
and access points are to be coordinated such
that they are not located within the limits of the
grading for the mounds. If possible the piped
infrastructure (sanitary sewer and storm sewer)
should be located where the mounds are lower,
such as within overlapping areas where one
mound is decreasing in height and the next is
increasing. This will require coordination with the
City’s Engineering Division during detailed site
design.
Figure 22. Setback Components
Figure 21. Existing Overhead
Transmission Line
4241DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Landscape Planting
ID-6
Section 05
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
evergreenevergreen
more screenedmore screened less screenedless screened
deciduousdeciduous
deciduousdeciduous
meadowmeadow
meadowmeadow meadowmeadow
shrubsshrubs
maintained turfmaintained turf maintained turfmaintained turfmaintained turfmaintained turf
PRIMARY STREETSPRIMARY STREETS ROUNDABOUTROUNDABOUT
summersummerwinterwintersummersummersummersummersummersummerwinterwinterwinterwinterLOCAL STREETSLOCAL STREETS
Source: Roaring Book, East
Haddam CT. Reed Hilderband
Source: Manatuck Farm,
Stonington CT. Reed Hilderbrand.
stone stone
wallwall
Figure 23. Planting StrategiesLandscape Planting
Guidelines
Landscape Intent
Cultivate a naturalized rural appearance with
planting and mounding that shifts in density
and character based on adjacency. Landscape
planting shall prioritize conditions that ensures
long term health of vegetation and supports
biodiversity and local ecology.
Species Diversity
Buffer plantings shall consist of no more than 10%
of any one species, 20% of any one genus, and
30% of any one family to support an urban tree
canopy population. See the Species Selection list
in this section for approved planting.
Installation Sizes
Tree sizes to be mixed in at least three different
sizes ranging from 2” to 3” caliper for deciduous
trees and 12-14’ height for evergreen trees. No
more than 50% of deciduous trees shall be 2”
caliper, and no more than 50% of evergreen
trees shall be 12’ height.
Planting Layout
Trees
Tree spacing shall vary randomly in a staggered
pattern between 6’ and 10’ on-center to achieve
a naturalized appearance. A minimum of 30
trees shall be provided per 100 linear feet of
setback.
Meadow Mix
Meadow Mix shall be under-planted beneath
tree groupings on mounds or among drifts of tree
stands. See Figure 14.
Shrubs
At key intersections and the Shier Rings Road and
Cosgray Road roundabout, shrub planting shall
be implemented in graphic rows utilizing at least
5 species. See Figure 14 and Species Selection.
Opacity Requirements
Year-round opacity shall be achieved through
layered planting and landforms. Trees should be
planted in informal clusters that vary in density
based on screening goals.
Residential adjacencies in areas such as ID-6
should reach 100% year round coverage, while
commercial and public edges may allow partial
opacity if headlight and parking screening are
maintained through low shrub planting. These
plant materials must meet height and opacity
requirements within four years of installation.
4645DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Source: Canadian hemlock stand.
Missouri Bontanical Garden.
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley OH. Reed Hilderband
20% Prairie dropseed
20% Marco Polo sheeps fescue
20% annual ryegrass
Application rate shall be 225 lbs per acre.
• Plant seed with “Brillion” type landscape seeding
machine that accurately places seed at specified
depth and rate and rolls in single operation. Plant
seed no deeper than ½ inch. Hydroseeding of
meadows is not permitted.
• Plant seed with slit seeder in areas that have
been previously graded and seeded with annual
ryegrass for erosion control. Plant seed no deeper
than ½ inch.
• Apply fertilizer at time of seeding and 30 days
after seeding. Use starter fertilizer, 1-2-1, that will
provide actual phosphorus of at least 1.5 lbs/sq.
ft.
• Maintain meadow no less than 12 months after
planting.
• Mow meadow as soon as top growth is tall
enough to cut. Repeat moving to maintain
specified height without cutting more than 1/3
of the grass geight. Remove no more than 1/3 of
grass leaf growth in initial or subsequent mowings.
Do not delay mowing until grass blades bend over
and become matted. Do not mow when grass is
wet. Schedule initial and subsequent mowings to
maintain a height of 3.5 to 4 inches. Do not mow
after 12 months from planting completion.
• Apply 2 applications of a broad spectrum, 3-way
selective herbicide to meadow within 12 months
after planting. Schedule first application no earlier
than 6 months after planting.
Ostrya virginiana - American hophornbeam
Prunus sarangetii - Sargent cherry
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
Shrubs
Aesculus parviflora - Bottlebrush buckeye
Aronia spp.- Chokeberry
Buxus microphylla - little leaf boxwood
Buxus sempervirens - common boxwood
Cephalanthus occidentalis - buttonbush
Cornus racemosa - gray dogwood
Chamaecyparis obtusa- falsecypress
Ilex verticillata - winterberry holly
Itea virginica - Virginia sweetspire
Juniperis chinensis (many cultivars) - chinese juniper
Juniperis scopulorum (many cultivars) - rocky mountain
juniper
Lindera benzoin - spicebush
Myrica pensylvanica - Northern bayberry
Salix spp.- shrub willows
Taxus x media (many cultivars) - Yew
Thuja occidentalis (many cultivars) - Arborvitae
Vaccinium angustifolium - lowbush blueberry
Viburnum acerifolium - mapleleaf vibirnum
MEADOW MIX
• Meadow Mix shall be:
20% Aruba or Audubon creeping red fescue
20% J5 chewings fescue
Acer x freemanii - Fremanii maple (Red/Silver Maple
Cross)*
Acer nigrum - Black maple*
Acer saccharum - Sugar maple*
Betula nigra - River birch
Cercidiphyllum japonicum - Katsuratree
Nyssa sylvatica - Black tupelo/Black gum
Platanus x acerifolia - London planetree
Prunus sarangetii - Sargent cherry
Quercus bicolor - Swamp white oak
Quercus rubra - Northern red oak
Taxodium distichum- Bald cypress
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
ROUNDABOUT
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
Aronia melanocarpa - Black chokeberry
Crataegus species - Hawthorn “Winter King”, “Ohio
Pioneer”
Chionanthus virginius - White fringetree
Cornus mas - Corneliancherry dogwood
Halesia carolina - Carolina silverbell
Koelreiteria paniculata- Goldenraintree
Species Selection
COSGRAY ROAD
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Juniperus virginiana - Eastern red cedar
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pinus strobus - White pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
Tsuga canadensis - Canadian hemlock
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Acer saccharum - Sugar maple*
Liriodendron tulipfera - Tulip tree
Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis - Thornless
honeylocust
Celtis laevigata - Sugar hackberry
Celtis occidentalis - Hackberry “Prairie Pride”
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
SHIER RINGS ROAD + LOCAL ROADS
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - American arborvitae
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
4847DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
American Nursery and Landscape Association
standards.
Meadow Mix
• Mixes shall be pre-packaged at the
specified species percentages and applied
at rates consistent with the seed supplier’s
recommendations.
• Bed preparation shall be in accordance with seed
supplier’s recommendations.
Planting Soils
• Planting soils shall be a mix of three components:
topsoil, organic amendment, and sand.
• Topsoil: central Ohio topsoil with a USDA texture
classification of clay loam or loam and a pH of
5.5 to 7.0.
• Organic Amendment: composted yard debris
(green waste) compost with a pH of 7.2 to 8.0
• Sand: ASTM C33 concrete sand.
• The three components shall be blended into a the
following ratio: 4 parts sand, 2 parts topsoil, 1
part compost.
MAINTAINED TURF MIX
• The turf mix shall be:
80% 2 of 3 Tall Fescue
10% Kentucky Blue Grass
10% Perennial Ryegrass
Application rate shall be 225 lbs per acre.
General Planting Guidelines
Trees
• Trees over 3” caliper shall be nursery tagged
by a landscape architect. Trees under 3” caliper
shall be visually inspected with representative
photographs by a landscape architect.
• Width of tree planting hole for trees shall be 3
times the diameter of the root ball. Bottom and
sides of the tree hole shall be loosened prior to
planting.
• Depth of tree planting hole shall be 1.5 times the
depth of the root ball, minimum. Container grown
or balled and burlapped trees shall be planting
on a compacted mound of #57 stone.
• All sides and grades of plant material shall be
in accordance with the American Standard for
Nursery Stock (latest edition), published by the
American Nursery and Landscape Association
Standards.
Woody Shrubs
• Representative photos of woody shrubs shall be
approved by a landscape architect.
• Woody shrub beds shall be staked for approval
by a landscape architect.
• Shrub beds shall be a continuous excavation to
the depth of the deepest rootball in the shrub bed.
Bottom and sides of shrub bed excavation shall
be loosened prior to planting.
• All sizes and grades of plant material shall be
in accordance with the American Standard for
Nursery Stock (latest edition), published by the
Shrubs
• January/February: Remove wind driven leaves
from shrub beds.
• March: Remove wind driven leaves from shrub
beds. Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals- document all findings.
• April: Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals- document all findings. Edge all
shrub beds by hand spade or other acceptable
method. Hand prune as needed – use standard
horticultural practices when pruning. Shearing is
not acceptable. Selectively hand prune non-
spring flowering shrubs as required. Apply
granular pre-emergent control to shrub beds.
Apply mulch to shrub beds. Provide 2”-3” depth
within bed.
• May: Hand prune as needed (see April). Closely
monitor newly planted shrubs to ensure root
ball has the proper moisture content. Remove
weeds from beds weekly. Continue bi-monthly
inspections for pest/disease problems.
• June: Hand prune as needed (see April). Monitor
for weed / insect / and disease problems –
control as needed. Use pheromone traps to help
determine insect problems. Closely monitor newly
planted shrubs to ensure root ball has the proper
moisture content. Remove weeds from beds
weekly.
• July: Monitor potential weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Closely
monitor newly planted shrubs to ensure root ball
has the proper moisture content. Pre-emergent
herbicide may be used to control weeds in beds.
Remove weeds from beds weekly.
• August: Large shrubs should be pruned if
necessary to maintain desired character (except
for summer/fall flowering species). Monitor for
weed / insect / and disease problems – control
as needed. Closely monitor newly planted shrubs
to ensure root ball has the proper moisture content.
Landscape Maintenance
Trees
• January: Check trunks for rodent damage. Treat
appropriately if damage is present. Selectively
hand prune limbs to repair, remove damaged
limbs, or to ‘limb-up’ canopy (provided temps are
>32 degrees). Do not prune evergreen trees unless
necessary for damage repair. Use dormant oils
for pest management as required for insect control
provided temps remain >32 degrees for 24 hours
or more.
• February: If there’s evidence of an insect
infestation, dormant horticultural oils are effective
as a dormant application – temperatures must be
>32 for 24 hours after application to be effective.
• March: Selectively hand prune limbs to repair,
remove damaged limbs, or to ‘limb-up’ canopy
(provided temps are >32 degrees). Do not prune
evergreen trees unless necessary for damage
repair. Install any new container grown or B&B
trees.
• April: Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals – document all findings. Remove
any/all dead or damaged branches or limbs.
Install any new container grown or B&B trees.
Closely monitor newly planted trees to ensure root
ball has the proper moisture content. Apply mulch
tree rings to trees in plant beds and turf areas.
Provide 2”-3” depth throughout entire tree ring.
Pull mulch 2” away from trunk to prevent mold and
rotting.
• May: Weed mulch tree rings as required.
Continue bi-monthly inspections for pest/disease
problems. Closely monitor newly planted trees to
ensure root ball has the proper moisture content.
• June/July: Irrigate trees if needed in the early
morning hours to prevent evapotranspiration.
Trim/remove unwanted limbs from trees as
required. Monitor for weed / insect / and disease
problems – control as needed. Use pheromone
traps to help determine insect problems. Closely
monitor newly planted trees to ensure root ball has
the proper moisture content. Provide 1” water per
week (supplement natural rainfall with irrigation as
needed).
• August: Maintain 2-3” depth mulch tree rings
for trees in plant beds and turf areas. Pull mulch
2” away from trunk to prevent mold and rotting.
Weed mulch tree rings as required.
• September: Pesticide application is not
recommended at this time unless for heavy
infestations. Plan for container grown shade trees
and evergreens that can be planted in the fall
(Oct./Nov.).
• October: Fertilize using a granular fertilizer
with slow release nitrogen – a 4:1:2 ratio is
appropriate – Broadcast over entire root zone /
dripline (if root zone includes turf do not exceed
2lbs of nitrogen / 1000 sf).
• November: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Remove
any diseased / damaged / or dead branches. If
there’s evidence of an insect infestation, dormant
horticultural oils are effective as a dormant
application – temperatures must be >32 for 24
hours after application to be effective. Renew
mulch tree rings - provide 3” depth for trees in
plant beds and turf areas. Pull mulch 2” away from
trunk.
• December: Monitor for signs of pest problems
and desiccation from winter winds. Plants that
routinely show dissection may be treated with
an application of wilt proof to reduce damage.
More than one treatment is detrimental. Plants with
reoccurring problems should be removed.
5049DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
Continue monitoring turf for broadleaf weeds
(ground ivy, plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply
treatments as needed. Fall Fertilization: Late
October; fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as
required by soil analysis.
• November: Remove fall leaves from turf to prevent
damage. Reduce mower cutting height to 1 ½” for
last cut of the season – to reduce chance of snow
mold and winter burn. Apply spot applications of
broadleaf herbicides as required.
• December: Complete any leaf removal to prevent
damage to turf.
lb actual per 1000 sf. - Apply with broadcast
spreader.
• October (early): Mow at 4” height (Single Mow).
Overseed thin areas at rate of 4 lbs / 1000sf -
slice seed or seed-a-vator method
• November (late): Fertilize with 1-1-1 ratio NPK at
1.0 lb actual per 1000 sf. - Apply with broadcast
spreader.
Turf
• January/ February/March: Minimize salt
damage along walks and drives. Remove any
wind driven leaves from lawns/beds.
• April: Test soil PH. Turf areas should maintain PH
levels between 6.2-7.0. Apply lime to increase
PH as needed. Apply chemical pre-emergents
as needed after soil temps reach 55 degrees
and crabgrass begins to germinate. If season
is advanced, begin mowing. First cut should be
slightly shorter than normal (3”ht.) to encourage
greening. Trim turf along all walks and road
edges as required – DO NOT line trim around
tree trunks. Core aerate prior to fertilization /
lawn renovations. Avoid rolling of turf; this causes
compaction/poor root development; it should
be avoided unless excessive heaving has taken
place. Overseed turf areas after aeration to
increase lawn density and crowd out aggressive
weeds.
• May: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
Check for soil insects - document all findings.
Treat as necessary. Spring Fertilization: Memorial
Day; fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as
required by soil analysis.
• June: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing as
needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
Pre-emergent herbicide may be used to control
weeds in landscape beds. Maintain a 2”-3” of
mulch in all shrub beds. Remove weeds from
beds weekly.
• September: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Pesticide
application is not recommended at this time
unless for heavy infestations. Maintain a 2”-3”
of mulch in all shrub beds. Remove weeds from
beds weekly. Remove early fall leaves and other
debris from plant beds. Apply pre-emergent
herbicide for control of winter annuals.
• October: Fertilize using a granular fertilizer
with slow release nitrogen – a 4:1:2 ratio is
appropriate – Broadcast over entire shrub bed.
Remove fallen leaves to prevent damage of turf.
• November: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Remove
any diseased / damaged / or dead branches. If
there’s evidence of an insect infestation, dormant
horticultural oils are effective as a dormant
application – temperatures must be >32 for 24
hours after application to be effective. Renew
mulch at shrub beds - provide 2-3” depth.
• December: Monitor for signs of pest problems
and desiccation from winter winds. Plants that
routinely show dissection may be treated with an
application of wilt proof to reduce damage. More
than one treatment is detrimental. Plants with
reoccurring problems should be removed.
Meadow
• April (late): Apply 3-way selective herbicide
to control weed populations - Do not apply
pre-emergence to areas that need overseeded.
Overseeding can take place in April for severe
bare areas at rate of 4 lbs / 1000sf - slice seed
or seed-a-vator method. (Note: Fall overseed is
preferred)
• May: Mow at 4” height (Single Mow).
• June - September: No mowing to occur
• September: Fertilize with 1-1-1 ratio NPK at 1.0
Monitor turf for broadleaf weeds (ground ivy,
plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply chemical
weed killers as needed. New seeded lawn areas
require the top 1/4” to remain moist – a thin
layer of hydro mulch will help to keep soil from
drying out. New sod should be kept moist for 4-5
weeks or until firmly rooted.
• July: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing as
needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Frequency may
decrease during this time due to heat stress. Treat
disease with appropriate fungicide if damage is
extensive.
• August: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Frequency may
decrease during this time due to heat stress. Treat
disease with appropriate fungicide if damage
is extensive. Core aerate prior to fertilization /
lawn renovations. Monitor turf for insect and
disease problems – Grubs are typical during
this month. Cut section of lawn and examine
roots for young grubs. Treatment is necessary at
populations of 4 grubs / sf.
• September: Summer Fertilization: Labor Day;
fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as required
by soil analysis. Maintain turf at 3” height by
mowing as needed-removing not more than
1/3 of the blade length in a single mowing.
Frequency may decrease during this time due
to heat stress. Treat disease with appropriate
fungicide if damage is extensive. Over-seed all
bare areas – Rake bare soil and amend with
three cubic yards of finely screened compost /
1000 sf. Broadcast seed and hand rake into top
1/4” topsoil. Monitor turf for broadleaf weeds
(ground ivy, plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply
treatments as needed.
• October: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
5251DRAFT - June 18, 2026 DRAFT - June 18, 2026
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Community Planning and Development
Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600
dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 21, 2026 | 6:30 p.m.
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. West Innovation District
26-001ADMC Administrative Request - Code Amendment
Proposal: Request for review and recommendation to City Council of approval of
Code Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections
153.002, 153.016, and 153.037-153.042 for the West Innovation
District, and the Setback and Screening Design Manual requirements
of the ID-6.
Planning Contact: Zach Hounshell, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/26-001
MOTION: Mr. Alexander moved, Ms. Damaser seconded a recommendation to City Council to
approve the proposed WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design
Manual, with the following two conditions:
1) Amend the “Intent” section as follows:
(6) Research Transition (ID-6) District. The ID-6 District is intended to support
economic development, fostering innovation and the advancement of cutting-edge
research, technology, and employment opportunities, while providing a sensitive
transition from established single-family residential neighborhoods. Uses within the ID-6
District are expected to incorporate clean production principles that minimize waste,
hazardous inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharge; and that minimize
the use, storage, production, disposal, or emission of biohazard materials. Land uses are
expected to be of lower intensity and scale, and should not result in adverse impacts to
surrounding properties, including but not limited to environmental emissions, noise,
traffic, lighting, other off-site effects, and other environmental impacts, including but not
limited to impacts occurring in containment or disposal of any minimized waste,
hazardous inputs, or hazardous and/or biohazard byproducts.
2) Amend the “Development Plan Applications” section as follow:
(b) Development plan applications within the ID-6 District shall include: (1) sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed use meets the intent of the ID-6 District
set forth in 153.037(H)(6); and (2) data, using currently acceptable method(s) of
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Community Planning and Development
Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600
dublinohiousa.gov
testing, that the use does not create any measurable increase of hazardous emissions to
neighboring properties.
VOTE: 5 - 1
RESULT: Motion carried 5 – 1.
RECORDED VOTES:
Kim Way Yes
Kathy Harter Yes
Jamey Chinnock Absent
Gary Alexander Yes
Hilary Damaser Yes
Dan Garvin No
Victoria Newell Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Zach Hounshell
Planner II
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 21, 2026
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Way at 6:30 PM at 5555 Perimeter Drive. He welcomed
attendees and noted that the meeting could be joined in person or accessed via livestream on the
City's website.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Way led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Gary Alexander, Dan Garvin, Hilary Damaser, Kathy Harter,
Victoria Newell, Kim Way
Commission Members absent: Jamey Chinnock
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Bassem Bitar, Thaddeus Boggs, Zachary
Hounshell, Mara Hunter, Jeremiah Gracia, Aisling Babbit,
Christopher Will, Jenna Goehring
ACCEPTANCE OF MEETING DOCUMENTS
Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Alexander seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and
approval of the May 7 Regular Meeting minutes.
Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Damaser, abstain; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Garvin,
abstain; Ms. Newell, yes.
[Motion carried 4-0-2.]
Mr. Way explained the Commission's advisory role to City Council on rezoning and platting matters,
while noting the Commission holds final decision-making authority in certain other cases. He
outlined the evening's procedural format: applicants would present first, followed by staff analysis
and recommendation, then Commission questions, and finally public comment prior to deliberation.
Members of the public wishing to comment were reminded to keep remarks to three minutes or
fewer, to state their name and address for the record, and to refrain from repeating previously
shared information. Mr. Way also noted that all written comments submitted in advance had been
received and reviewed by the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 2 of 15
Mr. Way administered the oath to all individuals intending to address the Commission or provide
public comment on any administrative cases, asking them to stand, raise their right hands, and
affirm that they would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Way stated that there is one case eligible for the consent agenda.
Case #26-024AFDP
Atrium I Building Signage
Request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development Plan with a text
modification to the sign provisions. The 18.1-acre-acre site is zoned PCD, Planned
Commerce District – I-270/Tuttle Road and is located at 5525 Parkcenter Circle.
Mr. Way asked if any member wished to have a case removed from the consent agenda. No
Commission members requested to pull the case from the consent agenda.
Ms. Newell stated she did not wish to remove the item from the consent agenda, but raised a brief
clarifying question regarding the terminology used in the signage application. Specifically, she
noted that the term "backlit" had been crossed out in the materials, yet the signage in question
appeared to be backlit in nature. Staff clarified that the term "backlit," as used by the department,
refers to a silhouetted effect against the wall, as distinct from internal illumination, and that the
image provided in the materials was accurate and consistent with the proposal. Ms. Newell
acknowledged the clarification, noting she would have characterized that effect as shadow imagery,
but accepted the explanation.
Mr. Way asked if any member of the public wished to comment on the consent agenda. There was
no public comment.
Ms. Damaser moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the consent agenda.
Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr.
Garvin, yes.
[Motion carried 6-0.]
Case #26-001ADMC
West Innovation District (WID) - Administrative Request – Code Amendment
Request for review and recommendation to City Council of approval of Code
Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.002, 153.016, and
153.037-153.042 for the West Innovation District, and the Setback and Screening
Design Manual requirements of the ID-6.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hounshell presented on behalf of Planning staff. He oriented the Commission within the broader
five-step process for the West Innovation District code amendments, noting that the current
meeting constituted Step 3 of 5. He recapped that in January, staff had presented a WID roadmap
outlining the intended scope of the code amendments, that the Commission had provided feedback
at that time, and that on May 7, 2026, the matter had come before the Commission as a formal
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 3 of 15
introduction for the first time in its current form, including the actual draft code amendments and
the associated setback and screening design manual for the area along Cosgray Road.
Mr. Hounshell explained that the Commission's role this evening was to provide a recommendation
to City Council — either to approve or to disapprove the proposed code amendments — and that
City Council would review the matter at two readings, tentatively scheduled for June 8 and July 1.
He noted that any rezoning matters were entirely within City Council's purview, as the Commission
had already issued its recommendation on that matter the prior year.
Mr. Hounshell provided a summary of the public engagement history since the outset of the
rezoning process, noting that staff had begun that process in February 2025, that it was tabled by
Council in August 2025 following resident concerns, and that Council subsequently directed staff
to proceed with more targeted code amendments. Through that direction, staff developed the ID-
6 zoning district, which was designed to serve as a transitional district between the broader WID
development and sensitive adjacent uses, particularly residential.
Mr. Hounshell outlined the key policy changes that had been developed through this process,
including the prohibition of data centers anywhere within the West Innovation District; a 200-foot
Cosgray Road setback with aggressive landscaping and buffering requirements; the prohibition of
stand-alone warehouse and wholesale distribution; a reduction of maximum building heights from
68 to 45 feet, inclusive of rooftop screening and mechanical equipment; additional operational
limits requiring all uses to occur entirely within buildings; performance standards addressing
potential environmental emissions and impacts; and the prohibition of service areas, loading docks,
and overhead bay doors along Cosgray Road.
He then presented the changes made since the May 7 meeting, using a summary of Commission
feedback and public comment to structure his review.
Mr. Hounshell reported that, following the May 7 discussion, staff had retained the term "advanced
manufacturing" as the use category name in order to avoid unintended impacts to other zoning
districts in the WID and elsewhere in the City. However, the definition itself had been updated to
incorporate principles of clean manufacturing, emphasizing a product lifecycle approach that limits
toxic or hazardous raw inputs and minimizes the generation of hazardous byproducts. The updated
definition refocused on the production of finished products rather than the processing of raw
materials, and several minor editorial improvements were made without compromising the core
intent of the use. Mr. Hounshell noted that a majority of the Commission at the prior meeting had
concluded that further refinement of the use definition would adequately address concerns, and
that the addition of a conditional use process would not be necessary. He acknowledged that
dissenting views had been expressed, noting some Commission members had felt that classifying
advanced manufacturing as a conditional use would be contrary to the district's economic
development intent and would create a disincentive for investment.
Mr. Hounshell noted that noise had been inadvertently omitted from the performance standards
and had been added back. The same performance standards were then carried over to research
and development uses for consistency. He also noted that staff had reviewed and identified specific
types of structures or processes that could present concerns regarding toxic or hazardous
emissions, all of which would be prohibited within the ID-6 district. For any similar structure not
explicitly listed, the burden would rest on the applicant to provide staff with sufficient information
demonstrating that the use would not create any measurable increase in hazardous emissions.
Mr. Hounshell presented a consolidated summary of all the criteria — drawn from both the
definition and the district intent — that any user seeking classification as advanced manufacturing
would be required to satisfy. These criteria included: promoting a product lifecycle approach;
limiting toxic or hazardous raw inputs and byproducts; demonstrating specialized skill training;
utilizing advanced technologies; prohibiting stand-alone warehouse and wholesale distribution;
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 4 of 15
maintaining low intensity and scale; not resulting in adverse impacts to surrounding properties; not
compromising the district's environmental responsibility or compatibility with adjacent residential
areas; operating entirely within the building; and not emitting anything hazardous to surrounding
areas. He noted that staff had also provided a non-exhaustive list of example uses that could
potentially qualify under this standard, including prototype development labs, small batch
manufacturing, additive manufacturing, precision electronics, biotechnology labs with small-scale
production, flexible office users combining office and lab with light production, and engineering
firms with fabrication and testing spaces.
Mr. Hounshell described updates to the fleet vehicle provisions, noting that changes had been
focused on construction contract services to limit impacts to the ID-6 without broader citywide
effects. Fleet vehicles were defined as those that fit within a standard off-street parking space of
approximately 9 feet by 19 feet, and the definition explicitly excluded semi-tractors, semi-trailers,
non-recreational trailers, and heavy construction equipment. He confirmed that existing code
already required fleet vehicles to be maintained within a screened area and not to be located
forward of the building, and that this applied across the entire West Innovation District, not solely
to ID-6.
Mr. Hounshell noted minor modifications to the warehouse and wholesale distribution section to
remove conflicting or repetitive use-specific standards, without altering the underlying intent of
limiting warehouse and wholesale distribution within buildings to products and goods intended for
the business's own use.
Mr. Hounshell reported that a minor addition had been made to explicitly state that mechanical
equipment could not exceed the 45-foot height limit, as this had been the original intent. The 200-
foot Cosgray Road setback was clarified to reference the future right-of-way, in anticipation of
Cosgray Road's planned expansion. A development incentive provision was added, allowing
properties along Cosgray Road a 5 percent lot coverage increase in recognition of the development
challenges created by the 200-foot buffer.
Mr. Hounshell explained that the opacity standards applied to side and rear yards where
development backed up against residential properties, while the design manual governed all
frontage along streets. The language had been updated to target 90 percent opacity, with a defined
staggered planting pattern requiring a minimum of 30 trees per 100 feet — a standard that Mr.
Hounshell described as notably aggressive. He stated that the same standard was carried through
to the design manual for consistency.
Mr. Hounshell noted that all development plan applications within ID-6 would be required to provide
sufficient information demonstrating that the proposed use meets both the definition and the
district intent as an integrated standard.
Mr. Hounshell described three additional updates to the setback and screening design manual. A
new secondary two-dimensional section had been added to illustrate the scenario where pavement,
rather than a building, is immediately adjacent to the 200-foot setback boundary. The utility
easement area had been updated to reflect that a shared-use path could also be routed through
that corridor, coordinated with the planned widening of Cosgray Road. Finally, the installation size
specifications for trees had been refined: deciduous trees were specified at a caliper of 2 to 3
inches, approximately 10 to 12 feet in height at installation, while evergreen trees were specified
at 12 to 14 feet in height. Mr. Hounshell noted that most species included in the manual were
relatively fast-growing, averaging 2 to 3 inches in height growth per year.
Mr. Hounshell concluded his presentation by stating that staff recommended a recommendation of
approval to City Council of the proposed WID code amendments and Setback and Screening Design
Manual. He noted that the Commission's recommendation, whether affirmative or negative, would
be transmitted to City Council along with any conditions or recommended further amendments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 5 of 15
Commission Questions
Ms. Damaser opened questioning by directing attention to the definition of advanced manufacturing
and expressing concern regarding the phrase "limits toxic or hazardous raw inputs," specifically
questioning whether this constituted a complete prohibition and how compliance would be
measured. Mr. Hounshell explained that the intent was not a total prohibition, but rather to create
a substantial set of standards that applicants must satisfy, allowing for some degree of flexibility
as businesses evolve over time.
Consultant Greg Dale of McBride Dale Clarion, who had been engaged by staff to assist with
drafting, elaborated on the rationale for the approach. He emphasized the innovative and evolving
nature of the district, noting that the kinds of businesses likely to seek entry in five or ten years
could be markedly different from those operating today. He characterized the standard as one
granting staff authority, and not broad discretion, to make holistic determinations across the full
suite of definition, purpose statement, and performance standards, and stated that comparatively,
the proposed language represented a higher level of protection than what he had observed in
similar districts nationally. He further noted that the direction of economic and technological change
made specific quantifiable thresholds potentially counterproductive to the district's innovation-
oriented goals.
Ms. Damaser then asked how the City would respond if an approved business later changed its
operations to incorporate more hazardous materials. Ms. Rauch responded that, because the
development plan application process requires users to disclose their operations, any identified
deviation from approved operations could be evaluated through code enforcement mechanisms.
Ms. Damaser inquired about the storage of hazardous materials and whether that was addressed
in the code. Mr. Hounshell confirmed that all storage must occur entirely within the building, and
that the building code provided the regulatory framework for safe storage practices.
Ms. Damaser also asked about staff's plans to preserve existing agricultural tree lines along
property boundaries. Mr. Hounshell confirmed that many of the existing tree lines already fell along
property lines within the setback area, and that the code included a requirement to preserve trees
to the greatest extent possible, including through root protection zones enforced by zoning
inspectors. Mr. Way added that this approach had been developed through prior cases and now
constituted standard practice, including requirements to respect the drip line of significant trees.
Ms. Harter raised a question about whether the City Attorney was a listed member of the
Administrative Review Team (ART). Mr. Boggs explained that, given the nature of the ART's
technical and planning-focused review process, he and his colleagues were available as a legal
resource when specific legal questions arose, but did not believe formal membership on the ART
would add significant value compared to remaining available on call.
Ms. Harter inquired whether the code amendments should be regarded as a fluid document capable
of future revision. Mr. Hounshell confirmed that, while the code once approved becomes a binding
legal document, it was entirely possible to revisit and revise standards that proved unworkable, as
had been done in other parts of the code. Mr. Boggs cited the solar panel regulations as an example
of code provisions that had been returned to the Commission and Council for revision after practical
experience revealed the need for adjustment.
Ms. Harter raised the question of whether the reporting cadence to the Planning and Zoning
Commission by the ART could be made more specific, as the current language used the word
"periodically" without defining a time interval. Ms. Damaser noted that "periodically" implied a
defined period but left the interval unspecified, suggesting "from time to time" as a possible
alternative. Mr. Dale suggested that while changing the code language may not be necessary, staff
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 6 of 15
could administratively adopt a more regular reporting schedule. Mr. Way noted that the
Commission could at any time request a status report on the WID from staff, and could also build
a defined cadence into the Commission's own calendar.
Ms. Harter asked about the colors of rooftops and whether the architecture standards addressed
the potential visual impact of stark or reflective roofing materials. Mr. Hounshell confirmed that the
existing standards require neutral, off-white, or earth-tone base colors, and that these standards
applied to all portions of buildings, including rooftops. He further noted that the 45-foot height
limit, combined with standard flat-roof parapet walls, would mean that rooftops would generally
not be visible from surrounding areas. Mr. Way sought clarification as to whether any existing or
planned buildings within the district would exceed 45 feet and potentially allow views over the ID-
6 buildings. Mr. Hounshell stated that while there were planned projects with taller buildings further
north near State Route 161, none were proximate to the ID-6 properties.
Ms. Harter asked about coordination between private and City-owned landscaping along the
Cosgray Road buffer to ensure cohesiveness as development occurs piecemeal over time. Mr.
Hounshell acknowledged that this was a critical consideration and that the design manual had been
developed to address worst-case scenarios where individual properties come forward for
development separately. Staff had given significant attention to how existing vegetation along
parcel lines could be incorporated into mounding and planting designs, and would continue to work
on ensuring a consistent and cohesive buffer regardless of the sequencing of development.
Ms. Harter raised the topic of fire department expertise on the ART. Mr. Hounshell confirmed that
both the fire department and the building department each had a representative on the ART, and
that all board members participated equally in the review process. He added that the ART
functioned similarly to other public boards, with a vote on applications, and that all members would
be aware of any concerns within their respective fields before the formal meeting.
Ms. Harter raised a final point regarding lighting, questioning whether the 10:00 PM dimming
requirement could be moved to 8:00 PM. It was clarified that the existing regulation applied to
parking lots of 150 spaces or more on a citywide basis, but that within ID-6, the 150-space
threshold had been removed, meaning all parking lots in the district would be required to dim lights
by 50 percent by 10:00 PM, excluding areas immediately adjacent to building entries for safety
purposes.
Mr. Alexander noted a specific provision within the use-specific standards that referenced
compliance verification through currently acceptable methods of testing, a mechanism familiar from
the building code context of relying on recognized testing agencies. He asked whether there had
been consideration of incorporating similar language in other sections of the code, specifically the
intent statements, as a means of providing greater assurance to the public that safety and
environmental performance would be objectively evaluated. Mr. Dale agreed that this was a well-
taken observation and indicated he saw no reason why that language could not be incorporated
into the intent statement as well.
Mr. Alexander asked whether data centers were prohibited in all zoning districts or specifically in
the West Innovation District. Mr. Hounshell clarified that data centers were prohibited throughout
the entire West Innovation District, but remained a permitted use in the Tech Flex zoning district,
though most Tech Flex sites were small and already developed.
Mr. Alexander asked landscape consultant Tyler Clark of MKSK how the specified tree installation
sizes had been established and whether they were realistic for initial planting. Mr. Clark explained
that the sizes represented the largest and most mature planting size that was both beneficial to
long-term tree health and reasonable in terms of affordability given the quantities required and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 7 of 15
typical availability of plant material. He confirmed that the specified sizes of approximately 10 to
14 feet in height at installation were fairly standard and feasible for procurement.
Mr. Garvin expressed appreciation for the presentation and acknowledged the public comment as
excellent. He followed up on Ms. Damaser's earlier question regarding the phrase "limit toxic or
hazardous" materials, noting that the discussion seemed to indicate an unwillingness to set firm
limits due to the desire to accommodate businesses that might exceed those limits in the future.
He asked whether there was a way to establish a threshold above which a use would be classified
as a conditional use, thereby triggering Planning and Zoning Commission review. Mr. Dale
acknowledged the appeal of such an approach in theory, but noted the significant practical difficulty
in setting a quantifiable threshold that could be applied defensibly across a wide and evolving range
of uses, given that different materials present different hazard profiles for different reasons. He
suggested that if staff could not determine with confidence that a proposed use met all applicable
standards, the appropriate course would be to deny the application, with the applicant having
recourse through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Hounshell added that staff would work closely
with the building department, which maintains standards regarding quantities and management of
specific materials, and that outside expertise could be brought in as needed for novel or unfamiliar
uses.
Mr. Garvin asked whether other jurisdictions had attempted to codify objective testing standards
in similar districts. Mr. Dale noted that to the extent other communities had attempted such
standards, they had generally done so in conjunction with other governmental agencies engaged
in more specific environmental regulation, rather than within the zoning code itself.
Mr. Garvin asked for clarification regarding Houchard Road and whether the ID-6 district could be
extended to cover that area. Mr. Boggs clarified that Houchard Road essentially serves as a
jurisdictional boundary, with the east side incorporated within the City of Dublin and the west side
within the township and therefore outside the City's zoning authority in the relevant area. He
further noted that the present proceedings concerned only the ID-6 code and the buffering study,
and that the Commission's recommendation on the rezoning of land east of Houchard Road and
west of Cosgray Road had already been transmitted to City Council, where it remained pending.
Ms. Newell directed attention to the definition of advanced manufacturing and the district intent in
Section 153.037, specifically noting that the materials included biotechnology labs as an example
of a permitted use, yet neither the definition nor any other provision of the proposed code made
any reference to biohazards. She noted that biohazards and hazardous materials represent two
distinct regulatory concepts, and that biotechnology facilities may engage in research involving
infectious disease, cancer therapies, or vaccine development, all of which can entail exposure to
biohazardous material. She expressed concern that the code's silence on this matter effectively
permitted biohazardous uses without any restriction. Mr. Hounshell acknowledged the point and
indicated that staff could incorporate language addressing biohazards if the Commission wished to
see that addressed. Ms. Newell noted her regret at not having raised the issue at the prior meeting,
as it would have given staff an earlier opportunity to address it.
Ms. Newell also expressed appreciation for the revisions to the fleet parking provisions, noting that
they mirrored the standards applied elsewhere in the Dublin zoning code and were precisely what
she had been looking for.
Mr. Way raised the topics of containment and disposal, observing that while the code addressed
containment through the requirement that all activities occur within the building, it did not clearly
speak to the proper disposal of any hazardous materials that might be generated on-site. He
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 8 of 15
suggested that language addressing proper disposal, specifically ensuring that any generated
byproducts are removed from the site and disposed of at a licensed facility in a timely manner,
would close an important gap in the current proposal. Mr. Dale agreed and indicated that adding
language to address containment and disposal was appropriate and straightforward.
Mr. Dale then summarized the three potential additions that had emerged from the Commission's
discussion: the addition of biohazard language; the incorporation of currently acceptable methods
of testing language into the intent statement; and the addition of containment and disposal
language.
Mr. Garvin expressed support for reflecting these additions in the conditions, and suggested that
the Commission discuss whether any specific industries should be flagged as conditional uses. Mr.
Way indicated that the challenge lay in the difficulty of anticipating what kinds of uses might
emerge in the future, making it difficult to establish clean thresholds. Ms. Rauch reiterated that the
WID code already included broader manufacturing and assembly as permitted uses, and that
advanced manufacturing was a further narrowing of that category. She cautioned against codifying
specific numerical limits, noting that a use coming in just under any defined threshold would still
need to demonstrate genuine alignment with the district's intent, and that this risk could not be
fully addressed through bright-line limits.
Ms. Harter raised the question of quality control, noting that a quality control provision had been
removed from an earlier draft. Mr. Hounshell agreed that it could be added back without difficulty
and that it did not alter the substantive intent of the code. Ms. Harter revisited the topic of more
formalized reporting to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Boggs summarized the procedural options available to the Commission: the Commission could
vote on a recommendation to City Council that evening, subject to conditions, or it could postpone
a vote to a subsequent meeting. He noted that if the Commission voted with conditions, those
conditions would be transmitted to City Council but the matter would not return to the Commission
for further review. Mr. Alexander expressed comfort with allowing staff to incorporate the identified
revisions without the matter returning to the Commission, citing staff's strong performance in
addressing the feedback from the May 7 meeting within two weeks.
Public Comment
Mr. Way opened the floor for public comment.
Christian Cooney, 5835 Barronscourt Way, Dublin, addressed the Commission regarding the
Administrative Review Team. He stated his general support for the concept of an ART as a means
of efficiently processing applications that clearly conform to a tightly written code. However, he
identified several concerns with the current structure. First, he argued that neither the City's current
staff nor the ART membership included a subject matter expert in hazardous or biochemical
materials, which he characterized as a fundamental deficiency for a body being asked to review
industrial applications. He suggested that such expertise should be a standing component of the
ART rather than an as-needed consultant arrangement. Second, he expressed concern about the
permissibility of designated representatives voting in place of department heads, suggesting that
for such a consequential process, limits should be placed on the number of designated alternates
permitted to vote on any given application. Third, he questioned the alignment between the notice
timeline and the 28-day application review window, noting that a resident receiving notice on day
13 of a 28-day review period would have very limited time to research, prepare, and submit
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 9 of 15
meaningful comments. Fourth, he observed that the code did not specify how ART approvals were
determined, whether by majority vote of all members, majority vote of members present, or
unanimous agreement, and argued that this should be explicitly stated. He reiterated that he
supported the concept of the ART while urging that significant refinements were necessary.
Denise Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road, Dublin, offered points for consideration. She argued that
ID-6 should serve as a true transition between residential and industrial uses, consistent with best
zoning practices that layer residential uses, then office or retail, then light business, before reaching
light and heavy industrial — a progression she did not see clearly established in the current
language. She stated that clear and measurable standards were essential and that, as a matter of
professional principle, nothing goes into production without rigorous testing and defined metrics.
She stated that these standards should apply equally to all residential adjacent parcels and not
only to Ballantrae, noting that residents on Houchard Road who rely on well water faced equal or
greater risk from industrial runoff. She asked the Commission to prioritize residents over economic
development. Finally, she requested that the Commission either vote no or return the proposal to
staff to ensure permitted uses were truly transitional, that clear measurable standards be added,
and that ID-6 protections be extended to all residential adjacent areas.
Jennifer Hammil, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, raised two primary concerns. First, she argued that
ongoing vehicle traffic on Cosgray Road would pose a greater quality-of-life threat to Dublin
residents than the intermittent train traffic that staff had previously cited as a concern regarding
alternative residential development in the area, referencing diesel exhaust, particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, and low-frequency acoustic pollution from vehicles operating near the backs of
residents' homes. She requested that the Commission consider adding a neighborhood traffic
calming overlay zone to the affected area. Second, she asserted that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had the authority, under Dublin Code Section 153.234, to initiate an administrative
request code amendment case and direct staff to revisit the proposal, and encouraged the
Commission to exercise that authority if the code was not yet in a state that adequately protected
residents' health and safety. She stated that making advanced manufacturing and research and
development conditional uses would provide ongoing flexibility to address uses that could not be
anticipated at the time of code drafting.
Tim Myers, 5845 Glendavon, Dublin, expressed appreciation for a productive meeting with city staff
earlier in the week and acknowledged that several of the ideas discussed had been reflected in the
presentation. He suggested that the reference to robotics and automation in the definition of
advanced manufacturing was inconsistent with the intended low-intensity, low-scale character of
ID-6, noting that robotic and automated processes are economically viable only at high volumes
and thus do not suit a prototyping or small-batch research environment. He raised the question of
what constituted "low intensity and scale" and requested more specific criteria. He expressed
concern about the removal of quality control from the use-specific standards, arguing that quality
control was essential to any manufacturing or research process and that outsourcing it created
risk. He cautioned that businesses engaged in trial-and-error research would introduce chemical
changes to their processes over time and that there was no mechanism in the current code to
ensure the city would be informed of such changes. He reflected on his 35 years of experience in
the automotive industry and noted that research and manufacturing facilities of this type had
historically been located far from residential areas for reasons related to risk management. He
urged the Commission to connect the City's stated sustainability objectives with the manufacturing
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 10 of 15
definitions in a way that provided clear assurances to residents, businesses, and sports participants
regarding the absence of adverse chemical or environmental impacts.
Sandy McIntosh, 5792 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, asked whether the mention of biotechnology labs as
a permitted use example contemplated facilities engaged in research involving pathogens such as
anthrax, Ebola, or hantavirus, and questioned what standards would define whether such
biohazardous risk had been minimized or limited. She expressed skepticism about staff's ability to
make such determinations objectively, citing the history of the WID process. She questioned why
the definitions for advanced manufacturing, research and development, clean manufacturing, and
clean production remained difficult to finalize after months of drafting by consultants and attorneys.
She argued that this difficulty reflected a fundamental tension between industrial development and
a residential area and suggested that, if ID-6 were truly to serve as a transition district, the only
permitted uses should be offices and parks. She asked at minimum that advanced manufacturing
and research and development be classified as conditional uses. She also raised procedural
concerns regarding the publication of updated code amendment language at 5:00 PM on the
preceding Friday, leaving interested residents with only two business days before the meeting to
review, digest, and respond to new materials, which she characterized as inconsistent with the
transparency Dublin claimed to value.
Victoria McDonald, 5642 Tynecastle Loop, Dublin, addressed the Commission on the topic of safety
and the absence of objective criteria for safeguards relating to clean production. She introduced
the concept of greenwashing — the practice of presenting businesses, organizations, or
government entities as more sustainable than they are in practice — and suggested the City risked
falling into that paradigm by advancing language about clean production without having defined
measurable standards for its enforcement. She noted that Dublin's own vision statement committed
the City to exemplary environmental stewardship and the best quality of life for all, and asked
whether the current amendments were consistent with that vision and whether they would
adequately protect children in the surrounding neighborhoods and those using the nearby athletic
and recreational facilities. She urged the Commission to continue setting the high standard Dublin
had built by tightening the code to provide more substantive safeguards around future
development on one of the last remaining open green spaces in the city.
Amy Swank, 5945 Vandeleur Place, Dublin, posed the question of whether the amendments as
currently drafted fulfilled the original directive from City Council in August of the prior year —
specifically to permit development while addressing resident health and safety concerns and
creating an area that would serve as a buffer from more intense industrial uses. She stated her
view that the amendments failed to accomplish this in their current form and that further work was
necessary. She noted, as an attorney who had assisted communities throughout Ohio in navigating
data center siting issues, that several statements made by Commission members at the prior
meeting regarding conditional uses were, in her view, inconsistent with Ohio law. She referenced
the April 2025 City Council meeting at which council members had unanimously concluded that a
conditional use designation was appropriate for data centers in ID-3 specifically because it
preserved Planning and Zoning Commission review as an additional layer of protection for
residents. She stated her view that the Commission had the authority to request a conditional use
designation for any use about which it was not comfortable. She also raised a procedural concern,
stating her belief that the version of the code publicly posted for the current meeting did not match
the code language approved by City Council at the April 2025 meeting, and that this discrepancy,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 11 of 15
combined with other notice-related deficiencies, raised due process concerns. She requested that
the Commission recommend further work before the matter proceeded to City Council.
Joy Kouns Lewis, 6639 Barronscourt Loop, Dublin, addressed the Commission as a member of the
Ballantrae Community Association's Planning and Zoning Committee. She stated that the vast
majority of the nearly 700 active members of the Ballantrae community Facebook group were
deeply concerned and experiencing significant anxiety about the WID and the decisions pending
before the Commission. She noted that not all residents were comfortable speaking publicly or
submitting written comments, but asked the Commission to understand that those concerns were
broadly shared. She acknowledged that several school events that evening had prevented
additional residents from attending in person. She reaffirmed that the community's request was
simple: to send the code amendments back to staff for further refinement, citing the legitimate
concerns about lack of clarity on key terms and objective criteria. She argued that getting the code
right would benefit not only residents but also developers, who would have clearer guidance on
what was permissible before purchasing property. She urged the Commission to consider what its
decision would mean for the long-term safety of the Ballantrae neighborhood.
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, expressed his view that the issues raised by
Commission members that evening — including biohazard concerns — indicated that the matter
was not yet ready to be forwarded to City Council. He requested that references to Cosgray Road
be removed from the ID-6 language to allow Houchard Road to be considered with ID-6
protections, noting that residents on Houchard Road had not yet had the opportunity to formally
engage in that conversation. He referenced prior concerns he had raised regarding fire hazards
associated with battery manufacturing and the risk that an incident on the west side of the railroad
tracks could directly affect the Ballantrae neighborhood. He urged the Commission not to vote to
forward the matter to Council given the amount of work that remained.
Kathy Balmert, 5860 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that Houchard Road was a residential area
and asked why its residents should be afforded less protection than those in the Ballantrae
neighborhood. She noted that Houchard Road was not yet incorporated within Dublin but
anticipated eventual annexation, and asked that the Commission consider treating its residents as
deserving of equal protections, particularly with respect to noise, toxicity, and other adverse
impacts from adjacent development.
The Chair then closed the public comment period.
Commission Discussion
The Chair invited the Commission to deliberate on the matter and opened discussion.
Mr. Alexander asked how the Commission should proceed if it wished to incorporate the revisions
discussed during the questioning period. Mr. Boggs outlined two options: the Commission could
vote on a recommendation to City Council subject to conditions, in which case the matter would
not return to the Commission; or the Commission could postpone the vote to a subsequent
meeting.
Mr. Way noted that the evening had surfaced three specific areas for modification, as catalogued
by Mr. Dale: biohazard language, testing methodology language, and containment and disposal
language.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 12 of 15
Mr. Garvin stated that he had not attended the May 7 meeting and had come to the current
meeting with substantial reading. He expressed appreciation for the staff's responsiveness to
public comment. He reiterated his interest in discussing the question of objective testing or
measurable criteria and whether a threshold could be established above which a use would be
treated as a conditional use. He acknowledged the complexity of this question. He asked for a
straw poll of Commission members on whether anyone wished to flag specific industries or uses
for conditional use. Ms. Rauch responded that it would be very difficult to identify such industries,
given the breadth of potential future uses. She reiterated that the proposed code already
represented a significant narrowing from the existing WID framework and that the intent
language provided robust standards for staff to apply.
Ms. Newell expressed regret at not having raised the biohazard issue at the prior meeting and
stated that the code's silence on biohazards was a concern, particularly given the explicit
inclusion of biotechnology labs as an example of permitted uses. She indicated a preference for
returning the matter to staff for further refinement on that point specifically, while acknowledging
the modifications staff had made.
Ms. Harter expressed appreciation for the work of staff and all participants, acknowledged that
significant progress had been made, and stated that she would be comfortable supporting further
refinement before the matter proceeded to Council. She returned to the question of expert
availability within the ART and reiterated that she believed it was important for relevant expertise
to be consistently accessible — particularly given the novelty of this type of development for the
City. She also noted that the Commission had spent considerable effort on landscaping and
buffering and that it was now time to give equal attention to what would occur inside the
proposed buildings.
Ms. Damaser asked whether there was any Council-imposed deadline for the Commission's
recommendation. Staff confirmed there was no established time limit. Ms. Damaser indicated that
she would be in favor of seeing the proposed language changes before voting, and expressed a
preference for postponing the vote to allow those changes to be made. She acknowledged,
however, that if the language could be drafted and displayed during the meeting, she would be
comfortable proceeding to a vote that evening.
Mr. Way expressed concern about the risk of the process continuing indefinitely. He observed
that the matter was proceeding through a funnel toward increasingly specific language, and
noted that at some point the code's intent must be relied upon rather than attempting to codify
every conceivable scenario. He stated his openness to one additional round of revisions but
emphasized the importance of defining a clear and finite list of outstanding items.
Mr. Alexander expressed confidence in staff's ability to address the identified revisions without
the matter being returned to the Commission, citing the quality of work completed between the
May 7 and May 21 meetings. He stated that City Council would have additional opportunity to
review and refine the language through its two readings.
Mr. Way called a recess of approximately ten minutes at 8:40 p.m. to allow staff and consultants
to draft the proposed language changes.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 13 of 15
Following the recess, Mr. Boggs presented the language developed during the break by himself,
Mr. Dale, Mr. Hounshell, and Ms. Rauch, noting that text highlighted in yellow reflected changes
brought into the meeting and text shown in blue reflected additions made during the recess.
Condition 1. Biohazard Materials. The proposed language would add to the ID-6 district intent a
provision stating that uses within the district do not include the use, storage, production, or
emission of biohazard materials.
Ms. Damaser asked whether the term "biohazard" should also be incorporated into the advanced
manufacturing definition. Mr. Hounshell clarified that, because the intent language applied to all
uses in the district, and because the development plan application requirement obligated applicants
to demonstrate how they meet the intent as well as the definition, an explicit addition to the
definition was not necessary.
Mr. Garvin raised a concern about the potential breadth of the phrase "do not include biohazard
materials," noting that common laboratory items such as syringes, scalpels, and microscope slides
could technically be classified as biohazardous waste. He questioned whether language that
absolutely prohibited biohazard materials might inadvertently preclude acceptable biotechnology
laboratory uses. Ms. Newell agreed that the term was very broad, encompassing blood contact,
exposure to infectious material from experiments, and other forms of biohazard that could be
present in a legitimate small-scale research environment. Mr. Garvin expressed concern that an
absolute prohibition might exclude businesses that would otherwise be appropriate for the ID-6
district.
Mr. Way suggested that the language be revised to say "minimizes" rather than "do not include,"
noting that some biohazardous material might be inherent to legitimate biotechnology work, and
that the appropriate standard was proper containment and disposal rather than a categorical
exclusion. Mr. Garvin suggested adding biohazard materials to the list in the second blue clause
addressing byproducts. The group agreed to revise the language to reflect minimization and proper
disposal of biohazard materials rather than an outright prohibition.
Mr. Garvin noted, for the record, that the CDC identifies four biosafety levels for biohazards and
inquired whether it would be useful to specify that only certain risk levels were permissible. Mr.
Way indicated that specificity at that level was probably beyond the appropriate scope of the zoning
code at this stage. Mr. Boggs noted that if the Commission's recommendation were transmitted to
City Council with this direction, the Council's two readings would provide additional opportunity for
further refinement. Mr. Garvin concurred that noting this as a suggestion for Council's consideration
was appropriate.
Condition 2. Development Plan Application Testing Language. The proposed language would revise
the development plan application requirements to add that, in addition to providing sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed use meets the district intent, applicants must also
provide data demonstrating, using currently acceptable methods of testing, that the use does not
create any measurable increase of hazardous emissions to neighboring properties.
Mr. Way confirmed this language mirrored language already present elsewhere in the code. Ms.
Damaser expressed approval of the phrase "any measurable increase" as appropriately calibrated.
Mr. Boggs confirmed that both the containment and disposal concerns and the testing language
had been incorporated into the intent section through the blue revisions, and asked the Commission
to confirm whether the three items had been sufficiently addressed. Mr. Way asked whether all
members were satisfied, and the Commission indicated agreement.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 14 of 15
Mr. Alexander moved, Ms. Damaser seconded a recommendation to City Council to approve the
the proposed WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design Manual, with the
following two conditions:
1) Amend the “Intent” section as follows:
(6) Research Transition (ID-6) District. The ID-6 District is intended to support
economic development, fostering innovation and the advancement of cutting-edge
research, technology, and employment opportunities, while providing a sensitive
transition from established single-family residential neighborhoods. Uses within the
ID-6 District are expected to incorporate clean production principles that minimize
waste, hazardous inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharge; and that
minimize the use, storage, production, disposal, or emission of biohazard materials.
Land uses are expected to be of lower intensity and scale, and should not result in
adverse impacts to surrounding properties, including but not limited to environmental
emissions, noise, traffic, lighting, other off-site effects, and other environmental
impacts, including but not limited to impacts occurring in containment or disposal of
any minimized waste, hazardous inputs, or hazardous and/or biohazard byproducts.
2) Amend the “Development Plan Applications” section as follows:
Development Plan Applications
(b) Development plan applications within the ID-6 District shall include: (1) sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed use meets the intent of the ID-6 District
set forth in § 153.037(H)(6); and (2) data, using currently acceptable method(s) of
testing, that the use does not create any measurable increase of hazardous emissions
to neighboring properties.
Vote: Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Garvin, no; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms.
Harter, yes.
[Motion carried 5-1.]
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Rauch offered two brief reminders to the Commission. First, she noted that June 8 was the
date of a reception for incoming and outgoing board and commission members, scheduled to
begin at 5:30 PM prior to the Council meeting that evening. Second, she reminded the
Commission that a joint work session related to West Bridge Street and the code audit was
scheduled for June 15, and that relevant background materials including the walkability
presentation prepared by Jeff Speck had been or would be distributed through OnBoard in
advance of that session.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 pm.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2026
Page 15 of 15
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Deputy Clerk of Council
To: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Community Planning & Development
Date: May 21, 2026
Initiated By: Christopher Will, AICP, Senior Planner
Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner II
Re: 26-001ADMC – West Innovation District Code Amendments and
Setback and Screening Design Manual
Summary
This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed Zoning
Code amendments to Sections 153.002, 153.016 and 153.037-153.042 for the removal of data
centers as permitted or conditional uses, the creation of the ID-6, Research Transition District
and the amendment of design standards associated with ID-6 in the West Innovation District
(WID), and the creation of the West Innovation District Screening and Setback Design Manual.
Background
City staff began a rezoning process of approximately 370 acres of land from R, Rural District to
ID‑2, Research Flex District, and ID‑3, Research Assembly in February 2025. Following the
Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation of approval, the rezoning application was
forwarded to City Council. Throughout the review process, residents in nearby neighborhoods
expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the Flex Innovation development adjacent to
existing single-family homes. Key issues included building height and scale, noise and light
spillover from loading and service areas, increased traffic along Cosgray Road, environmental
impacts, and the adequacy of landscaping and buffering between residential areas and future
development. These concerns prompted City Council to table the rezoning ordinance in August
2025 and direct staff to work with stakeholders to draft targeted zoning code amendments to
address compatibility concerns while preserving the long‑term vision for development within the
WID and ensuring consistency with the approved Envision Dublin Community Plan.
Based on this direction and subsequent public engagement, staff’s near-term focus is on the
proposed ID-6 zoning district amendment and the five properties (approximately 148 acres)
located east of the railroad tracks, south of the future Shier Rings Road extension, and extending
to Cosgray Road. In this area more sensitive zoning standards are proposed to provide additional
protections, particularly as it transitions to existing residential development.
This application does not contemplate the rezoning of any particular property, but establishes a
new zoning district that addresses these concerns for future properties to zone into. The rezoning
of properties would occur at a future City Council meeting.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614.410.4400 • Fax: 614.410.4490 Memo
26-001ADMC – WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design Manual
May 21, 2026
Page 2 of 5
May 7 PZC – Summary of Actions
The PZC reviewed and provided non-binding feedback for the draft WID Code Amendments and
Screening and Setback Design Manual. Discussion and recommendations of the Commission are
provided below:
• Use definitions: Commissioners requested that staff further sharpen language regarding
the proposed advanced manufacturing definition to ensure alignment with the district
intent, regarding inputs and outputs, and ensuring consideration for mitigating
environmental impacts. Consultant Greg Dale noted that numeric performance standards
present drafting and enforcement challenges and that the current framework places the
burden of demonstration on applicants, subject to the review process.
• Conditional use designation: Interest was expressed in classifying advanced
manufacturing as a conditional use to provide additional oversight. Dissenting views were
offered stating that doing so would be contrary to the district's economic development
intent and would create a disincentive for investment. Legal counsel noted that conditional
uses in the WID are generally reserved for uses that depart from its core purpose.
Following discussion, a majority of the Commission determined that further refinement of
the use definition would address these concerns and the addition of a conditional use
process would not be needed.
• Fleet vehicles: Commissioners requested greater specificity regarding the location and
screening of fleet vehicle parking to prevent use as de facto signage or visual clutter,
consistent with standards applied elsewhere in Dublin. Staff acknowledged the concern
and agreed to revisit the draft language, noting that the ART (Administrative Review
Team) process could address site-specific placement.
• Renewable energy / wind equipment: It was noted that the blanket exclusion of wind
energy equipment may be overly broad, as small rooftop turbines differ significantly from
utility-scale wind towers. Staff shared this general use was raised as a concern by the
residents and removed from the draft.
• Opacity standards: Commissioners noted that the definition and measurement of the 90%
opacity requirement should be more precisely defined, including seasonal considerations
and whether the mounding itself factors into the calculation. Staff and the consultant
teams agreed to further refine this language in the revised draft.
• Mounding and buffering: Commissioners discussed the proposed mounding and buffering
design standards. They expressed a desire to ensure the design and implementation of
the buffer is cohesive along the Cosgray Road frontage.
• Sustainability bonus: The possibility was raised of applying the existing 5% buildable area
bonus for sustainable practices to the required buffer landscaping, to help offset
development costs. Staff indicated this could be evaluated on a project-by-project basis
through the ART process and agreed to examine the concept further.
Public comment was received from numerous Ballantrae neighborhood residents, who raised
concerns including: the potential health and safety impacts of advanced manufacturing and
research and development uses adjacent to homes and an elementary school; the need for
enforceable standards for noise, emissions, waste streams, fleet vehicle counts, and traffic;
requests to reclassify advanced manufacturing and R&D as conditional uses; concerns about the
26-001ADMC – WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design Manual
May 21, 2026
Page 3 of 5
adequacy of tree sizes proposed for day-one screening; and a request for comparable transition
protections for residents along Houchard Road, who noted that properties adjacent to the ID-3
district had not received similar consideration. Residents of Houchard Road were advised that the
ID-3 rezoning ordinance remains tabled at City Council and was not within the scope of the
evening's proceedings.
Updates
Following comments and recommendations received from both the Commission and residents,
Staff have made the following updates to the code amendments and design manual. Changes
from the May 7 PZC meeting are highlighted in yellow in the draft code amendments:
ID-6 District Intent
The ID-6 intent language was modified to include utilizing principals of clean production when
considering manufacturing uses. Principals of clean production include minimizing waste,
hazardous inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharge. These changes were added
to address concerns of environmental impacts from potential development within the ID-6. The
district intent emphasizes the provision of flexible spaces that can accommodate evolving
businesses, research, and technology needs, provided such flexibility does not compromise the
District’s low-intensity character, environmental responsibility, or its compatibility with adjacent
residential areas.
Advanced Manufacturing
After considerable discussion, Staff recommends retaining the Advanced Manufacturing use
category name to avoid unintended impacts to other zoning districts in the WID and the City,
keeping the code amendments targeted to ID 6 without unnecessarily modifying other sections
of Code. The definition, however, has been updated to incorporate principles of clean
manufacturing, emphasizing a product life cycle approach that limits toxic or hazardous raw inputs
and minimizes the generation of hazardous byproducts. The updated definition focuses on the
production of finished products rather than the processing of raw materials, reinforcing that both
inputs and outputs associated with these uses will be minimal in nature. These changes address
concerns about compatibility with adjacent sensitive uses, such as residential, and limit operations
that could pose hazards to surrounding properties. Additional minor edits to the definition were
made without compromising the core intent and requirements of the use.
Based on the definition of Advanced Manufacturing and the intent of the ID 6 district, the following
uses could be classified as permitted:
• Prototype development labs (hardware, electronics, medical devices)
• Small batch manufacturing
• 3D printing / additive manufacturing
• Precision electronics or instrumentation manufacturing
• Biotechnology labs with small scale production
• Flexible office users combining office, lab, and light production
• Engineering firms with fabrication and testing spaces
26-001ADMC – WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design Manual
May 21, 2026
Page 4 of 5
Performance Standards
The performance standards listed with Advanced Manufacturing were added to Research and
Development as a use-specific standard. Additionally, noise was added to the list of performance
standards.
Fleet Vehicles
In response to concerns about the types of vehicles that could be parked on a site and their
locations, several updates to the Fleet Vehicle use category were made. To focus the changes on
ID-6, several use-specific standards originally included in the new Fleet Vehicle definition were
moved to the use-specific standards of Construction and Contract Services. The standards for
Fleet Vehicles were then modified to remove the reference to commercial vehicles and to limit
vehicle size to that of a standard off-street parking space. This would also prohibit semi-trailers,
semi-tractors, and any non-recreational trailer used for commercial purposes from being parked
on the site. The Code currently requires that all fleet vehicles be maintained within appropriately
screened areas and shall not be placed forward of the structure.
Warehousing, Wholesaling, and Distribution
Minor modifications were made to remove conflicting and repetitive use-specific standards. The
updates do not change the intent behind limiting the warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution
within buildings to products and goods intended for the use of the business.
Building Height
The requirements for building height were updated to include both rooftop screening and
mechanical equipment under the maximum 45-foot height.
Public Right-of-Way Setback
Minor improvements were made to state that the setback along Cosgray is measured from the
planned future right-of-way, not the existing. This update was included as Cosgray Road is
expected to widen.
Landscape Opacity Standards
The proposed language was updated regarding screening requirements from residential
properties along the side and rear property lines. To address the goal of 90 percent opacity
throughout the year from these property lines, staff has included planting layout requirements
that state “tree spacing shall vary randomly in a staggered pattern between 6’ and 10’ on center
to achieve a naturalized appearance. A minimum of 30 trees shall be provided per 100 linear feet
of setback.” This language is consistent with the requirements in the Setback and Screening
Design Manual and provides a clear requirement that can be applied during the development
process. This is in addition to recommendations for a variety of trees and the use of mounding to
aid in the screening.
Renewable Energy / Sustainability Standards
A provision was added stating that properties within the ID-6 District along Cosgray Road that
include the 200-foot buffer also would qualify for a 5% increase in lot coverage. This update was
provided based on recommendations from the Commission. Comments were also shared about
the addition of renewable energy opportunities, such as small-scale wind energy. Staff maintained
the proposed limits on alternative energy sources based on prior resident feedback received.
26-001ADMC – WID Code Amendments and Setback and Screening Design Manual
May 21, 2026
Page 5 of 5
Setback and Screening Design Manual
• Pg. 16 & 18 (Cutsheets): Staff replaced the axon section with a secondary 2D section that
illustrates where pavement is adjacent to the back of the setback, as well as a 45-foot
building. This was intended to address comments from the Commission that pavement is
more likely to be immediately adjacent to the setback than the back of a building.
• Pg. 24 (Shared-Use Paths): Staff updated the utility easement section to include
opportunity for public access via a shared-use path. This update addresses comments
from the Commission about allowing shared-use paths to meander into the setback.
• Pg. 45 (Tree Planting Recommendations): Staff updated the language under Installation
Sizes to address comments regarding the height of trees upon installation. Since
evergreen trees are measured by their height and not caliper size, staff clarified that
evergreens should be planted at 12-14 feet tall. Deciduous trees are measured by caliper
inch, so the manual calls for these trees to range from 2-3 inches. However, a typical
deciduous tree at these sizes is typically 10-12 feet tall. Most species that are included in
the Species Selection section of the manual are relatively fast growing, averaging between
2-3 inches in height per year.
Next Steps & Process
The following outlines the next steps in the process.
1) January 22, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission - Status Update / Discussion (no
decision)
2) May 7, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission – Code Amendments Introduction
3) May 21, 2026 – Planning & Zoning Commission – Code Amendments Second Review /
Recommendation to City Council
4) June 8, 2026 (tent.) – City Council – Code Amendments First Reading
5) July 1, 2026 (tent.) – City Council – Code Amendments & Rezoning Second Reading /
Determination
Following the Commission’s recommendation to City Council on May 21, Staff and the consultants
will revise the draft amendments and proceed to the June 8 CC meeting for a first reading.
Recommendation
Recommendation of approval to City Council of the proposed WID Code Amendments and
Setback and Screening Design Manual.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
1
DEFINITIONS
§ 153.002
(A) Uses definitions.
(1) Uses definitions - A
(a) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE or BUILDING. A subordinate structure or building, the use of
which is incidental to and customarily used in connection with the principal structure or
use and which is located on the same lot with the principal structure or use.
(b) ACCESSORY USE. A subordinate use which is incidental to and customarily used in
connection with the principal structure or use and which is located on the same lot with a
principal structure or use, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter.
(c) ADVANCED MANUFACTURING. An establishment engaged in the manufacturing
of finished products or component parts from previously prepared materials integrating
scientific research, development, and testing validation, and experimentation directly into
the a production process that promotes a product life cycle approach that limits toxic or
hazardous raw inputs or the generation of hazardous byproducts or finished goods. This
use includes processing, fabrication, assembly, mixing, synthesis, prototype development,
analysis, packaging, and the preparation, calibration, or testing of equipment and
components necessary or incidental to such activities. Operations typically require a high
level of specialized and company-specific skill training and commonly utilize advanced
technologies such as computer-controlled systems, robotics, automation, additive
manufacturing, and other innovative methods to improve products or processes. Activities
such as quality control, storage, distribution, and on-site sales shall be permitted only as
accessory activities that are clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use and
conducted solely in support of the primary operation; however, this definition does not
include stand-alone warehousing, wholesaling, bulk distribution, or principal retail sales.
(d) ANIMAL CARE.
1. GENERAL SERVICES. A facility providing grooming, daycare, boarding, and
training for household pets.
2. VETERINARY OFFICES. A facility for medical, dental, or other health services
related to the diagnosis and treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments,
but not including crematory services.
3. VETERINARY URGENT CARE AND ANIMAL HOSPITALS. A facility for emergency
care for the treatment of animal illnesses, injuries, or physical ailments, but not including
crematory services.
(d) (e) ARTISAN PRODUCTION. Establishments manufacturing and/or assembling
small scale products. Artisan production includes, but not limited to food, beverage, and
bakery products; printmaking and photography; art; leather products; soap and candles;
jewelry and clothing/apparel; metal work; furniture; glass or ceramic production.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
2
(e) (f) ATM, WALK-UP. An electronically operated device used to conduct financial
transactions on site, by means of direct computerized access. Such devices may be
accessible by automobile and/or pedestrians.
(f) (g) ATTACHED ACCESSORY USE/STRUCTURE. Any use and/or structure that is
integrated visually, structurally and architecturally with the principal structure, has an
attached roof with similar design to the principal structure, permits access between the
principal structure and the addition either internally or under the roof, and/or shares a
common wall with the principal structure or is connected to the principal structure by an
enclosed space.
(g) (h) AUTO-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL FACILITY. A facility where a service is
rendered or a sales transaction is made while the patron is typically not required to exit a
vehicle, or a facility that includes services rendered directly on, to, or for vehicles. Auto-
oriented commercial facilities include, but are not limited to establishments with drive-
in/drive-through services, drive-up ATMs (automated teller machines), car washes (all
types), fueling/service stations, facilities specializing in vehicle maintenance (oil changes,
installation of car accessories, and other similar minor vehicle service facilities), and stand-
alone parking lots. The sale of vehicles (new or used) is not included within this definition.
(6) Uses definitions – F
(c) FLEET VEHICLE. A vehicle that is owned or operated by the person, company, or
business on the premises, and which is used for purposes of delivery, pick-up, or service to
patrons of the primary use. A fleet vehicle may also be a commercial vehicle, but does not
include semi-tractor, semi-trailer, any non-recreational trailer used for commercial
purposes, or any heavy construction equipment.
(dc) FOOD TRUCK. A mobile food and beverage unit which is temporarily stored on a
privately-owned lot where food items are sold to the general public. May be motorized or
unmotorized. Food truck includes food vehicle, food trailer, food cart, and temporary
commercial structures designed for the sale of food and beverages accessory to the
primary structure/use.
(ed) FUELING/SERVICE STATION. A facility used primarily for the sale of vehicle
fuels, oils or accessories. Services may include maintenance and lubrication of automobiles
and replacement or installation of minor parts and accessories but shall not include major
repair work such as engine or transmission replacement, body and fender repair or spray
painting. This use may include the retail sales of convenience goods.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
3
WESTEAZ INNOVATION DISTRICTS
§ 153.037 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND INTENT.
(A) Purpose. The West Innovation District's (WID) requirements and standards are
intended to provide five six distinct zoning districts to implement the city's vision and goals
in creating an innovation and research district. The district is envisioned as an important
technology and research business center that will encourage the development and
operation of suburban technology and office park campuses and promote individual sites
for development attracting high-tech and related uses to the city. These requirements and
standards are meant to foster the orderly growth and development of these uses as well as
promote the development of commercial, service, recreational and residential uses in
appropriately designated areas that serve the primary users in the districts. The goal is to
create zoning districts that set development requirements to ensure that buildings and
uses in the districts will adhere to high-quality, uniform design standards while addressing
the unique needs of specialized industries and uses. At the same time, these requirements
give a competitive advantage to the district by providing a streamlined process for
reviewing development proposals.
(B) Standard districts. All Innovation Districts are standard zoning districts under §
153.016(A) and shall constitute separate and distinct zoning classifications.
(C) Conflicts. If these requirements conflict in any manner with the City of Dublin
Codified Ordinances, the provisions of the districts shall prevail. All matters not covered by
the districts and their requirements shall be regulated by the requirements and standards
contained in the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
(D) Severability. If any provision or provisions of this subchapter or the application
thereof to any zoning lot, building or other structure or tract of land are declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or ineffective in whole or in part or to be
inapplicable to any person or situation, the effect of such decision shall be limited to the
provision or provisions which are expressly stated in the decision to be invalid or
ineffective to the zoning lot, building or other structure or tract of land immediately
involved. All other provisions of this subchapter shall continue to be separate and fully
effective, and the application of any such provision to other persons or situations shall not
be affected.
(E) Establishment of districts. There are hereby created five six Innovation District
zoning classifications: Research Office (ID-1); Research Flex (ID-2); Research Assembly (ID-
4); Research Mixed Use (ID-4); and Research Recreation (ID-5) District; and Research
Transition (ID-6).
(F) Zoning amendments. A request to zone or rezone land to any Innovation District
designation shall be made in accordance with § 153.234, Zoning Text and Map
Amendments.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
4
(G) Applicability. Any development proposed to occur on land designated as ID-1, ID-2,
ID-3, ID-4, and ID-5, and ID-6 shall be required to meet the requirements of the Innovation
Districts as specified herein. In the case of the ID-5 District, development shall comply with
the latest adopted version of "Planned Industrial Park Development Text: Northwest
Dublin Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
(1) Continuance of existing structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective
date of this amendment that does not comply with the requirements of this Code because
of restrictions such as front property line occupation, lot coverage, required build zone,
buildable area, height or other requirements related to the structure, that structure may be
continued as an existing structure as long as it meets the requirements of §
153.039(C)(11). Notwithstanding the provisions of § 153.004, the following shall apply to
buildings and structures within the Innovation Districts.
(2) Expansion of existing structures. Existing structures may be extended, enlarged,
altered, remodeled or modernized only after approval by the Administrative Review Team
(ART) upon finding that all of the following conditions are met:
(a) That the existing structure meets all height, area and/or parking and loading
provisions that were applicable immediately prior to the rezoning of the property on which
it is located into an Innovation District.
(b) That the enlargement or extension is limited to the same parcel on which the
existing structure was located on at the time of the adoption of this amendment.
(c) That the improvement does not interfere with the use of other properties in the
vicinity.
(d) That the enlargement or extension does not exceed 50% of the GFA of the existing
structure at the time of the adoption of this amendment.
(3) Compliance with parking requirements. Any existing structure which does not have
the minimum number of parking spaces or loading areas as required by this Code, and
which thereafter provides additional parking and/or loading spaces in conjunction with an
improvement as permitted in § 153.039(C)(11)(b), shall be required to meet the minimum
number of parking spaces as required by the district in which it is located.
(4) Reconstruction or movement. Should an existing structure be destroyed to an
extent of more than 60% of its replacement value, exclusive of the foundation, that existing
structure shall be reconstructed only in conformance with the provisions of this Code.
Existing structures destroyed to an extent equal to or less than 60% of its replacement
value, exclusive of the foundation, may be reconstructed in the location that existed prior to
the adoption of this amendment. Should the property/building owner or lessee demolish
more than 50% of the gross square footage of an existing structure, all improvements on
the property must be constructed in accordance and/or brought into conformance with the
requirements of this Code. All permitted reconstruction shall be started within 12 months
of destruction and be continued until completion.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
5
(5) Existing uses. The long range implementation of the West Innovation District
requires sensitive treatment of existing uses that represent significant investment in the
city. It is the intent of this section to permit existing uses to continue and to be considered
conforming to this Code, even if the use is not otherwise permitted in the District or
building type, provided that the following requirements are met:
(a) Continuation of use. All uses that were permitted or conditional uses under the
zoning of a property immediately prior to its rezoning into an Innovation District shall
continue to be allowed as permitted or conditional uses on the property in addition to
those permitted and conditional uses under the applicable Innovation District, provided
that at least one of the permitted or conditional uses under the prior zoning has been
operated in an existing structure on the property within 12 months prior to the rezoning of
the property into the Innovation District.
(b) Expansion of existing uses. In addition to the provisions of division (5)(a) above,
any existing use may be extended throughout any building or parts of a building which
were manifestly arranged or designed for that use at the time of adoption or amendment of
this Code, but the use shall not be extended to occupy any land outside the building except
as permitted by the ART in § 153.039(C)(11).
(c) Abandonment of existing uses. If an existing use is abandoned for any reason for a
period of more than 12 months, any subsequent use shall conform to the requirements of
this Code. With regard to a multi-tenant building, the term EXISTING USE shall mean all of
the existing uses in that building.
(d) Determination of abandonment. An existing use shall be determined by the
Director to be abandoned if one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Utilities such as water, gas and electricity to the property have been
disconnected;
2. The property, buildings and/or grounds have fallen into disrepair;
3. Signs or other indications as to the presence of the use have been removed;
4. Equipment or fixtures necessary for the operation of the use have been removed;
or
5. Other actions, which in the opinion of the Director constitute an intention on the
part of the property owner or lessee to abandon the use.
(H) District intent.
(1) Research Office (ID-1) District. The purpose of the Research Office District is to
provide for the integration of large format research and office uses in multistory buildings.
Uses within the ID-1 District may include a mix of office, research, laboratory, clean
manufacturing, assembly, and other uses incidental to office, technology and research uses.
Higher-intensity sites in this district include those with higher freeway and major arterial
visibility. Architecture should include taller buildings and be provided at a higher level of
quality, and parking structures should be considered where feasible to maximize
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
6
development potential for the district. This district may include manufacturing of a lower
intensity nature conducted in a manner and with a character that does not create
significant negative effects. Clean manufacturing and assembly should be incidental to a
larger office/research facility and/or should be constructed at a higher level of
architectural quality expected in this highly visible district.
(2) Research Flex (ID-2) District. The purpose of the Research Flex District is to
provide for the integration of small to medium-size research and office uses in flexible
building construction with smaller footprints and lower building heights than the ID-1
District. This District focuses on, but is not limited to, the provision of flexible space that
can accommodate a broad range of changing business and research needs as businesses
grow and change. Construction in this district is focused on smaller sites for single users or
larger tract development with multiple buildings housing a variety of companies. Greater
attention to architectural detail and quality should be expected similar to the ID-1 District.
(3) Research Assembly (ID-3) District. The ID-3 District is intended to provide for a
greater emphasis on large format buildings and sites. Located at the western extents of the
district, development focus in this area is intended for clean manufacturing and assembly
at a higher intensity or scale. Uses are not expected to create significant impacts, and
architecture is expected to accommodate uses with greater focus on manufacturing and
assembly. Development within the ID-3 District may include uses and design quality
appropriate to the ID-1 or ID-2 Districts but require less stringent architectural
requirements.
(4) Research Mixed Use (ID-4) District. The ID-4 District provides opportunities for a
limited mix of uses in close proximity to employment, recreational amenities and existing
neighborhoods. This district is intended for smaller scale research uses, housing and office
options either horizontally or vertically integrated as a coordinated mix of uses. Residential
options should provide housing choices for employees within the Innovation Districts
within easy walking or biking distance. Integration of offices and small support uses can
provide a transition to adjacent land uses.
(5) Research Recreation (ID-5) District. The ID-5 District is intended to support the
continued use and development of sports, recreation and amusement uses located within
the Innovation Districts as an integral public amenity for residents and businesses within
the area.
(6) Research Transition (ID-6) District. The ID-6 District is intended to support
economic development, fostering innovation and the advancement of cutting-edge
research, technology, and employment opportunities, while providing a sensitive transition
from established single-family residential neighborhoods. Uses within the ID-6 District are
expected to incorporate clean production principles that minimize waste, hazardous
inputs, hazardous byproducts, and stormwater discharge. Land uses are expected to be of
lower intensity and scale, and should not result in adverse impacts to surrounding
properties, including but not limited to environmental emissions, noise, traffic, lighting,
other off-site effects, and other environmental impacts. Uses within the District are
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
7
encouraged to incorporate sustainable practices and utilize non-toxic inputs to the greatest
extent feasible.
This District emphasizes the provision of flexible spaces that can accommodate evolving
businesses, research, and technology needs, provided such flexibility does not compromise
the District’s low-intensity character, environmental responsibility, or its compatibility
with adjacent residential areas.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11)
§ 153.038 DISTRICT USES.
(A) Rezoning to the Innovation Districts, as described below, shall be accomplished in
accordance with the procedures of § 153.234. The six four districts shall be designated on
the Official Zoning Map for the City of Dublin as:
(1) Research Office (ID-1) with a Research Support Buffer;
(2) Research Flex (ID-2);
(3) Research Assembly (ID-3);
(4) Research Mixed Use (ID-4); and
(5) Research Recreation (ID-5); and.
(6) Research Transition (ID-6).
(B) Uses in the Innovation Districts are shown on the following table. Descriptions and
characteristics of use categories can be found in § 153.002(A), uses definitions. Additional
development requirements for particular uses are contained in division (C) of this section
as referenced below within the "Use Specific Standards" column.
(1) Permitted uses. Uses denoted as "P" in Table 153.038(B)(4), Table of Uses, indicate
that the use is allowed by right, subject to compliance with the use specific requirements
referenced in the Table of Uses and all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
(2) Conditional uses. Uses denoted as "C" in Table 153.038(B)(4), Table of Uses,
indicate that the land use is allowed only upon approval of a conditional use permit as
required by § 153.236, compliance with use specific requirements referenced in the Table
of Uses and all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
(3) Size or time limited uses. Uses denoted with an "S" or "T" in Table 153.038(B)(4),
Table of Uses, indicate special limits regarding size or time duration of the use and are
subject to compliance with the use specific requirements referenced in the Table of Uses
and all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
(4) Table of uses. The following table identifies permitted and conditional uses within
the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3, and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. In all cases, blank spaces or uses not
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
8
included indicate that the uses are not permitted. For the Research Recreation (ID-5)
District, uses shall be those as outlined in the latest adopted version of "Planned Industrial
Park Development Text: Northwest Dublin Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
P=Permitted C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited
PRINCIPAL USES Research
Office
Research
Flex
Research
Assembly
Research
Mixed Use
Research
Transition
USE SPECIFIC
STANDARDS
Commercial Uses ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-6
Animal Care – General Services C 153.038(C)(1)
Animal Care – Veterinary
Offices C 153.038(C)(1)
Animal Care- Veterinary
Urgent Care and Hospitals C 153.038(C)(1)
Conference Center P P 153.038(C)(2)
Data Center C C P
Eating and Drinking C 153.038(C)(3)
Entertainment and Recreation
– Indoor C P 153.038(C)(4)
Entertainment and Recreation
– Outdoor 153.038(C)(4)
Exercise and Fitness C P P 153.038(C)(4)
Fueling/Service Station C 153.038(C)(5)
Hotel P
Office – General P P P P P
Office – Call Centers P P P
Office – Flex P P P P 153.038(C)(6)
Office – Medical P P P P P
Parking Structures P 153.038(C)(7)
Personal, Repair and Rental
Services C 153.038(C)(8)
Retail C 153.038(C)(8)
Transportation – Park-and-
Ride P P P 153.038(C)(9)
Civic, Public & Institutional
Uses ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-6
Day Care C P P 153.038(C)(10)
Educational Facility P P P 153.038(C)(11)
High School P P P 153.038(C)(11)
Government Services –
General P P P
Government Services - Safety P P
Government Services – Service P P
Hospital P P P
Library, Museum or Gallery C 153.038(C)(12)
Religious or Public Assembly P 153.038(C)(13)
Parks and Open Space P P P P P
Transportation – Transit
Station P P P
Industrial Uses ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-6
Advanced Manufacturing P 153.038(C)(14)
Construction and Contract
Service P P P 153.038(C)(15)
Manufacturing and Assembly P P 153.038(C)(16)
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
9
Mini-Storage 153.038(C)(175
)
Research and Development P P P P P 153.038(C)(19)
Utilities – District Energy Plant P P P 153.038(C)(201
6)
Utilities – Electric Substation P 153.038(C)(211
8)
Utilities – Essential Services P P P P
Utilities – Wireless
Communications See Dublin Code Chapter 99 153.038(C)(221
9)
Warehousing Wholesaling, and
Distribution C P 153.038(C)(230
)
Residential Uses ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-6
Dwelling – Single-Family 153.038(C)(241
)
Dwelling – Townhome P 153.038(C)(252
)
Dwelling – Live-Work C P 153.038(C)(252
)
Dwelling – Multiple-Family P 153.038(C)(252
)
= Research Support Buffer ONLY
P=Permitted C=Conditional S=Size Limited T=Time Limited
Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property and
must be clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use may be operated when a permitted or conditional
use does not exist on the property. Permitted principal uses are permitted as acc essory uses
ACCESSORY/TEMPORARY
USES
Research
Office
Research
Flex
Research
Assembly
Research
Mixed Use
Research
Transition
USE SPECIFIC
STANDARDS
Commercial Uses ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4 ID-6
Bicycle Facilities P P P P P 153.038(C)(263
)
Child Day Care P P P P 153.038(C)(10)
Community Activity P,T P,T P,T P,T P,T 153.038(C)(274
)
Construction Trailer/Office P,T P,T P,T P,T P,T 153.038(C)(285
)
Corporate Residences P P P
Drive-In/Drive-Thru C 153.038(C)(296
)
Dwelling Rental or Sales Office P 153.038(C)(302
7)
Eating and Drinking P P P P 153.038(C)(3)
Entertainment and Recreation
– Indoor P P P 153.038(C)(4)
Exercise and Fitness P P P P 153.038(C)(4)
Helipad/Heliport P C 153.038(C)(312
8)
Home Occupation P 153.038(C)(322
9)
Outdoor Display/Seasonal
Sales C,T 153.038(C)(330
)
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
10
Parking Structures P P C 153.038(C)(7)
Personal, Repair, and Rental
Services P,S P,S P,S 153.038(C)(8)
Retail P,S P,S P,S 153.038(C)(8)
Transportation – Park and
Ride P P 153.038(C)(9)
Transportation – Transit Stop P P P P
Utilities – Essential Services P P P P P
Utilities – Renewable Energy P P P P P 153.038(C)(341
)
Utilities – Renewable Wind
Equipment C C C C 153.038(C)(341
)
Utilities – Wireless
Communications See Dublin Code Chapter 99 153.038(C)(22)
Vehicle Charging Stations P P P P
Warehousing, Wholesaling,
and Distribution P,S P,S P,S P,S 153.038(C)(23)
Research Support Buffer ONLY
(C) Use specific standards. The following requirements shall apply in addition to all
other applicable development regulations for specific types of uses in the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3,
and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. For the Research Recreation (ID-5) District, use regulations
shall be those as outlined in the latest adopted version of "Planned Industrial Park
Development Text: Northwest Dublin Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
(1) Animal care-general services; animal care-veterinary offices; animal care-
veterinary urgent care and hospitals. Principal uses are limited to the research support
buffer within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger retail center.
Conditional use approval must be obtained as required by § 153.236. All activities shall be
conducted indoors. No outdoor animal exercise or activity areas shall be permitted.
Boarding of animals shall only be permitted for the ongoing care of animals in treatment
and must be provided within the principal structure.
(2) Conference centers. Facilities may be either freestanding or included within
permitted hotels. Uses include accessory components such as banquet facilities and
restaurants.
(3) Eating and drinking. Principal uses are limited to the research support buffer
within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger retail center. Conditional
use approval must be obtained as required by § 153.236. As an integrated use on the
ground floor of another principal use, facilities shall not exceed a cumulative total of 15%
of the gross floor area of the ground floor. The following requirements shall apply for
outdoor seating:
(a) Speakers for amplified sound must not operate at a level greater than that to
provide background music;
(b) Advertising on furniture is prohibited;
(c) A secure, enclosed area must be provided for the storage of furniture when not in
use that will not interfere with pedestrian movement.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
11
(4) Entertainment and recreation-indoor; entertainment and recreation-outdoor;
exercise and fitness. Principal uses are permitted in the ID-2 District. Within the ID-1
District uses are limited to the research support buffer as a stand-alone use or as part of a
larger retail center, subject to conditional use approval as required by § 153.236. No use
shall exceed 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. Accessory uses shall not exceed 10% of
the gross floor area of the principal use.
(5) Fueling/service station. Principal uses are limited to the research support buffer
within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger retail center. Conditional
use approval must be obtained as required by § 153.236. The following requirements shall
also apply:
(a) Facilities shall be located no less than 200 feet from any intersection, as measured
from the corner property pin.
(b) Each fueling station/pump shall be designed to accommodate a minimum of three
vehicles (one at pump and two waiting).
(c) Under canopy lighting should be recessed to avoid glare and light trespass.
(d) All canopies shall be clad in materials to match the primary structure, and
multiple canopies are preferred over one continuous roof form.
(e) Convenience store components shall be located along the public right-of-way and
provide entry and orientation to the public street.
(f) Accessory items for fueling stations such as waste receptacles should be located
between stations. Vending machines and outdoor sales and displays must obtain separate
approval as required by this section.
(g) All inoperable vehicles must be parked in a defined service area providing
screening in accordance with § 153.133.
(h) Each fueling/service station shall be adequately buffered from adjacent
properties as required by § 153.133.
(6) Office-flex. Flex office must include a minimum of 30% office use. Remaining space
may be used for any combination of research and laboratory space, clean manufacturing
and assembly, wholesaling and/or related showroom, warehousing and or distribution
purposes. Any showroom component shall not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the
principal structure and shall not count toward office calculations.
(7) Parking structures. All parking structures shall meet the requirements of §
153.040(J).
(8) Personal, repair and rental services; retail. Principal uses are limited to the
research support buffer within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger
retail center. Conditional use approval must be obtained as required by § 153.236. As
ground-floor accessories to a larger permitted use, integrated establishments shall not
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
12
exceed 10,000 square feet or 20% of the ground floor of the structure, whichever is
smaller.
(9) Transportation- park-and-rides. Park and ride facilities shall provide only one
shelter per bus route.
(10) Day care. Principal uses are permitted within the ID-2 District and are limited to
the research support buffer within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a
larger retail center subject to conditional use approval as required by § 153.236. As
accessories to a larger permitted use, integrated establishments shall not exceed 15,000
square feet of gross floor area and shall comply with the requirements of R.C. § 5104.011.
(11) Educational facility; high schools. Uses shall have no rooms for the regular
housing or sleeping of students. Educational programs and/or uses should also have a
defined mission to engage in technology or entrepreneurial programs.
(12) Library, museum or gallery. Principal uses are limited to the research support
buffer within the ID-1 District as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger retail center.
Conditional use approval must be obtained as required by § 153.236. Incid ental sales
relating to the facility are permitted.
(13) Religious or public assembly. Only uses on sites existing as of the effective date of
this amendment are permitted. Once removed, no further religious or public assembly uses
shall be permitted.
(14) Advanced manufacturing. The following shall apply:
(a) Indoor Operations Required. All activities shall occur entirely within an enclosed
building. No outdoor activity is permitted.
(a)(b) Performance Standards. The use shall not generate noise, vibration, odor,
dust, smoke, glare, heat, or electromagnetic interference at a level above that
normally perceptible from other development in the area or from the usual street
traffic observed at the street right-of-way line of the lot.
(c) The use of incinerators, smokestacks, smelting, natural gas turbines and fuel cells
is prohibited. Similar structures may only be permitted if the occupant is able to
provide sufficient information, via a currently acceptable method of testing, that
the structure does not create any measurable increase of hazardous emissions to
neighboring properties.
(15) Construction and contract service. The following shall apply to construction and
contract service uses located in the ID-6 District:
(a) Indoor Operations Required. All activities shall occur entirely within an enclosed
building. No outdoor activity is permitted other than the parking of fleet vehicles.
(a)(b) Storage of Equipment. All equipment and vehicles utilized by the
construction and contract service use shall be stored inside the building except for
fleet vehicles.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
13
(c) Parking of Fleet Vehicles. Parking areas for fleet vehicles must comply with the
landscaping and perimeter standards applicable to off-street parking areas under
§ 153.209. In addition, all fleet vehicles must fit within a standard off-street
parking space as defined in § 153.200. A fleet vehicle within the ID-6 may also be a
commercial vehicle, but does not include semi-tractor, semi-trailer, any non-
recreational trailer used for commercial purposes, or any heavy construction
equipment.
(164) Manufacturing and assembly. Any auxiliary showroom areas associated with the
primary use shall not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the principal structure.
(175) Mini-storage. Only uses existing as of the effective date of this amendment are
permitted. Once removed, no further mini-storage facilities shall be permitted.
(187) (Reserved)
(19) Research and development. The following shall apply to research and
development uses located in the ID-6 District:
(a) Indoor Operations Required. All research, testing, fabrication, storage, loading,
and related activities shall occur entirely within an enclosed building. No outdoor activity is
permitted.
(b) Prototype Limitation. Fabrication, assembly, or processing shall be limited to
prototype or pilot-scale development only and shall be clearly incidental and subordinate
to the research function.
(c) No On-Site Retail or Commercial Sales. Retail sales, wholesale distribution, and
customer pickup of goods are prohibited.
(d) Performance Standards. The use shall not generate noise, vibration, odor, dust,
smoke, glare, heat, or electromagnetic interference at a level above that normally
perceptible from other development in the area or from the usual street traffic
observed at the street right-of-way line of the lot.
(2016) Utilities- district energy plant. The incidental sales of electrical energy to public
utilities are permitted.
(2118) Utilities- electric substation. Electric substations shall be located at least 700
feet from all residential districts or residential subarea of a planned development district.
(2219) Utilities- wireless communications. For regulations governing wireless
communication uses, Chapter 99 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances shall apply.
(230) Warehousing, Wholesaling, & Distribution. Any auxiliary showroom areas
associated with the primary use shall not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the
principal structure. The following shall apply to warehousing, wholesaling, & distribution
located in the ID-6 District:
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
14
(a) Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution activities shall be incidental and
subordinate to a principal use located on the same lot and shall function solely to support
the operations of that principal use. Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution shall not
operate as a stand-alone logistics, wholesale, or bulk storage facility.
(b) Permitted accessory activities include the storage, staging, packaging, assembly,
shipment, and limited distribution of goods, materials, equipment, or products used in,
produced by, or sold as part of the principal use.
(c) The warehousing, wholesale or distribution of goods not created by the principal
use shall be prohibited.
(241) Dwelling- single-family. Only residential uses existing as of the effective date of
this amendment are permitted. Once removed, no further single-family dwelling shall be
permitted.
(252) Dwelling, live-work; dwelling, townhome and dwelling, multi-family. Live-work
units may include up to two non-resident employees, and the non-residential use must be
owned or operated by a resident of the live-work dwelling unit. In all cases, gross density
for live-work, townhome or multi-family development shall not exceed ten units per acre.
(263) Bicycle facilities. Facilities shall be provided in accordance with § 153.040(H).
(274) Community activity. Community activities shall be conducted in accordance with
this code.
(285) Construction trailer/office. All construction trailers and offices must obtain
required permits and comply with setbacks applicable to the principal structures for sites
upon which the construction will occur. Trailers/offices may be located on site no more
than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activity and must be removed no
later than 60 days following occupancy.
(296) Drive-In/drive-thru. Facilities are not permitted within the ID-2, ID-3 or ID-4
Districts, principal uses are limited to the research support buffer within the ID-1 District
as a stand-alone use or as part of a larger retail center. Conditional use approval must be
obtained as required by § 153.236, and must comply with the following requirements:
(a) Reductions may be requested by the applicant and approved pursuant to §
153.041(E)(6) if a lower need can be adequately demonstrated.
(b) Stacking may not impede on-site or off-site traffic movement or circulation.
(c) All menu boards, speakers or service windows must be located on the side or rear
of the principal structure.
(3027) Dwelling rental or sales office. Rental or sales offices within the ID-4 District
must comply with setbacks applicable to principal structures on the property and must be
conducted in compliance with all applicable Code requirements for model homes and sales.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
15
(3128) Helipad/heliport. Proposed facilities must comply with the provisions of §
153.094.
(3229) Home occupation. Within the ID-4 District, all home occupations shall comply
with applicable provisions of § 153.073 and the following:
(a) Uses must be conducted completely within the residence or an accessory building
and shall not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the dwelling.
(b) No retail sales from the premises are permitted and the exterior of structures
shall not be modified to accommodate the use.
(c) No display or signs for the home occupation shall be visible from the street.
(d) No employees are permitted other than those persons residing within the
dwelling.
(e) No equipment shall be used that creates noise, vibration, sound, smoke, dust,
odors, heat, glare, x-ray or electrical disturbance that is discernable to adjacent dwellings
or at the property line.
(f) Uses requiring licenses from the state or city shall maintain licenses at all times
and shall operate in compliance at all times.
(g) Home occupations shall not include or involve motor vehicle or equipment repair,
sate of weapons or hazardous materials or other activities that would constitute a nuisance
within a residential area.
(330) Outdoor display/seasonal sales. Outdoor displays and/or seasonal sales must be
associated with the primary use of the property and comply with the provisions of §
153.099.
(341) Utilities- renewable energy equipment; utilities- renewable wind equipment.
Incorporation of renewable energy for individual uses or groups of uses within the district
is highly encouraged subject to the following:
(a) Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of geothermal energy is permitted
only to the side or rear of the principal structure, and equipment must be adequately
screened.
(b) Ground-mounted equipment for the collection of wind energy must be located to
the rear of the principal structure. Both building-mounted and ground-mounted equipment
are subject to conditional use approval as required by § 153.236.
(c) For regulations pertaining to renewable energy equipment - solar, refer to §
153.074, Accessory Uses and Structures.
(D) Similar uses or uses not addressed.
(1) In those situations where a use is not specifically addressed but could reasonably
be interpreted as similar in character to a use listed in the District, the Director may
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
16
determine that the use is similar to the uses in the District, either as a permitted or a
conditional use.
(2) The Director shall base the decision on a finding that the proposed use satisfies all
of the following:
(a) Is consistent with the intent of this section and with the development intent for
each District, as described in § 153.037(G) and this Code.
(b) Will not impair the present or potential use of other properties within the same
District in the vicinity.
(c) The operation, scale and characteristics of the proposed use are no greater than
those listed in the District, in terms of aesthetics, traffic generated, noise, potential
nuisances, and other impacts related to community health, safety and welfare.
(d) Will not adversely affect the West Innovation DistrictEconomic Advancement
Zone elements of the Community Plan.
(3) Once a finding of similar use is made, it shall comply with all applicable Code
provisions, review and approval requirements and district regulations that apply to that
use.
(4) The Director's determination shall be in writing and sent to the applicant. The
applicant may either appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with
the provisions of this Code, or submit an application for an amendment to the Code.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11; Am. Ord. 19-12, passed 4-23-
12; Am. Ord. 70-22, passed 6-12-23)
§ 153.039 INNOVATION DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS.
(A) Lot requirements. In addition to the provisions of §§ 153.070 through 153.076, the
following requirements for arrangement and development of land and buildings shall be
met in the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3 and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. For the Research Recreation (ID-5)
District, lot requirements shall be those as identified in the latest adopted version of
"Planned Industrial Park Development Text: Northwest Dublin Commercial Park/Sports
Ohio."
(1) Intensity of use. Lot size shall be sufficient to provide the yard spaces required by
this section and the following provisions:
(a) Minimum lot size. The size of lots within the Innovation Districts shall meet the
following:
Zoning District Minimum Lot Size
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
17
ID-1 3 acres
ID-2 2 acres
ID-3 3 acres
ID-4 No minimum
ID-6 2 acres
(b) Maximum lot coverage. Lot coverage for structures and impervious surfaces shall
not exceed the following.
ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE
ID-1 70%
ID-2 75%
ID-3 70%
ID-4 75%
ID-6 75%
(c) Building height. The height of principal and accessory structures shall be limited
based upon setback requirements of this District and as limited by the Height Regulating
Plan in the Community Plan's West Innovation DistrictEconomic Advancement Zone Plan.
All structures greater than 68 feet in height shall require conditional use approval in
accordance with § 153.236. The height of principal and accessory structures in the ID-6
District shall be limited to 45 feet in height. This height shall include rooftop screening and
mechanical equipment.
(2) Setback requirements. Placement of structures and improvements shall provide
sufficient separation to the adjacent site or use according to the following provisions.
Setbacks shall be provided as necessary to accommodate any additional site requirements
such as landscaping, mounding and buffering.
(a) Lot width. Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width at the public right-of-way.
(b) Front yards. The required front yard setback for principal and accessory
structures shall be determined based on the roadway type as identified by the Multimodal
Thoroughfare Plan, unless as outlined below in 153.039(A)(2)(f).
STREET TYPE REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK
Arterials 50 feet
Collectors 35 feet
Local 30 feet
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
18
(c) Side and rear yards. The following setbacks for components of principal and
accessory structures shall be determined based upon the height of each individual
component, unless as outlined below in 153.039(A)(2)(f).
Building
Height
Side/Rear Building Setbacks
ID-1 ID-2 ID-3 ID-4
17 feet 30 feet 15 feet 30 feet 15 feet
>17 – 34 feet 35 feet 20 feet 35 feet 20 feet
>34 – 51 feet 50 feet 35 feet 50 feet 35 feet
>51 feet 75 feet 50 feet 75 feet 50 feet
Building
Height
Side/Rear Building Setbacks
ID-6
<17 feet 15 feet
>17 – 34 feet 20 feet
>35 – 45 feet 35 feet
Required side and rear setbacks for principal and accessory structures for non-residential
uses shall in no case be less than 75 feet from a limited access right-of-way and 30 feet
from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned development
district as listed in § 153.016, unless developed as part of the ID-4 District.
(d) Side pavement setbacks. Required side yard setbacks for pavement, which
includes open storage, service and loading areas, shall be at least 15 feet, except for
common access drives or shared service courts. Required side pavement setbacks shall be
at least 30 feet from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned
development district as listed in § 153.016.
(e) Rear pavement setbacks. Required rear yard setbacks for pavement, which
includes open storage, service and loading areas, shall be at least 25 feet, except for
common access drives or shared service courts. Required rear pavement setbacks shall be
at least 75 feet from limited access right-of-way and 50 feet from any residential zoning
district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in § 153.016.
(f) Setbacks from residential. For properties located within the ID-2, and ID-3, and ID-
6 districts, a 150-foot building and pavement setback is required from the property line(s)
immediately adjacent to a residential zoning district. For properties located within the ID-6
district, a 200-foot building and pavement setback is required from the property line(s) or
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
19
future right-of-way, whichever is greater for properties adjacent to Cosgray Road adjoined
to the Cosgray Road right-of-way. When setbacks conflict with the recommendations of the
West Innovation District Special Area Plan, the greater setback shall apply.
(B) Additional outdoor requirements. The following requirements for outdoor storage,
operations and service areas shall be met in the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3, and ID-4, and ID-6
Districts. For the Research Recreation (ID-5) District, requirements shall be those as
identified in the latest adopted version of "Planned Industrial Park Development Text:
Northwest Dublin Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
(1) Outdoor operations. Uses shall operate entirely within an enclosed structure,
unless it is determined by the Director that proposed outdoor operations are harmonious
to the surrounding area and are adequately screened. Outdoor operations are not
permitted in the ID-6.
(2) Outdoor storage. Exterior storage shall be screened in accordance with §
153.133(C)(1). Storage must be located to the side or rear of all buildings and shall not be
visible from adjacent properties or from the public right-of-way. Areas devoted to the
storage of materials, supplies, equipment or products outside of a permitted structure shall
not exceed the following:
(a) An area equal to 25% of the GFA of the primary building when the GFA is less than
225,000 square feet;
(b) An area equal to 5% of the GFA of the primary building when the GFA is more
than 225,000 square feet; or
(c) An area equal to 50% of the GFA of the primary building within the ID-3 District.
(d) Outdoor storage is not permitted in the ID-6 District.
(3) Off-site impacts. Uses must be conducted in a manner harmonious with the
surrounding area and comply with minimum requirements as set forth by the provisions of
§ 153.076 and § 132.03 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances.
(4) Service areas. Overhead doors shall be located to the side or rear of structures to
minimize visibility from public streets. Open service areas and loading docks shall be
screened by walls a minimum of six feet in height, but not greater than 142 feet. Walls,
fences or landscape screening shall have 100% opacity to effectively conceal service and
loading operations from an adjoining public right-of-way and from any residential zoning
district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in § 153.016.
Compliance with the provisions of § 153.133(C) shall also be required. On ID-6 properties
directly adjacent to Cosgray Road, building elevations along this frontage shall not feature
service areas, loading docks, and overhead bay doors.
(5) All storage areas and structures for outdoor mechanical equipment must be
screened so as not to be visible from the street and from pedestrian circulation areas, or
recessed within the footprint of the building.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
20
(C) Architectural requirements. The following requirements for architectural design
shall be met in the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3, and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. For the Research
Recreation (ID-5) District, architectural requirements shall be those as identified in the
latest adopted version of "Planned Industrial Park Development Text: Northwest Dublin
Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
(1) Design purpose. The Innovation Districts utilize architecture as a key component
for establishing a specific character for the area. Structures within the Innovation Districts
are expected to have a forward-looking, contemporary architectural expression that is
typically associated with technology and research uses. Buildings within the Innovation
Districts shall reflect the high standard of development that is found throughout the
community while seeking to accommodate the unique nature of uses within the Districts.
All development in the Innovation Districts shall be required to meet the objective
architectural requirements of this section unless a modification is approved, as provided
herein. These requirements are intended to encourage creative architectural design while
setting a level of expectation for development.
(2) Architectural intent. All structures within the Innovation Districts are expected to
be thoughtfully designed with materials, detailing, scale, and proportion that is intentional
and carefully thought through and with specific attention toward aesthetics and overall
style and character. Buildings may utilize any combination of exterior materials from the
list of permitted materials, however, in all cases, these materials shall be applied in a
manner that provides well-detailed and aesthetically pleasing facade surfaces.
Characteristics of a well-detailed facade include, but are not limited to, deliberate joint
patterns, finished edge detailing, and durable, rust and fade resistant finishes. Concealed
fasteners are highly encouraged.
(a) ID-1. The Research Office District is intended to focus on larger buildings with
multiple stories. As a district with high visibility focused on office-type construction,
greater attention to architectural style and variety will be expected than other portions of
the West Innovation DistrictEconomic Advancement Zone. Elements of the ID-1 District
that are within the research support buffer may have a greater focus on retail and mixed
use construction, but should utilize the same attention to quality and detail as other
technology-related structures.
(b) ID-2. The Research Flex District is expected to have a greater focus on smaller
footprint buildings that effectively blend office and industrial design together in a manner
that pays attention to quality and detail. The high quality level of the Research Office
District is desired; however, review of projects in the ID-2 District will recognize that the
increased emphasis on industrial-type components will warrant greater architectural
flexibility to meet the needs of the market segment.
(c) ID-3. As the most remote district of the WID, the Research Assembly District is
planned for more intensive industrial activity. With larger footprint manufacturing
expected as a focus, a high level of quality is expected. The level of architectural detail and
variation expected in this district will be lessened to meet the needs of clean manufacturing
operations and smaller flex construction with different price points.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
21
(d) ID-4. Located adjacent to park amenities and existing residential uses,
architecture should provide for high quality combination of office, residential and mixed
architecture that effectively conveys the contemporary nature of the WID and provides for
a more pedestrian-focused environment.
(e) ID-6. Similar to the Research Flex District, the Research Transition District is
intended to effectively blend office and high-quality, detail-oriented design together in a
manner that pays attention to quality and detail. Buildings are expected to be smaller in
scale that provide a higher architectural emphasis on facades adjacent to residential
properties.
(3) Applicability. Architectural requirements as specified by this section shall apply to
new construction. Design of additions to structures existing as of the date of this
amendment may coordinate with architecture of the existing structure, but to the extent
possible shall meet the requirements of this section.
(4) Critical design components. Architecture within the Innovation Districts should
incorporate design technique and the application of building methodology that will result
in architecture that is unique and diverse, while fitting into a general category of style. In
particular, development will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
(a) The visual and functional components of the building shall be complementary to
the contemporary design style selected for the Innovation Districts and any adjacent users.
(b) The design expression is to be a modern application that is appropriate to high
end technology or research uses. The design is consistent with the look and feel of a high-
end technology or research uses where applicable. Consideration shall be given to the
unique nature of the use or the interior arrangement of uses and activities within the
structure.
(c) All buildings are to use durable, long-lasting materials constructed with solid
craftsmanship that will provide longevity.
(5) Elements of contemporary style. Building design within the WID should clearly
address in any appropriate combination, the following list of critical elements that embody
the contemporary style.
(a) Innovative use and presentation of building materials;
(b) Utilize opaque, translucent and transparent materials to create facade
compositions;
(c) Make use of textures, protrusions, recesses, overhangs and other features that
make use of shadow;
(d) Design beyond the basic box by integrating added shapes, recesses, curvilinear
forms, angles, non-conventional shapes, cantilevers, independent planes and by using
special architectural features;
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
22
(e) Avoid materials that are strongly associated with traditional residential
architecture such as ashlar stone patterns, stressed or tumbled brick, brick that has been
flashed to give it an older, non-uniform appearance and lap wood siding; and
(f) Emphasize natural light and sustainable building techniques.
(6) Applying the pattern book. Architectural requirements of the Innovation Districts
and applicable review procedures highlight the most important site and building
development issues. The provisions of the Districts recognize that design details not
included in these requirements are best left to the inventive discretion of architects, land
planners, and owners. Nevertheless, acceptance and implementation of the broader design
themes of the WID are vital to the success of the city. Architectural provisions of the WID
Plan should be used to provide additional clarification and guidance. The architectural
pattern book portion of the plan illustrates acceptable levels of architectural expression
and can be used to find cost-effective design methods by which to balance visual quality
and project cost.
(7) Building variation.
(a) Elevations. All sides of a principal structure shall display a compatible level of
quality and architectural interest, particularly those highly visible to the public. Each street
facing elevation for principal structures on corner and through lots shall be required to
vary the design of the facade. The structure's architectural features and treatments shall be
distributed through all of the facades.
(b) Architectural variation. All building facades shall include architectural design
elements that will provide greater visual interest and a consistent level of quality. Single-
material, monolithic wall planes with lack of detail shall be avoided. This is particularly
applicable to large footprint buildings with long, uninterrupted walls. Elements may
include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Recessing and projecting of wall planes. Variations in depth shall be a minimum
of 12 inches.
2. Architectural features that compose an aesthetically pleasing composition that
reinforces the building character;
A. Overhangs, columns, arcades and recessed entries;
B. Architectural sunscreens, plant grids and green wall systems, trellises, arbors or
pergolas; and
C. Reveals, projecting ribs and offsets or insets 18 inches or greater in depth.
3. Variations in roof area and wall heights along the top of building walls and eave
lines to create visual interest.
(8) Architectural detail. All building facades facing public streets or residential districts
shall incorporate architectural details, textures and/or design techniques that provide
greater visual interest.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
23
(9) Fenestration. Building walls facing public streets or residential districts shall
incorporate adequate changes in architectural fenestration to effectively avoid blank and
undifferentiated elevations while balancing the needs of internal space needs and
operations. To achieve this objective, the following shall be observed:
(a) Windowless exterior walls are prohibited.
(b) Windows and doors shall be in harmony with and proportionate to the building
facade.
(c) For industrial warehouse and production areas, clerestory windows and/or other
comparable architectural elements shall be encouraged as a means to enhance interior
lighting and to avoid blank facades.
(10) Entrances. Main entrances to the public shall be designed to be clearly identifiable
and provide visual orientation for visitors according to the following:
(a) Buildings shall have at least one primary facade with a public entrance facing a
street, main parking lot, or connection to a parking structure serving the building.
(b) Any public entrance shall be clearly identified as a special architectural feature for
the building and be designed with a high level of care and detail and have an appropriate
scale to the rest of the building. Insets, canopies, porticos, arches, change in roofline or
form, overhangs or other architectural design elements shall be used.
(11) Roofs. Building roofs and rooflines shall meet the following minimum criteria:
(a) Buildings are encouraged to be designed to include varied eave lines, parapet
heights and/or ridgelines to provide visual interest when appropriate.
(b) Rooftop mechanical equipment and other functional components shall be
screened from view from the ground by parapets not lower than the height of the roof
equipment, screens with materials and details compatible with the building's facades,
pitched roof areas, or special architectural features. Parapets on flat roofs shall not be
included in the calculation for building height.
(c) Energy conserving roof components are encouraged but their application shall fit
comfortably within the building's design if visible, or be completely concealed from the
ground views.
(d) Low pitched, long span metal panel roofs commonly found on pre-engineered
metal buildings are discouraged unless they are concealed by a parapet or other
architectural component.
(e) Visible roof materials shall be standing seam or batten seam metal or other
products that are compatible with a high technology architectural expression.
(f) Downspouts and scuppers shall be carefully integrated into the facade design.
(12) Materials. At least 80% of exterior walls shall be constructed of one or more of the
primary materials listed below:
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
24
(a) Primary materials.
1. Brick. Brick shall be uniform in color within any one specific color range but using
more than one color range to create patterns is acceptable. Bricks that have been flashed to
change color in the individual unit, distressed bricks and wood mold bricks are not
acceptable.
2. Glass. Transparent, tinted, reflective, coated, opaque, translucent, and textured
glass, as well as glass block, is permitted.
3. Stone. Stone such as limestone, granite and marble are acceptable. Synthetic
stone of a high quality that is indistinguishable from natural stone is also acceptable.
4. Pre-cast concrete. Pre-cast concrete panels developed with shadow lines, reveals,
textural changes, color variations and/or exposed aggregate are acceptable.
5. Architectural metal. Smooth face, textured face and corrugated type insulated or
un-insulated metal panels are acceptable. Careful attention to how the panels are adjoined,
detailed at corners and attached is required. Long span, high profile fluted or ribbed metal
panels, are prohibited from use in the ID-1, ID-2, and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. Use of fluted
or ribbed metal panels shall be limited to no more than 65% of the exterior in the ID-3
District.
6. Synthetics. Synthetic siding materials such as fiber cement siding and EIFS are
acceptable if carefully integrated into the building's design and detailed with a high level of
shadow lines and reveals.
7. Concrete masonry units. Architectural masonry units with special aggregates and
finishes are acceptable. Split face masonry units may be acceptable if combined with other
masonry products to raise the level of visual quality.
8. Tilt-up panels. Concrete tilt-up panels are acceptable if they contain a high degree
of detail by the use of shadow lines, textural variations and/or applied projections and
limited to large footprint buildings.
9. Other primary building materials may be approved by the Architectural Review
Team (ART) if demonstrated to be of similar quality to the permitted primary materials.
(b) Secondary materials.
1. Any primary material listed above may be considered as a secondary material.
2. Gypsum fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC). Fiber reinforced concrete products
may be used for trim or architectural features.
3. Frost-proof ceramic tile. Porcelain or other frost-proof ceramic tiles may be used
as accents or to create special features.
4. Architectural metal. Metal extrusions, panels and structural components may be
used as accents or for special features such as canopies and sunshades. These materials
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
25
must be finished to prevent rust or corrosion. Use of corrugated or long span, high-profile
fluted or ribbed metal panels is prohibited.
5. Split-faced block. Split-faced block shall be used in limited quantities for
components like foundations or site walls.
6. EIFS. Exterior insulated finishing systems may be used to add three dimensional
features to the walls.
7. Other secondary building materials may be approved if demonstrated to be of
similar quality to the permitted secondary materials.
(13) Color. Structures shall incorporate combinations of color that will provide visual
interest while being harmonious with the surrounding area.
(a) Base colors. Main building colors shall be neutral, off-white or earth tone. Base
colors shall constitute a predominance of the visible building exterior.
(b) Accent colors. Building trim and/or detailing may utilize brighter accent colors to
create visual interest, enhance wayfinding and/or to identify main public entrances.
Application of accent colors may be used up to an amount not to exceed 10% of the total
area of all building elevations.
(14) Accessory structures. Attached or detached accessory structures shall be
constructed similar in design, style, quality and appearance with identical materials as the
principal structure.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11)
§ 153.040 SITE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
The following requirements for site development shall be met for the ID-1, ID-2, ID-3, and
ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. For the Research Recreation (ID-5) District, site development
requirements shall be those as identified in the latest adopted version of "Planned
Industrial Park Development Text: Northwest Dublin Commercial Park/Sports Ohio."
(A) Fences. Fences within the Innovation Districts will comply with §§ 153.078 to
153.083.
(B) Landscape requirements. Unless otherwise specified in this section, all other
applicable requirements of §§ 153.134 to 153.148 shall be met.
(1) Intent. Landscaping should emphasize a naturalized appearance and blend with the
design of public rights-of-way, while demarking areas of more formal design where people
will gather and use space.
(2) Character elements. Site landscaping shall comply with the general character and
design components as prescribed by the Community Plan.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
26
(3) Property perimeter and parking lot buffering. To meet the intended landscape
character for the Innovation Districts to provide a more naturalized appearance, required
screening additional deciduous trees, shrubs and grasses shall be used to augment
screening and visually soften the appearance of required evergreen screening.
(4) Use of mounding. The general design of sites shall avoid the use of uniform
mounding to meet screening and buffering requirements. Integration of mounding as one
form of screening should focus on landforms of varying width and height that will achieve a
more natural and less "engineered" appearance.
(5) Interior landscape requirements. All landscape islands must include a minimum
width of ten feet from back to back of curb. All islands must be a minimum of 180 square
feet in area. Parking lot islands shall be designed in a manner so as to be distributed as
evenly as possible throughout paved parking areas without being required in the interior of
service courts and loading dock areas.
(6) Street trees. One, two-inch caliper street tree shall be provided for each 35-foot
interval of public or private street frontage and along entry driveways exceeding 200 feet
in length. Trees shall be planted in informal clusters along public arterials and collectors .
Entry drives and local streets may include more uniform spacing.
(7) Open space plantings. One deciduous tree must be planted for each 1,000 square
feet of open space (areas not part of lot coverage). Trees must have a minimum caliper of
two inches at the time of planting. Groupings or clusters of trees are preferred, planted at
intervals necessary to ensure their survival.
(8) Parking lot plantings. To help reduce excessive heat build-up and emissions from
large areas of hard surfacing, landscape areas must be provided within parking lots
designed for a capacity of 40 cars or more. Landscape islands with a surface area equal to
5% of the area of the paved surface (including all parking spaces, interior drives, loading
docks, drop-off/pick-up lanes, and access drives beyond the right-of-way) shall be provided
in all parking lots. The required landscape areas shall meet the following requirements:
(a) All required landscaped areas shall consist of curbed islands or peninsulas that
are surrounded on at least two sides by pavement. Landscaping on the perimeter of the
parking lot shall not be counted toward meeting this requirement.
(b) A minimum of one broad leaf/deciduous tree shall be provided for every 300
square feet of landscaped area required.
(c) The landscape areas may be located in "dead corners" or in landscape islands so
as to break up expanses of parking spaces and to contribute to orderly circulation of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the parking area.
(98) Screening and Buffering along Cosgray Road. The West Innovation District
Setback and Screening Design Manual is hereby incorporated by reference into this Zoning
Code and shall apply to properties within the ID-6 that have frontage along Cosgray Road.
Screening and buffering from residential areas. When adjacent to a residential zoning
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
27
district, properties located in the zoning districts ID-2 and ID-3 shall provide mounding
within the required setback area and shall vary in height between 4 and 14 feet, with a
typical height of 12 feet. Landscaping shall be planted in a natural pattern with mixed
deciduous and evergreen trees and native understory shrubs along the street side of
mounds for additional screening.
(10) Screening and Buffering from residential areas. When a side or rear yard is
adjacent to a residential zoning district, properties located in the zoning districts ID-3 and
ID-6 shall provide landscape screening between the residential properties and the
operations of the site measured at ground level. To achieve a goal of 90 percent opacity,
tree spacing shall vary randomly in a staggered pattern between 6’ and 10’ on center to
achieve a naturalized appearance. A minimum of 30 trees shall be provided per 100 linear
feet of setback. Landscaping shall be planted in a natural pattern with mixed deciduous and
evergreen trees and native understory shrubs. Mounding is encouraged as part of the
screening design.
(C) Tree preservation. All sites within the Innovation Districts are expected to retain and
protect natural features to the greatest extent possible as part of the development process.
Sites shall also comply with the procedures for §§ 153.140 to 153.149.
(D) Open space and greenways.
(1) Development within the Innovation Districts shall include the dedication of land or
provision of public access easements for the purposes of establishing key greenway
connections.
(2) For residential development within the Innovation Districts, dedication of public
open space shall be provided in accordance with Code requirements.
(3) All uses within the WID are highly encouraged to provide outdoor plazas, squares
or greens and public art accessible to the general public from the public right-of-way.
(4) Open space areas shall be large enough and of proper dimensions so as to
constitute a useable area, with adequate access, through easements or other similar
arrangements.
(5) The inclusion of the following amenities are permitted and encouraged within an
open space where appropriate to the principal use: public art, sidewalk cafes, food kiosks,
ornamental fountains, drinking fountains, waterfalls, sculpture, arbors or trellises, planted
beds, clock pedestals, transit shelters, awnings (not including canvas materials), canopies
and similar structures.
(6) Any permanent open space developed in conjunction with a building or site must
be equipped for congregation and recreational opportunities by users of the building and
surrounding areas.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
28
(7) Common/open space must be accessible to and visible from the street. In no
instance shall the open space be more than three feet above or below the adjoining right-
of-way.
(E) Utilities. All utility lines including water supply, sanitary sewer service, electricity,
telephone and gas, and their connections or feeder lines shall be placed underground.
Unless otherwise dictated by the needs of the building, all utility connections shall be kept
to the rear or the side of the building, out of view or screened.
(F) Parking requirements.
(1) Parking shall comply with §§ 153.200 to 153.212, unless specifically provided for
herein. In the case of conflicts, regulations for the Innovation Districts will prevail.
(2) Parking for employees and service shall be located along the side or rear of the
structure. Visitor parking may be located forward of the building for wayfinding and access,
but should be designed and located to limit its visual appearance from the public right-of-
way.
(3) All employee and service parking areas shall be accessed from a rear alley or side
street where available.
(4) Sidewalks shall be provided on-site to link parking and the public sidewalk to the
entrance of the building.
(5) Parking and maneuvering areas shall meet the minimum requirements of the
parking space dimensions table below:
(6) The following Table of Parking Requirements lists the parking to be provided for
individual uses. The number of off-street parking spaces shall not exceed these
requirements, except as provided as a parking adjustment (see division (G) of this section).
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
29
TABLE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
USE PARKING REQUIREMENT
Education 1 space per 3 persons by seating capacity or
maximum occupancy (whichever is greater) in the
largest assembly area or stadium
Where assembly areas are not present, 1 space per
classroom and 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of GFA of office
area
Technical, vocational and trade schools: 1 space per
each 3 students in addition to the spaces required
above
Residential Multiple-family: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
Single-family: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Day Care 1 space per 10 client at licensed capacity
Live-Work 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 space per 500 sq.
ft. of GFA
Government and Institutional 1 space per 3 persons by seating capacity or
maximum occupancy (whichever is greater) in the
largest assembly area; if no assembly area is
provided, 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA
Professional, Medical, Office 1 space per 350 sq. ft. of GFA
Medical Treatment Facilities Spaces required for offices
1 space per treatment room + 1 space per in-patient
bed + additional spaces for office use
Personal Service 2 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA
Retail Sales 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA
Restaurant, Entertainment and
Recreation
1 space per 3 persons by occupancy or 1 space per
150 sq. ft. of GFA, whichever is greater
Outdoor recreation areas shall submit a parking plan
for approval by the ART detailing expected parking
needs
Warehousing 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of GFA + additional spaces for
office use
Technology and Industry 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA plus additional spaces
for office
Utility 1 space per use
(G) Parking adjustments.
(1) Parking adjustments may be approved by the Administrative Review Team (ART)
or by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of a site plan review.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
30
(2) Shared parking reduction. Fewer parking spaces may be permitted upon approval
of a shared parking analysis submitted by the owner demonstrating that the spaces
planned will be sufficient.
(3) Deferred parking reduction. Construction of the required number of parking spaces
may be deferred if the following conditions are met:
(a) Areas proposed for deferred parking shall be shown on the site plan, and shall be
sufficient for construction of the required number of parking spaces in accordance with the
requirements of this section for parking area design and other site development
requirements of the District.
(b) Alterations and construction of parking facilities within the deferred parking area
may be initiated by the owner or required by the city.
(c) Additional parking spaces may be approved, based on documented evidence
provided by the property owner or applicant demonstrating that the parking will be
required to accommodate the use on a typical day.
(d) The parking requirements shall be waived for individual retail uses of 2,000
square feet or less and other uses that are determined by the ART or Planning and Zoning
Commission, as applicable, as accessory to other principal uses, such as outdoor restaurant
seating adjacent to the street, day care uses, and other similar uses and activities.
(4) Off-street parking requirements may be met in a shared parking lot located within
300 feet of building/structure served.
(5) On-street parking directly fronting the lot shall count toward fulfilling the parking
requirement of that lot. Credit for parking spaces shall be given for those spaces
immediately in front of the property to which they apply that have more than 50% of the
length of the parking space within the lot or building frontage.
(H) Bicycle parking.
(1) One bicycle parking space shall be required for every 15 parking spaces required,
or fraction thereof. In no case where bicycle parking is required no fewer than four spaces
shall be provided.
(2) Every effort should be made to provide clear pedestrian connectivity from the
public street to the main entrance of buildings. Clear path of travel through parking areas
should be designed in a manner to effectively minimize conflict with vehicles.
(3) Bicycle parking shall be located within 100 feet of the entrance to a principal
structure. Parking may be located within the principal structure and should be located
where conflicts with pedestrian or vehicular travel are avoided.
(4) Bicycle parking racks, docks, or posts shall be designed and installed to provide two
points of contact to an individual bicycle frame when used as intended. Enclosed locker-
type facilities may be provided in lieu of open racks. Racks and lockers must be designed to
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
31
allow a bicycle to be locked to a structure attached to the pavement, building, or other
permanent structure.
(5) Bicycle racks shall be installed according to the dimensional requirements set forth
by the bike rack manufacturer and the latest edition of the APBP Bicycle Parking
Guidelines, or similarly acceptable industry publication.
(6) A minimum five foot access aisle or maneuvering zone shall be provided in each
bicycle parking facility.
(I) Loading areas.
(1) Number. The minimum number of loading spaces shall be provided in accordance
with the loading space requirements table below. Requirements may be modified upon
making the determination that another measure would be more appropriate because of the
number or type of deliveries experienced by a particular business or use.
LOADING SPACE REQUIREMENTS
10,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. of GFA 1 space
20,001 to 50,000 sq. ft. of GFA 2 spaces
50,001 to 100,000 sq. ft. of GFA 3 spaces plus 1 space for each additional
100,000 sq. ft. GFA or part thereof
>100,000 sq. ft. of GFA 5 spaces
(2) Location. Loading/unloading areas and docks shall be prohibited in the front yard.
Loading or unloading spaces or docks are prohibited within 50 feet of any residential use
unless completely enclosed or screened from view in accordance with the Zoning Code.
(3) Design requirements.
(a) An alley or front service drive may be used where a single loading space is
required. In all cases, service vehicles must be able to maneuver on-site without interfering
with travel on a public street, with off-street parking or the normal movement of vehicles
and pedestrians on-site.
(b) Loading spaces separate from docks shall be at least 12 feet wide, 30 feet long and
14 feet high for adequate clearance.
(c) No loading docks are permitted on front elevations facing the public street.
(4) All service vehicles and/or fleet parking must be maintained within appropriately
screened areas and shall not be placed forward of the structure.
(J) Parking structures.
(1) Dimensions. Parking stall and driving aisles shall be in accordance with the
dimensional requirements as required by the City Engineer.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
32
(2) Interior circulation. The interior of the structure shall be designed in accordance
with the minimum requirements of the City Engineer and the following:
(a) Entering traffic shall circulate in a counter-clockwise direction. Opportunities for
recirculation shall be provided.
(b) Maximum aisle length shall not exceed 400 feet without providing a cross aisle.
(c) Cross aisles shall be a minimum of 18 feet and no greater than 24 feet in width.
(d) Design of all parking structures shall include a minimum ceiling clearance height
of eight and one-half feet.
(3) Ingress/egress lanes. To provide for the orderly function of parking structures, the
following shall be required:
(a) Two smaller vehicle access openings are preferable to a single large one.
(b) Storage areas for entering and exiting traffic shall be sufficiently long to minimize
backups of traffic onto surrounding streets or within the garage.
(c) A minimum of two vehicle lengths of storage shall be provided between the street
and the garage entry gate, but more may be required.
(d) One inbound lane shall be required each 300 spaces or fraction thereof. One exit
lane shall be provided for each 200 spaces, or fraction thereof.
(e) Single entrance lanes from the street shall be 13 to 16 feet in width, tapering
down to ten feet at the approach to the control equipment. Double entrance lanes shall be
24 feet wide.
(4) Lighting. The following minimum requirements shall be met for the lighting of
structured parking within the Innovation Districts:
(a) Light trespass. There shall be no casting of glare or spillover lighting outside of the
parking structure. Garage lighting shall be concentrated on aisles and ramps with spillover
lighting to illuminate parking stalls.
(b) Top deck lighting. Lighting on the upper level of a parking structure shall utilize
full cut-off fixtures and lower pole heights to eliminate glare and visibility of pole mounted
fixtures.
(c) Adherence to guidelines. Except as otherwise provided to meet the intent of these
standards, all parking structure lighting shall comply with § 153.133.
(5) General design and appearance. The design of freestanding or integrated structures
should comply with the following:
(a) The design intent for parking structures is to minimize the view of the
automobiles from the exterior and to have more variation in the facade than is typically
found in parking structures.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
33
(b) The parking structure shall be architecturally compatible with the building it
serves and utilize a variety of opening sizes, opening locations, screens, building panels,
colors and/or other approaches to create a richer facade composition.
(c) Sloped ramping shall be concealed from exterior view by interior screens or other
methods on the exterior facade.
(d) No part of the structure shall exceed the height of the principal structure it is
intended to serve. Freestanding structures shall not exceed the maximum building height
of the District, without height incentives.
(e) Where a parking structure is within 40 feet of any existing principal structure,
that portion of the parking structure shall not exceed that structure's eave or wall height.
(f) Individual parking structures shall not exceed 500 total parking spaces unless
demonstrated that architectural design techniques are adequately implemented to reduce
the overall mass and appearance of the structure.
(g) Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall be clearly distinguished.
(h) Parking structures are encouraged that incorporate space for retail, service or
other commercial uses.
(6) Character and massing. Parking structure facades over 150 feet in length shall
incorporate architectural features that break the continuity of these long facades through
the following:
(a) Vertical facade changes: Incorporation of intervals of architectural variation at
least every 80 feet over the length of the applicable facade, such as:
1. Varying the arrangement, proportioning and/or design of openings;
2. Incorporating changes in architectural colors, textures, details, materials or
adding applied architectural features such as screens or panels; and/or
3. Projecting forward or recessing back portions or elements of the parking
structure facade.
(b) Horizontal facade changes:
1. Stepping back the upper floors from the ground floor parking structure facade;
2. Changing materials, colors or textures between the parking structure base and
upper floors; and/or
3. Including a continuous cornice line or pedestrian weather protection element
between the ground floor and upper floors.
(c) Views to the interior. Facades of parking structures shall minimize continuous
horizontal parking floor openings. Any portion of a parking structure ground floor with
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
34
exposed parking areas adjacent to a public street shall minimize views into the parking
structure interior through one or more of the following methods:
1. Decorative trelliswork and/or architectural screening on the parking structure
facade, without compromising the open parking structure ventilation requirements of any
applicable Code.
2. Special architectural or artistic features.
3. Alternative methods may be approved by the ART or Planning and Zoning
Commission, as applicable.
4. Upon conversion of portions of a parking structure to a pedestrian
retail/commercial use, the ART or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, may
approve the removal of initially installed pedestrian screening material in order to allow
maximum visibility and access to the converted portions of the parking structure.
5. In addition to the above, views into the upper floors of parking structures shall be
minimized through one or more of the following methods:
A. The use of planters integrated into the upper floors of parking structure facade
design.
B. Decorative trelliswork and/or architectural screening on the parking
structure's upper floor facades.
C. Upper parking floors designed with a pattern of more window-like openings on
the parking structure facade.
(K) Sustainable parking lot design.
(1) In order to promote environmentally sensitive design and construction of parking
lots, the following requirements apply.
(2) Permeable surface for paving.
(a) Parking areas may be surfaced with permeable asphalt, permeable concrete or
turf blocks, subject to review by the City Engineer. If approved by the City Engineer, the
calculations for required stormwater management and retention measures may be
adjusted for the use of this paving.
(b) Driveway aprons connecting parking lots to public roadways may not be
constructed with permeable materials.
(c) A maintenance plan, outlining responsible parties, procedures and schedules for
permeable pavement areas must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
(d) Parking and circulation areas must meet pavement strength specifications as
determined by the Fire Marshal.
(3) Alternative parking space dimensions.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
35
(a) A property owner may request an adjustment to parking space dimensions for no
more than 5% of required spaces, based on documentation of a formal policy or program to
encourage the use of compact vehicles by employees or visitors, as approved by the ART.
(b) Where alternative dimensions are approved, which would have the effect of
reducing the number of required spaces meeting the standard dimensional requirements,
the remaining standard spaces shall be subject to the deferred parking requirements.
(4) Electric car parking requirements.
(a) Parking lots with 200 spaces or more are strongly encouraged to provide at least
one electric plug-in service point for every 200 parking spaces.
(b) Plug-in points must be associated with an individual parking space and be
installed according to appropriate design standards, as approved by the ART.
(c) Plug-in points are exempt from the service structure screening requirements
outlined in § 153.133.
(5) Wheel stops or modified curb designs may be used in place of standard curbing
where alternative stormwater techniques such as bioswales or rain gardens require
surface drainage.
(L) Signs. Signs shall comply with §§ 153.150 through 153.162, unless specifically
provided for in the following section. In the case of conflicts, regulations for the Innovation
Districts will prevail.
(1) Table of height, area & setbacks. The following table shall provide for the
implementation of sign requirements for the Innovation Districts:
USES Wall Signs Monument Signs Window
Signs
Projecting Signs (wall or post-
mounted)
Maximum
Area (sq.
ft.)
Maximum
Height
(ft.)
Maximum
Area (sq.
ft.)
Maximum
Height
(ft.)
Minimum
Setback
(ft.)
Maximum
Area (sq.
ft.)
Maximum
Area (sq.
ft.)
Maximum
Height
(ft.)
Minimum
Setback
(ft.)
Live-Work 6 15 Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
6 6 6 6
Schools, Civic,
Religious and
Daycare
30 15 30 8 8 Not
permitted
6 6 6
Office and
Research
50 15 50 8 8 6 Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Not
permitted
General
Commerce
First-floor
integrated
30 14 30 8 8 6 6 6 6
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
36
(2) Table of numbers. The following summarizes the number of signs permitted within
the Innovation Districts. The intent of the Districts is that each site is permitted one
monument, wall or projecting sign as its primary identification. For designated uses an
additional window sign can be used to identify main entrances. An additional sign may be
permitted in instances where support services available to the public are integrated within
the first floor of a primary structure such as a large office complex. In no case shall more
than one sign identifying a particular business be oriented toward the same property line.
SIGN TYPE NUMBER
Wall Signs • 1 sign per building or use.
• For multiple street frontages, 1 sign per frontage, not to exceed a total
of 2 (provided a minimum 100 feet of frontage on each street).
• For multi-user buildings where tenants have individual entrances, 1
wall sign per tenant space is permitted to a size as defined by the Sign
Code.
• In larger office/research complexes with multiple building wings
connected by a shared atrium, 1 wall sign may be permitted for each wing
to denote the primary tenant.
Monument
Signs
• 1 sign per lot or multiple lots if devoted to one specific use or user.
• For multiple street frontages, 1 sign per frontage, not to exceed a total
of 2 (provided a minimum 100 feet of frontage on each street).
Window
Signs
• 1 sign per business or use when the use has an individual entrance (in
addition to any monument, wall or projecting sign).
Projecting
Signs
• Generally limited to 1 per building or use.
Outparcel 50 15 50 8 8 6 Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Retail center 80 15 50 8 8 6 Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Manufacturing
& Industry
50 15 50 8 8 6 Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Fueling/Service
Stations
See 153.159 See 153.159 See
153.159
See 153.159
Joint
Identification
Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
50 8 8 6 Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
Not
Permitted
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
37
(3) Multi-tenant signs. No more than two tenant panels may be provided on one
monument sign. Tenant panels must include a frame to visually separate the individual
panels.
(4) Wall signs. Based upon the specific architecture of buildings, wall signs may be
administratively approved by the ART at a greater building height, not to exceed the
primary roof line.
(5) Secondary image. Secondary images for signs within the Innovation Districts may
be designed up to 30% of the maximum permitted area of the sign face.
(6) Colors. Within the Innovation Districts, signs shall be limited to the use of three
colors. Colors for trademarked logos shall be permitted; logos shall be considered as one of
the three permitted colors.
(7) Sign types. To better accommodate contemporary architecture, sites permitted
multiple signs may utilize a combination of sign types.
(8) Interstate signs. Corporate offices with frontage along U.S. 33 are permitted an
Interstate District sign as regulated by § 153.159.
(9) Ground Signs along Cosgray Road. Within the ID-6 District, ground signs shall not
be placed within the 200 foot buffer along Cosgray Road.
(M) Site lighting. The lighting requirements of § 153.149 shall be met. In addition to the
lighting requirements of §153.149, properties in the ID-6 shall be subject to the following:
(1) Light trespass. Light originating from a property shall not exceed 0.0
footcandles, measured at ground level along the property line, when the adjacent property
is residential.
(2) Parking lot illumination. Parking lot illumination shall be reduced to 50 percent
of full lighting levels at 10:00pm, or within one hour after the use served by the parking lot
closers, whichever is later, subject to the following:
(a) Lighting levels may be reduced either by turning off 50% of the fixtures,
by dimming all fixtures, or by an appropriate combination of these methods.
(b) At the option of the property owner, full lighting may be maintained
within 150 feet of the main entrance for security purposes.
(N) Circulation and access.
(1) Rights-of-way dedication. Private development shall include the dedication of
rights-of-way for the future expansion and widening of public roads to serve properties in
accordance with the city's Multimodal Thoroughfare Plan.
(2) Site access. All access from public rights-of-way shall be provided at locations
approved by the city for the purposes of access management and safety. Cross access
easements shall be provided for all shared driveways, and all sites shall comply with the
city's Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at proposed access points.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
38
(3) Construction durability. All private drives, parking areas, pedestrian paths, and
sidewalks shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by the city.
(4) Paths and connections.
(a) Public access easements shall be provided in all cases where multi-use paths are
provided through a site and not along a public street.
(b) Installation of sidewalks and multi-use paths on site shall be made in compliance
with the Community Plan.
(c) Pedestrian access shall be provided from all building entrances to public
sidewalks along the street right-of-way. Continual maintenance of all access on a site shall
be the responsibility of the property owner.
(d) A minimum four-foot sidewalk shall be required along the edge of all parking lots
on sides adjacent to buildings to adequately facilitate pedestrian access into the building.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11)
§ 153.041 SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES.
The following sustainability and development incentives shall apply to the ID-1, ID-2, ID-
3, and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts. Properties in the ID-6 may only utilize the following
sustainability and development incentives to increase maximum lot coverage. Under no
circumstances may incentives be utilized to increase building height. Properties within the
ID-6 District located along Cosgray Road that provide the required 200-foot buffer shall
qualify for the increased maximum lot coverage incentive provided herein.
(A) Development incentives. Development incentives are offered to induce applicants to
provide various amenities or other activities that add vitality, environmental sensitivity
and other activities consistent with the Community Plan. For each criteria that are met,
either the maximum building height may be increased by one story (not to exceed two) or
the maximum lot coverage increased by 5%:
(1) The building is designed to qualify for a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Green Building Rating of gold or higher, or other equivalent accepted rating
system.
(2) The site and/or building uses innovative stormwater provisions, such as rain
gardens, green roofs, etc., to accommodate more than 50% of calculated stormwater flow
required to be controlled.
(3) Use of a parking structure for at least 75% of required parking.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11)
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
39
§ 153.042 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROCESS (WID).
(A) Process purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to provide adequate
review of applications for rezoning and/or development within the Innovation Districts.
These procedures are intended to create an efficient and predictable review process for
projects within the West Innovation District. The timing for reviews and approvals ensure
that the WID is competitive with research and technology parks in other jurisdictions.
Properties within the ID-5 District shall comply with procedures as provided for in §
153.051.
(1) Compatibility. It is the intent to ensure that development projects are completed in
a manner generally harmonious with surrounding properties and without the
endangerment of the health, safety, and general welfare of existing, prospective, or future
owners, users, surrounding and adjoining properties, and the public.
(2) Coordination. These regulations and procedures are intended to ensure that
development has adequate and efficient provision of facilities and/or infrastructure, land,
rights-of-way, and easements, so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the city. These
provisions include the construction of buildings and utilities, streets and sidewalks,
landscaping, recreational open spaces, and other provisions meeting the standards of the
city and the Community Plan, as required for the public good.
(B) Process summary. The following table provides an overview of the review
procedures and requirements used in this section that apply to the Innovation Districts.
REVIEW
PROCEDURE
ZONING CODE
SECTION
REVIEWING BODY APPLICATION
Zoning Districts
Rezoning 153.234 City Council Rezoning applications for all
Innovation Districts.
Development Plan Applications
Pre-Application
Review (optional)
153.042(D) Administrative
Review Team
Non-binding review of
applications prior to formal
submission.
Development Plan
Application
153.042(E) As Applicable (see
below)
Application submitted prior
to commencing or modifying
development on all or any
portion of property in the
Innovation Districts
Administrative
Review
153.042(E)(5) Administrative
Review Team
Applications that comply
with all requirements of the
Innovation Districts
Administrative
Departures
153.042(E)(6) Administrative departures
(See 153.042(E)(6))
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
40
Site Plan 153.042(E)(7) Planning and Zoning
Commission
Development in any
Innovation District that fails
to meet one or more of the
District requirements;
denials of administrative
departures; review of
conditions of ART approval
when requested by
applicant.
Development Plan Appeals
City Council Appeal 153.042(E)(9)(e) City Council Site plan denials by the
Planning and Zoning
Commission
Conditional Use Reviews
Conditional Use 153.236 Planning and Zoning
Commission
Conditional uses as required
in the Innovation Districts
(C) Pre-application meeting and procedures.
(1) Pre-application review. A request for a pre-application meeting shall be made in
writing to the city on a form provided by the city for that purpose. The request shall also
include, at a minimum, the following information:
(a) Ten copies of a site plan generally demonstrating the nature of the proposed
development.
(b) A list of each possible administrative departure, as provided for in §
153.042(E)(6). Proposed administrative departures shall also be clearly noted on the
required site plan.
(c) A fee as established by City Council.
(2) Scheduling. Upon written receipt of a request for a pre-application meeting, the city
shall schedule the meeting no later than 14 days from the date when the request was
submitted, unless a later date is otherwise mutually agreed to by the applicant and the
Director. The city shall notify the applicants in writing or by email at least seven days prior
to the meeting. The intent of the Innovation District review process will be to schedule the
pre-application meeting as soon as practicable.
(3) Review timeframe. Prior to the meeting, the city shall distribute the submitted
materials to other applicable city departments for input and recommendations. Applicable
departments shall be notified of the pre-application meeting and shall be encouraged to
send appropriate representatives.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
41
(4) Informal feedback. During the pre-application meeting, the city shall provide the
developer with a non-binding and informal review of the development proposal, and
information on the procedures and policies of the city, including application review
procedures that may be used.
(D) Development plan applications and procedures.
(1) Development plan applications.
(a) Prior to the development of any property within the Innovation Districts, a
development plan application shall be submitted to the city on a form prescribed
by the city. The development plan application shall include the elements
indicated in § 153.042(ED)(3). Development plan applications shall not be
subject to filing deadlines as required for other development applications and
may be submitted to the city on any date during its normal hours of operation.
(b) Development plan applications within the ID-6 District shall include sufficient
information to demonstrate that the proposed use meets the intent of the ID-6
District set forth in § 153.037(H)(6).
(2) Review authorities. As part of the development plan review, the following entities
shall be involved in the application review as specified.
(a) Administrative Review Team. Development plan applications within the ID-1, ID-
2, ID-3, and ID-4, and ID-6 Districts shall be reviewed by the Administrative Review Team
(ART). The ART shall consist of the following members or their designated representatives,
and others appointed by the City Manager as deemed necessary, either as permanent or
temporary members. The city may contract with qualified architectural consultants to
assist with the determination for compliance with architectural provisions of the
Innovation Districts.
1. Director (Chair);
2. City Engineer;
3. Fire Chief;
4. Parks & Open Space Director;
5. Chief Building Official; and
6. Economic Development Manager.
(b) Planning and Zoning Commission. Applicants may submit development plan
applications for site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance
with the procedures of § 153.042(E)(7) under the following conditions:
1. Approvals of the ART that include conditions for which the applicant wishes
reconsideration.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
42
2. Development plan applications within the Innovation Districts that fail to meet
one or more of the requirements of the applicable District and are not eligible for an
administrative departure.
3. Administrative departures denied by the ART.
(3) Contents of development plan applications. The development plan application shall
include the maps, plans, designs, and supplementary documents itemized below. One copy
of all required materials, including a site plan, shall also be submitted in appropriate digital
formats, as determined by the city. The information submitted shall include the following:
(a) Site plans as required by the city, unless some materials are deemed unnecessary
by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development.
(b) Payment of a fee as established by City Council.
(c) A description of any requests for administrative departures as permitted in §
153.042(E)(6) listed in writing and clearly noted on the required site plan, including a
description of the nature of the administrative departure, the specific provisions from
which the administrative departure is being sought, how the application meets the
requirements for approval under § 153.042(E)(6)(e)3., and other necessary illustrative
materials describing the request.
(d) Site plans as required by the city, unless some materials are deemed unnecessary
by the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development.
(4) Public notices. Written notice regarding applications received for administrative
review or site plan approval shall be sent to the applicant, owner, and parcels of land
within 300 feet of the property under consideration, as listed on the County Auditor's
current tax list within ten days from the receipt of a complete application. The notice shall,
at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject of the request, describe the nature
of the request, and indicate when and where written comments will be received concerning
the request and, when applicable, the time, date and location of the applicable reviewing
body’s meeting at which the application will be considered.
(5) Administrative reviews.
(a) Upon receipt, the development plan application shall be distributed to the
Administrative Review Team (ART) for review.
(b) The ART shall be responsible for reviewing all development plan applications and
providing written input regarding the proposed development's compliance with the
applicable requirements of the District.
(c) The ART shall meet as necessary to consider the development plan application.
Applicants shall be given not less than five days notice of the ART review meeting, and may
be required by the Director to attend any meetings of the ART.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
43
(d) During the course of a development plan application review, the city shall
schedule at least one meeting with the applicant to review the application. The applicant
shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's comments.
(e) Within 28 days from the filing of the development plan application, unless
otherwise agreed by the applicant and the city in writing, the ART shall be required to take
one of the following actions:
1. Approve the development plan application when all of the requirements of the
Innovation Districts and the intent of the WID Plan are met, including administrative
departures as may be granted in accordance with § 153.042(E)(6)(f).
2. Issue a decision to permit the applicant to subject the development plan
application to site plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a
determination by the ART that:
A. The application does not meet all of the requirements of the District and the
standards of § 153.042(E)(8) or the intent of the WID Plan;
B. The application does not meet the requirements for the granting of
administrative departures; or
C. The proposal has the potential for significant community impact that requires
additional public review.
(f) Following the approval of an administrative review the applicant may apply for a
certificate of zoning plan approval and building permit, consistent with approved
development plan.
(g) A report shall be provided periodically to the City Council and Planning and
Zoning Commission of Administrative Approvals by the ART.
(6) Administrative departures.
(a) Purpose. In certain instances strict enforcement of zoning and development
requirements of the District may be either unreasonable or impractical. Therefore, a
procedure for administrative departures from these regulations is provided to allow the
flexibility necessary to adapt to changed or unusual conditions, both known and
unforeseen, under circumstances that do not involve a change of the permitted use of the
land or structure.
(b) Procedures. The ART shall be permitted to hear and grant requests for
administrative departures that may modify the requirements in the Innovation Districts
within the standards provided in division (6)(e), below.
(c) Application. A request for administrative departures may be submitted with a
development plan application or at any time after the approval of a development plan
application. If requested as part of a development plan application, the request shall be
processed and reviewed concurrently with the development plan application.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
44
(d) Review of these requests shall be subject to the same timing requirements that
apply to development plan applications.
(e) Review by the Administrative Review Team (ART):
1. Requests. Requests for administrative departures shall be submitted to the ART
for review in accordance with the procedures for administrative reviews.
2. Review criteria. The ART shall grant a request for an administrative departures
provided the request meets the general purpose and intent of the District and one or more
of the following criteria:
A. Is not so substantial in nature or degree that it represents a major divergence
from the intent of requirements of the District;
B. Is necessitated by a condition related to the site, rather than simply as a means
to reduce costs or a matter of general convenience;
C. If approved, would maintain the specific purpose of the requirements and
conditions of the regulation that is the subject of the request; or
D. Is limited to that necessary to account for special site conditions or
development requirements specific to an individual user.
3. Examples. The following is illustrative, but not inclusive, of what may be
considered as administrative departures:
A. Changes to required building setbacks to account for individual site conditions.
B. Substitution of plant materials specified in the landscape plan with comparable
materials of an equal or greater size.
C. Change of building materials to a comparable or higher quality.
(f) Approvals of administrative departures. Following the approval of an
administrative departure, the applicant may proceed with applications for a certificate of
zoning plan approval and building permit, consistent with the approved development plan.
(7) Site plan reviews of development plan applications.
(a) Intent and applicability. In order to balance the need to accommodate unique uses
with the desire to ensure the presence of high-quality and orderly development within the
District, development plan applications shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a site plan approval as provided in § 153.042(D)(5)(e)2. and the conditions
of this section.
(b) Authority and limitations. Site plan approval of development plan applications
reviewed by the ART shall apply only to those portions of the plan failing to meet the
requirements of the District. The Commission shall not have the authority to change any
part of the development plan application that otherwise meets the development
requirements of the District and/or has received an administrative review approval.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
45
(c) Application deadline. The applicant shall make a written request to the Director
for site plan approval no later than ten days following the date when the ART's decision on
the development plan application is issued. The hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall occur no later than 30 days following the receipt of the applicant's
written request by the Director.
(d) Site plan approval procedures. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the applicable elements of the
development plan using the standards of § 153.042(E)(8). The decision shall be made
within 56 days of submission to a meeting of the Commission, unless otherwise agreed by
the applicant and the city in writing.
(e) Appeals. Development plan applications disapproved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission may be appealed by the applicant to City Council, which shall hear the appeal
no later than 28 days following the date of the Commission's decision, unless otherwise
agreed by the applicant and the city in writing.
(8) Development plan standards of approval. In addition to meeting all other
requirements of the District, a development plan application shall only be approved by the
ART or Planning and Zoning Commission, as applicable, if the requirements of the District
and the following criteria are met:
(a) Site design characteristics.
1. All elements of the site design shall be harmoniously and efficiently organized in
relation to topography, the size and type of lot, the character of adjoining property, and the
type and size of buildings.
2. The site shall be developed so as not to impede the normal and orderly
development or improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted by the District.
3. All buildings or groups of buildings shall be arranged so as to permit emergency
vehicle access by some practicable means to all vehicles.
4. Every structure or dwelling unit shall be provided with adequate means of
ingress and egress via public streets and walkways.
(b) Environmental standards.
1. The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by
minimizing tree and soil removal, alteration to the natural drainage courses, and the
amount of cutting, filling and grading. Natural features and the site topography shall be
incorporated into the proposed site design to the maximum extent practical.
2. Landscaping buffers and/or greenbelts may be required beyond those otherwise
required in the District to ensure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one
another and from surrounding public and private property.
(c) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
46
1. The expected volume of traffic to be generated by the proposed use shall not
adversely affect existing roads and the circulation thereon.
2. Driveways shall be located to minimize conflict with traffic operations on the
adjoining road. The number of driveways shall be the minimum needed to provide
reasonable access to the site.
3. The arrangement of public or common ways for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation shall respect the pattern of existing or planned streets and pedestrian or bicycle
pathways in the area.
4. Safe, convenient, uncongested and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian
circulation within and to the site shall be provided. Drives, streets and other elements shall
be designed to promote safe and efficient traffic operations within the site and at its access
points.
(d) Public services. The scale and design of the proposed development shall facilitate
the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required of the
city or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police protection,
stormwater management, sanitary sewage removal and treatment, recreational activities,
traffic control, and administrative services.
(e) The general purposes and spirit of this chapter and the various provisions and
components of the Community Plan.
(E) Modifications to approved development plans.
(1) The Director may authorize minor modifications to an approved development plan
that are required to correct any undetected errors, that are consistent with the purpose of
the approved application, or that are necessary to ensure orderly and efficient
development. Minor modifications shall be limited to:
(a) Adjustments in lot lines, provided no additional lots are created and required
setbacks are maintained;
(b) Adjustments in the location of and layout of parking lots, provided perimeter
setbacks, yards and buffers are maintained;
(c) Modifications of building footprints up to 10% in total floor area of the originally
approved building, building height(s) or floor plans, that do not alter the character or
intensity of the use;
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan with
comparable materials of an equal or greater size;
(e) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities provided that
general character and stormwater capacities are maintained;
(f) Adjusting and/or relocating landscape mounds, provided that the same level and
quality of screening is maintained;
April 15, 2026 DRAFT Highlighted Text – Updated from 5/7 PZC Meeting
47
(g) Minor modifications to an existing sign location, sign design, landscaping and
lighting, provided the other sign requirements of the final development plan are
maintained. For purposes of this section, “sign design” includes elements such as the sign
cabinet, channel lettering, and similar design elements;
(h) Minor changes in building material or colors that are similar to and have the same
general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved on the
final development plan;
(i) Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal
departments; and
(j) Other minor modifications deemed by the Director that do not alter the basic
design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original approval.
(2) Any modifications to be made to an approved development plan that are not
deemed minor by the Director shall require the filing and approval of a development plan
application in accordance with this section.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11; Am. Ord. 19-12, passed 4-23-
12; Am. Ord. 01-24, passed 3-11-24)
§ 153.043 (RESERVED)
This section reserved for future use.
(Ord. 13-08, passed 4-7-08; Am. Ord. 32-11, passed 6-27-11; Am. Ord. 19-12, passed 4-23-
12)
WEST INNOVATION
DISTRICT (WID)
SETBACK & SCREENING DESIGN MANUAL
ID-6
DRAFT - May 14, 2026
WIDWID
Shier Rings Road
33
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
dCosgray RoadHouchard RoadPost Road
161
ID-6ID-6
ID-2ID-2
ID-3ID-3
ID-2ID-2 ID-1ID-1
ID-1ID-1
ID-1ID-1
PUDPUD
ID-5ID-5
ID-4ID-4 ID-2ID-2
NN
Intent of This Document
The West Innovation District (WID) Setback
and Screening Design Manual for ID-6 is
an extension of Chapter 153.040 - Site
Development Requirements of the City of
Dublin, Ohio Code of Ordinances. The
Design Manuel supplements the baseline
zoning requirements of the Code, providing
guidance for setbacks, landscape design,
implementation and strategies to address
unique conditions needed to achieve the
desired aesthetic and development pattern
for ID-6 as viewed from public rights-of-way.
Future updates to the Design Manuel may
address setbacks and screening for other
WID zoning districts. Specific standards
in this document may differ from Chapter
153.040, but this document establishes the
preferred standards for achieving the desired
aesthetic and development pattern for ID-6.
All references to setbacks within this manual
include building and pavement, and are
measured from future ROW conditions.
Executive Summary
Maintaining Rural Character
The current ID-6 landscape character is primarily
agricultural and rural, the approach to planting
and design within development (building and
pavement) setbacks should aim to maintain
this character, as recommended in the Envision
Dublin Community Plan.
Aiming to preserve this historic character in an
evolving district, landscape requirements in these
standards include overlapping and undulating
earthen mounds, meadow expanses, tree row
preservation, and native layered plantings and
tree massings.
The Key objectives for the WID and ID-6 through
this screening approach are:
• Screen the view of future ID-6 buildings,
service areas, and parking from future public
ROW (streets, sidewalks, trails) and existing
residences,
• Apply sustainability practices to the district,
• Protect economic viability/development
potential of properties, and
• Establish clarity and predictability in
expectations for screening/buffering,
• Establish a greenway edge network through
the WID.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary and Document Intent .......
WID Zoning Map .............................................
Section 01: ID-6 Existing Site Features
Existing Site Overview ......................................
Existing Site Features ........................................
Section 02: ID-6 Implementation
Approach
Overall Framework Plan ...................................
Design Intent & Approach ................................
Cosgray Road ...................................................
Shier Rings Road ...............................................
Local Streets .......................................................
Section 03: ID-6 General Design
Guidelines
Setback Components ........................................
Mound Grading ................................................
Mound Planting .................................................
Property Boundary ............................................
Tree Row Preservation .......................................
Stormwater .........................................................
Shared-Use Paths ...............................................
Section 04: ID-6 Special Conditions
Roundabout ........................................................
Existing Farmsteads ............................................
Cosgray Entry Drives .........................................
Utility Easements ................................................
Section 05: ID-6 Landscape Planting
Planting Guidelines ...........................................
Landscape Maintenance ..................................
i.
ii.
03
05
09
11
13
17
19
23
25
27
29
30
31
32
35
37
39
41
45
50
Figure 01 ID-1: Research Office DistrictID-1: Research Office District
ID-2: Research Flex DistrictID-2: Research Flex District
ID-3: Research Assembly DistrictID-3: Research Assembly District
ID-4: Research Mixed Use DistrictID-4: Research Mixed Use District
ID-5: Research Recreation DistrictID-5: Research Recreation District
ID-6: Research Transition DistrictID-6: Research Transition District
PUD: Planned Unit Development DistrictPUD: Planned Unit Development District
iiiDRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Existing Site Features
ID-6
Section 01
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
CO
S
G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
SHIER RINGS RO
A
D
SHIER RINGS RO
A
D
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROADCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
±144-ACRES±144-ACRES
ID-6ID-6
ID-6ID-6
RA
I
L
L
IN
E
RA
I
L
L
IN
E
WEST PROPERTY WEST PROPERTY
BOUNDARYBOUNDARY
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADNN
NN
NN
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
Existing Site Overview
ID-6 is bordered to the north by Darree Fields
and a future Shier Rings Road extension; to the
east by Cosgray Road; and to the south and west
by an existing rail line. ID-6 is made up of five
properties totaling approximately 144-acres.
The presence of existing residential uses
directly east of Cosgray Road represents the
most sensitive edge condition within ID-6. The
screening and buffering standards established in
this document are specifically designed to ensure
a compatible transition between those existing
neighborhoods and future development west of
Cosgray Road.
Figure 02 depicts the existing site boundaries of
ID-6.
Figure 02
43
ID-6 Site Boundary
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
NN
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
Existing Farmstead at Cosgray
Road & Barronsmore Way
Existing Jewett Farmstead on
Cosgray Road
JEWETT JEWETT
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
GEASE GEASE
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
OVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
Existing tree line on
Cosgray Road
Existing Site Features
The approaches to planting and design of
setbacks within ID-6 are intended to maintain
the historic rural and agricultural character of the
area, as recommended in the Envision Dublin
Community Plan. In addition to the natural
and cultural features to be preserved, there
are existing site infrastructure conditions that
future development will need to acknowledge
and accommodate. Key approaches for
implementation include:
• Preservation of existing mature tree rows and
stands of trees. Windbreaks or shelter belts
have historically been implemented in rural or
agricultural contexts for property delineation
or soil conservation.
• Planting native grasslands/prairie and open
canopy plantings along roadway corridors.
• Preservation of periodic small structures/uses
close to the road (houses, barns, gas stations,
churches, graveyards, etc).
• Preservation of periodic vistas with long views
into space (farm field, pasture, horse farm,
prairie).
Features to Preserve
There are two primary site features to be
preserved within the ID-6 boundary (Figure 03):
existing farmsteads and existing mature tree rows
throughout the property.
The Jewett Farmstead is located just south of the
Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road intersection.
This property has been acquired by the City of
Dublin to ensure proper preservation of the site.
There is an additional farmstead located at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Barronsmore
Way that consists of an existing farmhouse and
barn (Gease Farmstead). Screening requirements
around the north, south, and west edges of these
farmsteads are detailed in Section 04 Special
Conditions.
Additionally, there are existing, mature tree rows
along the existing east/west property lines within
ID-6. Preservation and screening requirements for
existing tree rows is detailed further in Section 03
General Design Guidelines.
Overhead Transmission Line
An overhead electrical transmission line runs
along the western edge of ID-6, crossing
the future Shier Rings Road extension. Future
development within ID-6 must account for this
corridor when designing required mounds and
landscape plantings. This condition is detailed
further in Section 04 Special Conditions.
Figure 03
65
Mature Tree Row
Jewett Farmstead
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Implementation Approach
ID-6
Section 02
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADNN
ID-6ID-6
AApproximately 110-120 pproximately 110-120
Developable AcresDevelopable AcresOverlapping & Undulating Mounds
Source: Adobe Campus Landscape, Lehi UT. WRT Design.
Dense, Layered Planting
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
100’ Setback (Future Shier Rings Road)100’ Setback (Future Shier Rings Road)200’ Setback200’ SetbackOVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
Overall Framework Plan
The primary approach to preserving the rural
character of the defined WID boundary through
the setback and screening requirements in this
document is the establishment of a greenway
edge network. This greenway corridor will
be established through the required setbacks
within each development site, and align with the
landscape design manual.
Figure 04 illustrates the extent of the described
greenway edge network around ID-6.
Figure 04
109
Required Setback
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Dublin Rural Character
more screened less screened
sculptural moundssculptural mounds
evergreenevergreen
deciduousdeciduous
no-mowno-mow
summersummerwinterwinterno-mowno-mow
mownmown summersummergrassesgrasses
shrubsshrubs
mownmown summersummersummersummerwinterwinterwinterwinterdense layered plantingdense layered planting
Primary Screening (Cosgray & Shier Rings Road)
(Service Areas, Buildings, Parking)
Limited Condition Screening
(Service Areas, Parking)
Gateway Opportunities
(Entry Experience, Roundabouts, Transition Zones)
unique Dublin characterunique Dublin character
Source: Adobe Campus
Landscape, Lehi UT. WRT Design.
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
Source: Auckland International Airport,
New Zealand. Surface Design.
stone stone
wallwall
PRIMARY STREETS LOCAL STREETS ROUNDABOUT
except for special conditions described in Section
04, or in instances with setback constraints.
Primary Streets is the required condition of
Cosgray Road and Shier Rings Road along the
edges of ID-6.
The Local Streets condition is for public streets
internal to ID-6 and instances approved for
limited screening, such as limited setback
requirements or other special conditions.
The Roundabout condition is reserved specifically
for the identified gateway opportunity at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Shier Rings
Road.
Design Intent & Approach
Three primary approaches will be utilized to
implement the desired landscape condition of the
ID-6. These approaches vary based on the site
location, roadway typology, and/or immediate
site adjacencies. This design manual describes
the overall desired landscape condition of ID-6
and required design approaches.
As illustrated in Figure 05, Requirements for ID-6
are described by edge, including:
1. Primary Streets (Cosgray Road & Shier
Rings Road)
2. Local Streets (Internal)
3. Roundabout (Cosgray & Shier Rings Road
intersection)
The described condition for Primary Streets is
the preferred condition throughout the WID.
This condition is intended for external, public
roadways and should be utilized in all instances
1211
Figure 05
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Conceptual Illustration of Future Cosgray Road Enhancements & Intended Edge Screening Character
COSGRAY ROAD
14
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE FIELDSDARREE FIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Cosgray Road
Given the importance of Cosgray Road as a
primary arterial street through the WID, and
considering the adjacent residential uses, the
setback along Cosgray Road on the eastern
edge of ID-6 should be generous to maintain
the rural character and to provide maximum
screening of future development west of Cosgray
Road from the public ROW. In addition to
the required screening of development along
the western side of Cosgray Road, it is being
enhanced to add two drive lanes, street trees,
and a planted center median. Figure 06
provides a conceptual illustration of the planned
enhancements to Cosgray Road, and the
preferred screening condition along the eastern
edge of ID-6.
Chapter 153.039-040 of the City of Dublin’s
codified ordinance should be reference for
additional setback requirements along Cosgray
Road. To achieve the desired condition outlined
in the following spread (Figures 07-08), a 200’
building and pavement setback, with a 14’ tall
planted mound is required along Cosgray Road
on the eastern edge of ID-6.
1413
Figure 06Figure 06
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Development Screening ResidentialROW
45’
200’
200’
~35’~35’
~35’~35’
5’5’
5’5’
150’150’
150’150’
14’ Mound (Height)
14’ Mound (Height)
Swale
Swale
Buffer
Buffer
10’ min10’ min
10’ min10’ min
Setbacks measured from future ROWSetbacks measured from future ROW
Buffer
Buffer
Cosgray Road
Cosgray Road
Pavement
(i.e. access drive, parking)
Building
Figure 08. Cosgray Road 200’ Setback, Layered Planting, and 14’ Tall Mound
Figure 07. Cosgray Road Intended Screening Condition
Cosgray Road
Figures 07-08 provide conceptual illustrations of
the intended setback and screening condition for
Cosgray Road along the eastern edge of ID-6.
Figure 07 depicts the layered planting,
mounding, and overall transition/screening
between existing residential uses east of Cosgray
Road and future development west of Cosgray
Road.
Figure 08 illustrates the desired condition within
the required building setback, including mound
height, slope, and general depth. Additionally,
Figure 08 illustrates the use of layered planting
strategies to provide year round screening. The
intent for Cosgray Road is provide a minimum
of 90% opacity screening from the public ROW.
Additional details for slopes, grading, and
planting can be found in Section 03 General
Design Guidelines.
An additional consideration to be determined
along with the City of Dublin is the existing utility
lines along the western edge of Cosgray Road.
An easement may be required to incorporate
this utility corridor (above or below ground)
without interfering with the required mound and
landscape. This condition is detailed further in
Section 04 Special Conditions, and may result
in an expanded buffer zone between the public
ROW and the start of the mound (~30’).
Summary
Mound Height: 14 feet (front slope of 6:1and
back slope of 3:1
Setback: 200 feet from future ROW
Stormwater: Site stormwater and all required
swales to be located on the private side of the
mound.
Planting:
• Evergreen clusters on interior (private) slope of
mounds, deciduous clusters on public slope
• Meadow grasses on front slope of mound
• Mown turf in buffer between ROW & mound
Evergreen
clusters
Evergreen
clusters
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Mown
turf
Mown
turf
1615DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NNCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADSHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
45’
100’
100’
90’90’
90’90’
8’ Mound (Height)
8’ Mound (Height)
10’ min10’ min
10’ min10’ min
Buffer
Buffer
Shier Rings Road
Shier Rings RoadPavement
(i.e. access drive, parking)
Building
Evergreen
clusters
Evergreen
clusters
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Deciduous clusters +
Meadow grasses
Mown
turf
Mown
turf
Setbacks measured from future ROWSetbacks measured from future ROW
Figure 09. Shier Rings Road 100’ Setback, Layered Planting, and 8’ Tall Mound
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Shier Rings Road
Darree Fields is located north of Shier Rings
Road, adjacent to ID-6. Therefore, the setback
along Shier Rings Road on the northern edge
of ID-6 should also be generous to maintain
the rural character and to provide maximum
screening of future development south of Shier
Rings Road from the public ROW. In accordance
with the Future Thoroughfare Plan, Shier Rings
Road is intended to extend west of the existing
roundabout at the intersection of Cosgray Road.
The roundabout at the intersection of Shier
Rings Road and Cosgray Road is identified as
a gateway moment. The desired character if
this intersection is further detailed in Section 04
Special Conditions.
Chapter 039-040 of the City of Dublin’s codified
ordinance should be reference for additional
setback requirements along Shier Rings Road.
To achieve the desired condition outlined on
the following page (Figure 09), a 100’ building
and pavement setback, with an 8’ tall planted
mound is required along Shier Rings Road on the
northern edge of ID-6, transitioning west from the
roundabout condition at the intersection of Shier
Rings Road and Cosgray Road. The typology
transition should start approximately 350-400’
west of the centerpoint of the roundabout. The
illustrated condition includes the required building
setback, including mound height, slope, and
general depth. Additionally, Figure 09 illustrates
the use of layered planting strategies to provide
year round screening. The intent for Shier Rings
Road is provide a minimum of 75% opacity
screening from the public ROW. Additional
details for slopes, grading, and planting can be
found in Section 03 General Design Guidelines.
Summary
Mound Height: 8 feet (front slope of 6:1and
back slope of 3:1
Setback: 100 feet from future ROW
Stormwater: Site stormwater and all required
swales to be located on the private side of the
mound.
Planting:
• Evergreen clusters on interior (private) slope of
mounds, deciduous clusters on public slope
• Meadow grasses on front slope of mound
• Mown turf in buffer between ROW & mound
17 18DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NNCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADSHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
Example Internal Example Internal
Public StreetPublic Street
STORMWATER INCORPORATION SHOWCASE HIGH-QUALITY ARCHITECTURE DENSE LAYERED PLANTING
Development ROW Development
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage.
Source: Stevens Coolidge House & Gardens,
North Andover MA. Mikyoung Kim Design
Source: Wal-Mart Headquarters, Bentonville
AK. SWA Group.
Option for stormwater
behind screening
ID-6 Implementation Approach
Local Streets
Local Streets internal to ID-6, includes “loop
roads”, access drives, and through roads. The
setbacks along Local Streets are intended to
preserve the desired character of the WID, but
not reduce development ground in the same
manner as a roadway. Any illustrations of
Local Streets in this document are conceptual
and intended only to serve as examples for the
purposes of this design manual.
Buffer Planting
The typology along Local Streets should utilize
dense planting with a mix of native evergreen
and deciduous trees and grasslands for year-
round screening and interest. Opportunities for
low, undulating stone walls and/or stormwater
can be considered depending on the width of the
setback. Stormwater may only be included on
the private side of the screening components. See
Landscape and Planting Guidelines in Section 05
for specific planting requirements.
The Local Streets condition can be implemented
with or without mounding based on the setback
condition. Additionally, if there are opportunities
to showcase or expose high-quality architecture
and facades along internal streets, openings or
an increase in transparency can be considered
for those areas.
Figure 10 provides a conceptual illustration and
supporting imagery of the desired condition/
character along Local Streets within ID-6.
This condition is further detailed in Section 03
General Design Guidelines.
The City of Dublin’s codified ordinance should
be reference for additional setback requirements
along Local Streets. To achieve the desired
condition outlined on the following page (Figure
10), a 35’ minimum building and pavement
setback from the ROW, with layered planting is
required along all Local Streets within ID-6.
2019
Figure 10
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
General Design Guidelines
ID-6
Section 03
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
More subtle slope on
the public side (6:1)
Steeper slope on private side to
reduce land impact (4:1 to 3:1)
Potential underground
drainage pipe
Right-of-WayBuilding or Pavement
Runoff
Space between mound
and building face or
pavement for drainage,
user access/circulation,
and emergency access.
Development
Stormwater
& Mound Runoff
Space at the base of back
side of mound for water
runoff. This zone can be
utilized for development
stormwater requirements.
Mounds
Height of the mound:
8’to14’ (determined
by adjacent corridor
and adjacent land
uses)
Utility or Shared
Use Path Easement
(When Applicable)
Swale
Building or
Pavement Buffer Public RoadwayMound
Setback ROW
Setback Components
Setback components may vary based on
location, adjacent corridors, and adjacent land
uses, but the desired character and landscape
approach should remain. Figure 11 highlights
a typical approach for setback component
configuration. As detailed in this section,
dimensions between the public ROW and base
of the mound may vary based on potential utility
easements and/or multi-use pathways. The
distance between the base of mounds on the
private side, and on-site development may vary
based on internal site circulation, stormwater,
and drainage needs.
Note that any approved site fencing should
not be placed within the required setback, and
should not be visible from the public ROW.
Figure 11. Setback Components
2423DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
3:13:1
3:13:1
6:
1
6:
1
6:
1
6:
1
SwaleDevelopment Buffer Public RoadwayMound
2’
6:1 Slope3:1 Slope
Setback
Overlapping Overlapping
MoundsMounds
ROW
Mound Grading
• Mound grading shall undulate and vary in
both vertical and horizontal dimensions, with
a maximum slope of 6:1 on the public side
and 3:1 on the private side.
• Mound heights are identified in Section 02
and are dependent upon roadway and use
adjacencies. The top of mound widths should
range from 2-4’
• The back slope (private side) of the mound
should be sloped at a maximum 3:1 gradient.
• In special cases (identified in this section)
where the mound height is unable to be met,
plantings that provide 100% coverage at full
foliage may be utilized to meet screening
requirements (as approved by the City). This
condition should not exceed more that 30% of
the entirety of the ID-6 site edge condition.
• Plant species list and maintenance guidelines
can be found at the end of this section.
Figure 12. Overlapping / Undulating Mounds
6:1 average slope (max) on public side of mound for a naturalized condition.
3:1 slope on the private side to reduce mound depth.
Figure 13. Mound Grading & Undulation
2625DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Option for formalized
shrub planting at key
moments.
No-mow grasses on slopes,
mown grasses beyond mounds.
Building runoff. Space between
mound and building face for
drainage, user access/circulation,
and emergency access.
Mown grass/minimal
planting.
Development stormwater
& mound runoff. Space at
the base of back side of
mound for water runoff.
Additionally, this zone can
be utilized for development
stormwater requirements.
Flow path and edges
to be mown grasses.
Right-of-way.
Mown tree-lawn and street
trees.
Avoid planting trees at
peak of the mound.
Deciduous trees in
staggered clusters
at front slope.
Staggered clusters
of evergreen trees
at back of slope.
Source: Roaring Book, East
Haddam CT. Reed Hilderband
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley, OH. Reed Hilderband
Figure 15. Screening Components: PlantingsMound Planting
• With or without mounds, planting should
occur in three to four layers of naturalized
“drifts” or organic groupings of trees.
• Mounds shall have a simple mix of meadow
and tree/shrub groupings placed in massings.
• Tree installation sizes: Tree sizes to be mixed
in at least three different sizes ranging from 2”
to 3” caliper. No more than 50% of trees shall
be 2” caliper
• Tree plantings shall include a minimum of 5
species per property. No single species shall
comprise more than 40% of the total quantity
of trees within the required buffer planting.
• Tree spacing shall vary randomly in a
staggered pattern between 6’ and 10’ on-
center to achieve a naturalized appearance.
A minimum of 30 trees shall be provided per
100 linear feet of setback.
• Trees shall be under-planted with native
meadow or shrubs.
• Only the back (private) side of the mound can
be mown, maintained turf grass. This condition
should not be seen from the public ROW.
• For plant health and growth, trees should not
be planted at the peak of the mound.
• Plant species list and maintenance guidelines
can be found at the end of this section.
EVERGREENEVERGREEN DECIDUOUSDECIDUOUS SHRUBSHRUB TURFTURF
Figure 14
2827DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Roadw
a
y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
R
O
W
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
T
R
E
E
R
O
W
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
Roadw
a
y
Property Boundary
Recognizing that individual properties may
develop at different times, it is important that
mound forms are able to continue in a natural
manner across each property.
Mounds approaching a property edge shall
transition to a maximum 4:1 slope to gradually
taper at their terminus. To support a visually
continuous landform across properties, mound
edges shall be shaped to suggest continuation
beyond the property line, creating a subtle
“overlapping” effect when viewed from the
public right-of-way. This effect can be achieved
by tapering inward or outward opposite to
adjacent property mounds, as illustrated in Figure
16 .
Where an adjacent mound is not yet present,
the mound terminus may be tapered either
inward toward the development or outward
toward the public right-of-way. In all cases, any
area beyond the mound terminus shall still be
planted in accordance with the required planting
conditions to avoid open viewsheds between
properties.
For side-yard conditions where adjacent
properties remain undeveloped, planting shall
follow the Local Streets condition, or a City-
approved equivalent.
Tree Row Preservation
As identified in Sections 01 and 02, the
approach to planting and design of setbacks
within ID-6 should aim to maintain the historic
rural and agricultural character of the area, as
recommended in the Envision Dublin Community
Plan. This includes preservation of existing mature
tree rows and stands of trees.
There are existing mature tree rows along the
east/west property lines within ID-6. Existing
stands of trees shall be protected-in-place in their
entirety. When existing mature trees are located
within the perimeter area, mounding may be
omitted/interrupted and the existing trees should
be utilized to achieve the required screening.
Total amount of required screening will still be
applicable and, therefore, additional landscape
plantings may be necessary to meet the stated
requirements.
As illustrated in Figure 17, mounds should taper
near tree rows to provide a clean, natural
transition from mound to tree row (both sides of
tree row).
3029
Figure 16. Property Boundary Mound Approach - Example Condition Figure 17. Tree Row and Mound Interruption Approach - Example Condition
Outward
taper
Inward
taper
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Source: Calvados-Honfleur Business Park,
France. La Comgagnie du Paysage. : Source: Thalie Park, France. Urbicus.
Source: Thalie Park, France. Urbicus.
Ohio & Erie Canal Towpath Trail, Cuyahoga County
OH. National Park Service.
Source: City of Dublin, OH.
Stormwater
In ID-6, when stormwater is located along Shier
Rings Road or Cosgray Road, it is required to
be located on the private side of the mound and
should be screened by the required mound and
planting conditions.
In the case of internal public streets, stormwater
should remain on the private side of the screening
components, but can be designed/integrated
into the landscape setbacks where space allows.
Please note that all other City stormwater
regulations for location and proximity to ROW
still apply. Additionally, positive drainage will
need to be maintained at all times through the
required setbacks so that there is no standing
water in areas outside of designated stormwater
management areas.
Shared-Use Paths
Any planned or future multi-use pathways along
Cosgray Road and/or Shier Rings Road should
align with the described rural character in this
design manual. Therefore, public pathways along
the edges of ID-6 should undulate and weave in
and out of the landscape. In some cases, this may
result in pathways weaving out of the public ROW
and being integrated into the setback landscape.
Pathway alignment should be coordinated
with the undulation of the mounds and provide
opportunities for smaller mounds and consistent
plantings to be interspersed along the pathway.
This may require easements for public access
when pathways undulate into private property -
coordination with the City’s Engineering Division
will be necessary during design.
The widths of shared use paths and sidewalks are
to be consistent with Envision Dublin (6-feet for
sidewalks, 11-feet for shared use paths).
3231DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Special Conditions
ID-6
Section 04
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
Conceptual Illustration of Future Shier Rings Road & Cosgray Road Roundabout & Edge Screening Character
Source: Boston Children’s Hospital,
Boston MA. Mikyoung Kim Design.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Woerner Temple Road.
Dublin, OH.
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley, OH. Reed Hilderband
Roundabout at Cosgray Road & Shier
Rings Road
As referenced in Section 02, the roundabout at
the intersection of Shier Rings Road and Cosgray
Road is identified as a gateway moment. Figure
18 provides a conceptual illustration of the
desired condition at the existing roundabout
(Shier Rings Road/Cosgray Road intersection)
at the northeast corner of ID-6. Additionally, the
illustrations on this page provide examples of
treatment quality and material considerations.
The final design of this gateway corner should
be coordinated directly with the City of Dublin
Planning Staff in coordination with the extension
of Shier Rings Road.
3635
Figure 18Figure 18
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
HOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
Conceptual Illustration of Future Jewett Farmstead & Intended Screening CharacterCOSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADJEWETT JEWETT
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
GEASEGEASE
FARMSTEADFARMSTEAD
Existing Farmsteads
As described in Section 01, the approaches to
planting and design of setbacks within ID-6
are intended to maintain the historic rural
and agricultural character of the area, as
recommended in the Envision Dublin Community
Plan. One key approach to maintaining this
condition is the preservation of periodic small
structures/uses close to the road (houses, barns,
gas stations, churches, graveyards, etc). Today,
two well maintained farmsteads exist within ID-6
along Cosgray Road as identified in the map
above.
The Jewett Farmstead is located just south of the
Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road intersection.
This property has been acquired by the City of
Dublin to ensure proper preservation of the site.
There is an additional farmstead located at the
intersection of Cosgray Road and Barronsmore
Way that consists of an existing farmhouse and
barn.
Enhanced screening approaches are required
around the northern, southern, and western
edges of the existing farmsteads. Similar to the
Local Streets condition along roadways, the
enhanced side yard screening should utilize
dense planting with a mix of native evergreen
and deciduous trees and grasslands for year-
round screening and interest. Additionally, small
mounding should be incorporated where possible
(4-6’ height in consistency with the screening
character along Cosgray Road. The intent is to
provide a minimum of 75% opacity screening
between ID-6 development and the existing
farmsteads to avoid any harsh windows into
development and to preserve the rural character
of the existing farmsteads. Screening around the
farmsteads should be coordinated with the City
through the plan approval process.
Figure 19 provides a conceptual illustration of the
future condition of the Jewett Farmstead and the
desired screening of ID-6.
3837
Figure 19Figure 19
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Stone Retaining WallStone Retaining Wall
Entry Drive
Roadw
a
y
Source: Avery-Muirfield Drive Bridge at
U.S. 33, Dublin, OH.
Road
w
ay
Ent
r
y
Retaining Walls Retaining Walls (Dublin Limestone)(Dublin Limestone)
Road
w
ay
Ent
r
y
Example preferred Example preferred
stone veneerstone veneer
Cosgray Road Entry Drives
The following standards apply to primary
vehicular entry drives for employees and visitors.
Primary entry drives and service drives should be
avoided along Cosgray Road when possible. In
coordination with the City, access from Cosgray
Road should only be considered if access is
unable to be provided via alternative streets.
Service drive standards should be referenced in
the City of Dublin’s codified ordinance.
• Width: drives shall be a maximum of 24’
wide.
• Radii of curbing from entry drive to road
should be 25’ maximum.
• Entry drives should curve within the setback
dimension to allow for overlapping mound
condition (visually), provided maximum
screening into the site. An example of this
condition is provided through Figure 20 on the
following page.
• To retain the required mound height when
there are breaks in the mound for entry drives,
stepped retaining walls with limestone veneer
should be implemented with a maximum of
12’ distance between retaining wall and drive.
• Stepped Retaining Walls: Limestone veneer
should be Great Lakes Limestone per Dutch
Quality Stone (Beige color) or approved
equal. Stones should be placed in a random
Ashlar pattern similar to Avery-Muirfield
Bridge over U.S. 33/S.R. 161 in Dublin,
OH. Reference City of Dublin Standard
Construction Drawings for limestone veneer
specifications.
• Pathway adjacent to entry drive should be 4’
wide minimum, and 6’ wide maximum.
4039
Figure 20. Primary Entry Drive Approach - Example Condition
DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
OVERHEAD OVERHEAD
TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION
LINELINE
More subtle slope on
the public side (6:1)
Steeper slope on private side to
reduce land impact (4:1 to 3:1)
Potential underground
drainage pipe
Right-of-WayBuilding Runoff Development
Stormwater
& Mound Runoff
Mound Utility Easement
(When Applicable)
Existing Overhead Transmission Line
SHIER RINGS ROADSHIER RINGS ROAD
DARREE DARREE
FIELDSFIELDS
COSGRAY ROADCOSGRAY ROADHOUCHARD ROADHOUCHARD ROADID-6ID-6
NN
Utility Easements
In certain circumstances there may be existing
utility easements to work around, or the need
for a new or modified utility easement within the
required setback. In these instances, there will
need to be coordination with both the City of
Dublin and any applicable public/private utility
companies to coordinate details and impact on
mound and planting requirements.
Figure 21 Highlights an instance of an existing
overhead transmission line. This line is within
the ID-6 boundary and will require the land
owner to coordinate directly with the City of
Dublin and applicable utility companies to
discuss transmission line infrastructure placement
and impact on mounding and plant typologies
along Shier Rings Road. At a minimum, no mow
grass should be planted along the entirety of
the mound within this easement, and all other
planting guidelines should be followed as
allowed by applicable utility companies.
As illustrated in Figure 22, in cases where
underground utility easements are adjacent
to required roadway mounding, the easement
should be located between the public ROW
and the base of the mound. When possible, the
mound should not overlap the easement to allow
for easier, less disruptive access to utilities.
Additionally, no manholes or cleanouts should
be placed within the mounds. In cases where
underground pipes have to cross under the
required mounding, placement of manholes
and access points are to be coordinated such
that they are not located within the limits of the
grading for the mounds. If possible the piped
infrastructure (sanitary sewer and storm sewer)
should be located where the mounds are lower,
such as within overlapping areas where one
mound is decreasing in height and the next is
increasing. This will require coordination with the
City’s Engineering Division during detailed site
design.
Figure 22. Setback Components
Figure 21. Existing Overhead
Transmission Line
4241DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Landscape Planting
ID-6
Section 05
DRAFT - April 24, 2026 DRAFT - April 24, 2026
evergreenevergreen
more screenedmore screened less screenedless screened
deciduousdeciduous
deciduousdeciduous
meadowmeadow
meadowmeadow meadowmeadow
shrubsshrubs
maintained turfmaintained turf maintained turfmaintained turfmaintained turfmaintained turf
PRIMARY STREETSPRIMARY STREETS ROUNDABOUTROUNDABOUT
summersummerwinterwintersummersummersummersummersummersummerwinterwinterwinterwinterLOCAL STREETSLOCAL STREETS
Source: Roaring Book, East
Haddam CT. Reed Hilderband
Source: Manatuck Farm,
Stonington CT. Reed Hilderbrand.
stone stone
wallwall
Figure 23. Planting StrategiesLandscape Planting
Guidelines
Landscape Intent
Cultivate a naturalized rural appearance with
planting and mounding that shifts in density
and character based on adjacency. Landscape
planting shall prioritize conditions that ensures
long term health of vegetation and supports
biodiversity and local ecology.
Species Diversity
Buffer plantings shall consist of no more than 10%
of any one species, 20% of any one genus, and
30% of any one family to support an urban tree
canopy population. See the Species Selection list
in this section for approved planting.
Installation Sizes
Tree sizes to be mixed in at least three different
sizes ranging from 2” to 3” caliper for deciduous
trees and 12-14’ height for evergreen trees. No
more than 50% of deciduous trees shall be 2”
caliper, and no more than 50% of evergreen
trees shall be 12’ height.
Planting Layout
Trees
Tree spacing shall vary randomly in a staggered
pattern between 6’ and 10’ on-center to achieve
a naturalized appearance. A minimum of 30
trees shall be provided per 100 linear feet of
setback.
Meadow Mix
Meadow Mix shall be under-planted beneath
tree groupings on mounds or among drifts of tree
stands. See Figure 14.
Shrubs
At key intersections and the Shier Rings Road and
Cosgray Road roundabout, shrub planting shall
be implemented in graphic rows utilizing at least
5 species. See Figure 14 and Species Selection.
Opacity Requirements
Year-round opacity shall be achieved through
layered planting and landforms. Trees should be
planted in informal clusters that vary in density
based on screening goals.
Residential adjacencies in areas such as ID-6
should reach 100% year round coverage, while
commercial and public edges may allow partial
opacity if headlight and parking screening are
maintained through low shrub planting. These
plant materials must meet height and opacity
requirements within four years of installation.
4645DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Source: Canadian hemlock stand.
Missouri Bontanical Garden.
Source: Rowdy Meadow, Hunting
Valley OH. Reed Hilderband
20% Prairie dropseed
20% Marco Polo sheeps fescue
20% annual ryegrass
Application rate shall be 225 lbs per acre.
• Plant seed with “Brillion” type landscape seeding
machine that accurately places seed at specified
depth and rate and rolls in single operation. Plant
seed no deeper than ½ inch. Hydroseeding of
meadows is not permitted.
• Plant seed with slit seeder in areas that have
been previously graded and seeded with annual
ryegrass for erosion control. Plant seed no deeper
than ½ inch.
• Apply fertilizer at time of seeding and 30 days
after seeding. Use starter fertilizer, 1-2-1, that will
provide actual phosphorus of at least 1.5 lbs/sq.
ft.
• Maintain meadow no less than 12 months after
planting.
• Mow meadow as soon as top growth is tall
enough to cut. Repeat moving to maintain
specified height without cutting more than 1/3
of the grass geight. Remove no more than 1/3 of
grass leaf growth in initial or subsequent mowings.
Do not delay mowing until grass blades bend over
and become matted. Do not mow when grass is
wet. Schedule initial and subsequent mowings to
maintain a height of 3.5 to 4 inches. Do not mow
after 12 months from planting completion.
• Apply 2 applications of a broad spectrum, 3-way
selective herbicide to meadow within 12 months
after planting. Schedule first application no earlier
than 6 months after planting.
Ostrya virginiana - American hophornbeam
Prunus sarangetii - Sargent cherry
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
Shrubs
Aesculus parviflora - Bottlebrush buckeye
Aronia spp.- Chokeberry
Buxus microphylla - little leaf boxwood
Buxus sempervirens - common boxwood
Cephalanthus occidentalis - buttonbush
Cornus racemosa - gray dogwood
Chamaecyparis obtusa- falsecypress
Ilex verticillata - winterberry holly
Itea virginica - Virginia sweetspire
Juniperis chinensis (many cultivars) - chinese juniper
Juniperis scopulorum (many cultivars) - rocky mountain
juniper
Lindera benzoin - spicebush
Myrica pensylvanica - Northern bayberry
Salix spp.- shrub willows
Taxus x media (many cultivars) - Yew
Thuja occidentalis (many cultivars) - Arborvitae
Vaccinium angustifolium - lowbush blueberry
Viburnum acerifolium - mapleleaf vibirnum
MEADOW MIX
• Meadow Mix shall be:
20% Aruba or Audubon creeping red fescue
20% J5 chewings fescue
Acer x freemanii - Fremanii maple (Red/Silver Maple
Cross)*
Acer nigrum - Black maple*
Acer saccharum - Sugar maple*
Betula nigra - River birch
Cercidiphyllum japonicum - Katsuratree
Nyssa sylvatica - Black tupelo/Black gum
Platanus x acerifolia - London planetree
Prunus sarangetii - Sargent cherry
Quercus bicolor - Swamp white oak
Quercus rubra - Northern red oak
Taxodium distichum- Bald cypress
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
ROUNDABOUT
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
Aronia melanocarpa - Black chokeberry
Crataegus species - Hawthorn “Winter King”, “Ohio
Pioneer”
Chionanthus virginius - White fringetree
Cornus mas - Corneliancherry dogwood
Halesia carolina - Carolina silverbell
Koelreiteria paniculata- Goldenraintree
Species Selection
COSGRAY ROAD
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Juniperus virginiana - Eastern red cedar
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pinus strobus - White pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
Tsuga canadensis - Canadian hemlock
Thuja occidentalis - Western red cedar
Acer saccharum - Sugar maple*
Liriodendron tulipfera - Tulip tree
Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis - Thornless
honeylocust
Celtis laevigata - Sugar hackberry
Celtis occidentalis - Hackberry “Prairie Pride”
Meadow Mix
See “Meadow Mix” section.
Grasses (maintained)
See “Maintained Turf Mix” section.
SHIER RINGS ROAD + LOCAL ROADS
Trees
Abies concolor - White fir
Picea abies - Norway spruce
Picea glauca - White spruce
Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir
Thuja occidentalis - American arborvitae
Thuja plicata x T. standishii - Green giant arborvitae
4847DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
American Nursery and Landscape Association
standards.
Meadow Mix
• Mixes shall be pre-packaged at the
specified species percentages and applied
at rates consistent with the seed supplier’s
recommendations.
• Bed preparation shall be in accordance with seed
supplier’s recommendations.
Planting Soils
• Planting soils shall be a mix of three components:
topsoil, organic amendment, and sand.
• Topsoil: central Ohio topsoil with a USDA texture
classification of clay loam or loam and a pH of
5.5 to 7.0.
• Organic Amendment: composted yard debris
(green waste) compost with a pH of 7.2 to 8.0
• Sand: ASTM C33 concrete sand.
• The three components shall be blended into a the
following ratio: 4 parts sand, 2 parts topsoil, 1
part compost.
MAINTAINED TURF MIX
• The turf mix shall be:
80% 2 of 3 Tall Fescue
10% Kentucky Blue Grass
10% Perennial Ryegrass
Application rate shall be 225 lbs per acre.
General Planting Guidelines
Trees
• Trees over 3” caliper shall be nursery tagged
by a landscape architect. Trees under 3” caliper
shall be visually inspected with representative
photographs by a landscape architect.
• Width of tree planting hole for trees shall be 3
times the diameter of the root ball. Bottom and
sides of the tree hole shall be loosened prior to
planting.
• Depth of tree planting hole shall be 1.5 times the
depth of the root ball, minimum. Container grown
or balled and burlapped trees shall be planting
on a compacted mound of #57 stone.
• All sides and grades of plant material shall be
in accordance with the American Standard for
Nursery Stock (latest edition), published by the
American Nursery and Landscape Association
Standards.
Woody Shrubs
• Representative photos of woody shrubs shall be
approved by a landscape architect.
• Woody shrub beds shall be staked for approval
by a landscape architect.
• Shrub beds shall be a continuous excavation to
the depth of the deepest rootball in the shrub bed.
Bottom and sides of shrub bed excavation shall
be loosened prior to planting.
• All sizes and grades of plant material shall be
in accordance with the American Standard for
Nursery Stock (latest edition), published by the
Shrubs
• January/February: Remove wind driven leaves
from shrub beds.
• March: Remove wind driven leaves from shrub
beds. Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals- document all findings.
• April: Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals- document all findings. Edge all
shrub beds by hand spade or other acceptable
method. Hand prune as needed – use standard
horticultural practices when pruning. Shearing is
not acceptable. Selectively hand prune non-
spring flowering shrubs as required. Apply
granular pre-emergent control to shrub beds.
Apply mulch to shrub beds. Provide 2”-3” depth
within bed.
• May: Hand prune as needed (see April). Closely
monitor newly planted shrubs to ensure root
ball has the proper moisture content. Remove
weeds from beds weekly. Continue bi-monthly
inspections for pest/disease problems.
• June: Hand prune as needed (see April). Monitor
for weed / insect / and disease problems –
control as needed. Use pheromone traps to help
determine insect problems. Closely monitor newly
planted shrubs to ensure root ball has the proper
moisture content. Remove weeds from beds
weekly.
• July: Monitor potential weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Closely
monitor newly planted shrubs to ensure root ball
has the proper moisture content. Pre-emergent
herbicide may be used to control weeds in beds.
Remove weeds from beds weekly.
• August: Large shrubs should be pruned if
necessary to maintain desired character (except
for summer/fall flowering species). Monitor for
weed / insect / and disease problems – control
as needed. Closely monitor newly planted shrubs
to ensure root ball has the proper moisture content.
Landscape Maintenance
Trees
• January: Check trunks for rodent damage. Treat
appropriately if damage is present. Selectively
hand prune limbs to repair, remove damaged
limbs, or to ‘limb-up’ canopy (provided temps are
>32 degrees). Do not prune evergreen trees unless
necessary for damage repair. Use dormant oils
for pest management as required for insect control
provided temps remain >32 degrees for 24 hours
or more.
• February: If there’s evidence of an insect
infestation, dormant horticultural oils are effective
as a dormant application – temperatures must be
>32 for 24 hours after application to be effective.
• March: Selectively hand prune limbs to repair,
remove damaged limbs, or to ‘limb-up’ canopy
(provided temps are >32 degrees). Do not prune
evergreen trees unless necessary for damage
repair. Install any new container grown or B&B
trees.
• April: Inspect for potential pest problems at 2
week intervals – document all findings. Remove
any/all dead or damaged branches or limbs.
Install any new container grown or B&B trees.
Closely monitor newly planted trees to ensure root
ball has the proper moisture content. Apply mulch
tree rings to trees in plant beds and turf areas.
Provide 2”-3” depth throughout entire tree ring.
Pull mulch 2” away from trunk to prevent mold and
rotting.
• May: Weed mulch tree rings as required.
Continue bi-monthly inspections for pest/disease
problems. Closely monitor newly planted trees to
ensure root ball has the proper moisture content.
• June/July: Irrigate trees if needed in the early
morning hours to prevent evapotranspiration.
Trim/remove unwanted limbs from trees as
required. Monitor for weed / insect / and disease
problems – control as needed. Use pheromone
traps to help determine insect problems. Closely
monitor newly planted trees to ensure root ball has
the proper moisture content. Provide 1” water per
week (supplement natural rainfall with irrigation as
needed).
• August: Maintain 2-3” depth mulch tree rings
for trees in plant beds and turf areas. Pull mulch
2” away from trunk to prevent mold and rotting.
Weed mulch tree rings as required.
• September: Pesticide application is not
recommended at this time unless for heavy
infestations. Plan for container grown shade trees
and evergreens that can be planted in the fall
(Oct./Nov.).
• October: Fertilize using a granular fertilizer
with slow release nitrogen – a 4:1:2 ratio is
appropriate – Broadcast over entire root zone /
dripline (if root zone includes turf do not exceed
2lbs of nitrogen / 1000 sf).
• November: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Remove
any diseased / damaged / or dead branches. If
there’s evidence of an insect infestation, dormant
horticultural oils are effective as a dormant
application – temperatures must be >32 for 24
hours after application to be effective. Renew
mulch tree rings - provide 3” depth for trees in
plant beds and turf areas. Pull mulch 2” away from
trunk.
• December: Monitor for signs of pest problems
and desiccation from winter winds. Plants that
routinely show dissection may be treated with
an application of wilt proof to reduce damage.
More than one treatment is detrimental. Plants with
reoccurring problems should be removed.
5049DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
Continue monitoring turf for broadleaf weeds
(ground ivy, plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply
treatments as needed. Fall Fertilization: Late
October; fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as
required by soil analysis.
• November: Remove fall leaves from turf to prevent
damage. Reduce mower cutting height to 1 ½” for
last cut of the season – to reduce chance of snow
mold and winter burn. Apply spot applications of
broadleaf herbicides as required.
• December: Complete any leaf removal to prevent
damage to turf.
lb actual per 1000 sf. - Apply with broadcast
spreader.
• October (early): Mow at 4” height (Single Mow).
Overseed thin areas at rate of 4 lbs / 1000sf -
slice seed or seed-a-vator method
• November (late): Fertilize with 1-1-1 ratio NPK at
1.0 lb actual per 1000 sf. - Apply with broadcast
spreader.
Turf
• January/ February/March: Minimize salt
damage along walks and drives. Remove any
wind driven leaves from lawns/beds.
• April: Test soil PH. Turf areas should maintain PH
levels between 6.2-7.0. Apply lime to increase
PH as needed. Apply chemical pre-emergents
as needed after soil temps reach 55 degrees
and crabgrass begins to germinate. If season
is advanced, begin mowing. First cut should be
slightly shorter than normal (3”ht.) to encourage
greening. Trim turf along all walks and road
edges as required – DO NOT line trim around
tree trunks. Core aerate prior to fertilization /
lawn renovations. Avoid rolling of turf; this causes
compaction/poor root development; it should
be avoided unless excessive heaving has taken
place. Overseed turf areas after aeration to
increase lawn density and crowd out aggressive
weeds.
• May: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
Check for soil insects - document all findings.
Treat as necessary. Spring Fertilization: Memorial
Day; fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as
required by soil analysis.
• June: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing as
needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
Pre-emergent herbicide may be used to control
weeds in landscape beds. Maintain a 2”-3” of
mulch in all shrub beds. Remove weeds from
beds weekly.
• September: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Pesticide
application is not recommended at this time
unless for heavy infestations. Maintain a 2”-3”
of mulch in all shrub beds. Remove weeds from
beds weekly. Remove early fall leaves and other
debris from plant beds. Apply pre-emergent
herbicide for control of winter annuals.
• October: Fertilize using a granular fertilizer
with slow release nitrogen – a 4:1:2 ratio is
appropriate – Broadcast over entire shrub bed.
Remove fallen leaves to prevent damage of turf.
• November: Monitor for weed / insect / and
disease problems – control as needed. Remove
any diseased / damaged / or dead branches. If
there’s evidence of an insect infestation, dormant
horticultural oils are effective as a dormant
application – temperatures must be >32 for 24
hours after application to be effective. Renew
mulch at shrub beds - provide 2-3” depth.
• December: Monitor for signs of pest problems
and desiccation from winter winds. Plants that
routinely show dissection may be treated with an
application of wilt proof to reduce damage. More
than one treatment is detrimental. Plants with
reoccurring problems should be removed.
Meadow
• April (late): Apply 3-way selective herbicide
to control weed populations - Do not apply
pre-emergence to areas that need overseeded.
Overseeding can take place in April for severe
bare areas at rate of 4 lbs / 1000sf - slice seed
or seed-a-vator method. (Note: Fall overseed is
preferred)
• May: Mow at 4” height (Single Mow).
• June - September: No mowing to occur
• September: Fertilize with 1-1-1 ratio NPK at 1.0
Monitor turf for broadleaf weeds (ground ivy,
plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply chemical
weed killers as needed. New seeded lawn areas
require the top 1/4” to remain moist – a thin
layer of hydro mulch will help to keep soil from
drying out. New sod should be kept moist for 4-5
weeks or until firmly rooted.
• July: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing as
needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Frequency may
decrease during this time due to heat stress. Treat
disease with appropriate fungicide if damage is
extensive.
• August: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Frequency may
decrease during this time due to heat stress. Treat
disease with appropriate fungicide if damage
is extensive. Core aerate prior to fertilization /
lawn renovations. Monitor turf for insect and
disease problems – Grubs are typical during
this month. Cut section of lawn and examine
roots for young grubs. Treatment is necessary at
populations of 4 grubs / sf.
• September: Summer Fertilization: Labor Day;
fertilize at 1 lb nitrogen / 1000 sf. or as required
by soil analysis. Maintain turf at 3” height by
mowing as needed-removing not more than
1/3 of the blade length in a single mowing.
Frequency may decrease during this time due
to heat stress. Treat disease with appropriate
fungicide if damage is extensive. Over-seed all
bare areas – Rake bare soil and amend with
three cubic yards of finely screened compost /
1000 sf. Broadcast seed and hand rake into top
1/4” topsoil. Monitor turf for broadleaf weeds
(ground ivy, plantain, dandelion, etc.) and apply
treatments as needed.
• October: Maintain turf at 3” height by mowing
as needed-removing not more than 1/3 of the
blade length in a single mowing. Treat disease
with appropriate fungicide if damage is extensive.
5251DRAFT - May 14, 2026 DRAFT - May 14, 2026
West Innovation District – Rezoning and Code Amendments - Case History
and Public Engagement
City Staff have engaged in several public meetings, community conversations, and
stakeholder meetings since the application was last before the PZC in February 2025. A
timeline of meetings and public engagement over the course of the application is listed
below, which is also provided on the City of Dublin’s West Innovation District
Rezoning webpage here: https://dublinohiousa.gov/west-innovation-district-rezoning/
February 20, 2025
The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed the rezoning of nine parcels totaling
approximately 370 acres within the West Innovation District from Rural District to ID-2,
Research Flex District and ID-3, Research Assembly District. PZC recommended
approval of the rezoning with no conditions. Opportunities for public comment were
provided during the PZC review.
March 17, 2025
City Council held a first reading for Ordinance 06-25. Council received the first reading,
and the second reading was scheduled for April 7.
April 7, 2025
Dublin City Council provided a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 06-25–
Request and approval of rezoning approximately 370 acres within the West Innovation
District from R, Rural District, to ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3, Research
Assembly District. Following public comment, Council moved to table Ord. 06-25 to
allow for additional review and public input.
May 8, 2025
A public meeting was held in the Council Chamber to allow staff to share information
about Dublin’s strategic planning efforts, the vision for the West Innovation District and
the details of the proposed rezoning. Resident engagement was high, with
approximately 100 attendees in person and an additional 65 viewing the meeting
online. Following the presentation, residents asked questions and shared comments.
May 21, 2025
Staff met with the newly elected leaders of the Ballantrae Community Association to
further the dialogue with residents and discuss the feedback received, including
concerns about noise, light pollution, and traffic.
June 11, 2025
Staff met with Washington Township residents to answer questions and hear
concerns regarding the proposed rezoning.
June 23, 2025
At their June 23, 2025, meeting, Council members approved a motion to hold
an additional reading and continuation of the public hearing for Ord. 06-25 at the
August 11 City Council meeting. This allowed additional time for staff to collaborate
with residents and property owners and to understand how targeted Zoning Code
amendments could be developed to reflect community input while supporting the
community’s long-term vision.
July 1, 2025
Staff met with Ballantrae Community Association (BCA) leadership and members of
their Planning & Zoning Committee to discuss communications, development and code
amendments.
July 2025
Throughout July, staff held a series of community conversations to provide
residents and stakeholders with the opportunity to offer additional feedback through
focused discussions with staff members. Across the sessions, approximately 100
residents and stakeholders attended and were given the opportunity to record feedback
on worksheets, which are included in the packet for reference.
August 11, 2025
Responsive to feedback from residents and stakeholders, City staff
members identified that targeted Zoning Code amendments were necessary
to accompany the West Innovation District rezoning proposal. These future
amendments recommended the incorporation of specific, actionable suggestions from
neighboring residents that remain consistent with the Envision Dublin Community Plan
and respect the rights of property owners within the proposed rezoning boundaries.
To facilitate a coordinated review, City Council tabled Ordinance 06-25, allowing time
for the Code amendments to be drafted and vetted through the public process,
including review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission, followed
by review and determination by City Council.
December 19, 2025
City staff met with members of the Ballantrae Community Association board on Dec. 19
to review the proposed West Innovation District ID-6 rezoning code amendments and
the setback and landscape buffer study. Association leadership expressed appreciation
for the draft approach, asked clarifying questions, and shared additional insights to
inform the ongoing work.
January 13, 2026
City staff met with members of the Ballantrae Community Association board on Jan.
13 to review feedback received by the Association leadership. The Association shared
results from a survey it had conducted with residents, and the general sentiment
was similar to previous concerns expressed to City staff.
January 20, 2026
The PZC reviewed and provided non-binding feedback for the draft ID-6 Code Roadmap
and landscape buffer study. Members of the public attended the meeting and provided
comments consistent with those represented through the planning process. The
Commission was generally supportive of the direction of the roadmap and provided
recommendations for future amendments.
March 25, 2026
City staff met with members of the Ballantrae Community Association board to review
the proposed code amendments. The Association asked clarifying questions and
provided feedback and insights on the code amendments.
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 7, 2026
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Way at 6:30 PM at 5555 Perimeter Drive. He welcomed
attendees and noted that the meeting could be joined in person or accessed via livestream on the
City's website.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Way led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Gary Alexander, Jamey Chinnock, Kathy Harter, Victoria Newell,
Kim Way
Commission Members absent: Hilary Damaser, Dan Garvin
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Thaddeus Boggs
ACCEPTANCE OF MEETING DOCUMENTS
Ms. Harter moved, Mr. Alexander seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and
approval of the April 9 and April 16 Regular Meetings.
Vote: Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Newell, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0.]
Mr. Way explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council
when platting and property rezoning is under consideration, with Council receiving
recommendations from the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has final decision-making
responsibility.
He outlined the procedures for the evening, stating that the Commission would hear an update
from staff and consultants on a pending code amendment as well as the West Innovation District
Setback and Buffer Study. No determination would be made, but public comment would be
accepted. He requested that anyone wishing to make public comment keep their remarks to 3
minutes or less and refrain from repeating information. He also asked the audience to refrain from
side conversations, applause, or other audible reactions to protect the process.
Anyone intending to address the Commission was sworn in by Mr. Way.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 2 of 14
CASE REVIEW
Case #26-001ADMC
Discussion and Feedback for Code Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code
Sections 153.002, 153.016, and 153.037-153.042 for the West Innovation District.
West Innovation District Setback and Buffer Study
Update on the setback and buffer study as it relates to the ID-6 district
implementation.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch opened the presentation by providing an overview of the background and context for
the proposed code amendments. She explained that this process originated from a previous
rezoning application that came before the Commission in February 2025 and was subsequently
tabled at City Council in August of that year. Council directed staff to develop targeted zoning
amendments to address compatibility concerns that had been raised throughout that process. As
a result, staff proceeded with the creation of a new zoning district, identified as ID-6, within the
West Innovation District code framework. Ms. Rauch emphasized that the intent of the new district
was to provide a sensitive transition to the existing residential uses, particularly those across
Cosgray Road and within the Ballantrae neighborhood. She reiterated that no determination would
be made at this meeting; rather, the goal was to present information, receive public comment, and
gather feedback from the Commission with an aim toward bringing a final draft to the May 21st
meeting for a potential recommendation to City Council.
Ms. Rauch reviewed the background of the planning process, noting that the draft code had been
informed by the Envision Dublin Community Plan's recommendation for flex innovation land use,
equivalent to the ID-2 district, which served as the starting point. She highlighted key elements
incorporated into the draft in response to feedback received during the January Commission
meeting and throughout the broader public engagement process. These included refinements to
the advanced manufacturing definition, clarifications regarding building height reduction from 68
feet to 45 feet with the inclusion of rooftop mechanical screening, setback and buffering provisions,
and the addition of environmental and operational intent language. She further summarized
stakeholder feedback, noting that property owners and development professionals had expressed
concerns about the cost burden imposed by the buffer requirements and its impact on buildable
area, while also expressing support for the general approach and a willingness to be good
neighbors. Ms. Rauch then summarized the key elements of the proposed code, which included
the creation of the new ID-6 district focused on low-intensity development, removal of data centers
as a permitted or conditional use throughout the entire West Innovation District, a 200-foot buffer,
prohibition on standalone warehousing and distribution, a 45-foot building height limit inclusive of
mechanical screening, operational limitations requiring all activity to occur within buildings, and
restrictions on loading and service orientation toward Cosgray Road.
Consultant Presentation
Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion, 5721 Dragon Way, Cincinnati, offered brief introductory remarks,
contextualizing the zoning work within the broader planning hierarchy. He described Dublin's
planning approach as methodical, beginning with the comprehensive plan, proceeding through the
special area plan, the integrated implementation strategy, and culminating in the zoning code. He
characterized this progression as an exemplary process, noting that the zoning code did not simply
appear but was the product of a deliberate series of policy steps. He encouraged the Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 3 of 14
to view the various elements of the proposed code as an integrated package, explaining that
definitions, intent statements, permitted uses, and use-specific development standards all work in
concert with one another. He acknowledged that a balance was being sought between the concerns
of existing residents and the economic development objectives established in the comprehensive
plan, and that the process remained open to continued refinement.
Keeghan Stitt-White, McBride Dale Clarion, 5721 Dragon Way, Cincinnati, presented the specifics
of the proposed West Innovation District code update. He began by confirming that the only
district-wide change proposed for the entire WID was the removal of data centers as a permitted
or conditional use, based on community feedback and the incompatibility of data centers with the
intended character of the innovation district.
Turning to the ID-6 Research Transition District specifically, Mr. Stitt-White reviewed the proposed
intent statement, explaining that it was designed to clearly state the purpose and character of the
district, guide the interpretation of regulations, and provide a policy basis for reviewing future
applications. He noted that the intent statement emphasized support for cutting-edge economic
development, fostering innovation, advancing research, providing a sensitive transition to
established single-family residential neighborhoods, minimizing adverse impacts including noise,
lighting, and other off-site effects, and encouraging sustainable practices utilizing nontoxic inputs
to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Stitt-White then distinguished between principal and accessory uses, explaining that a principal
use is the primary use for which a property is occupied, while an accessory use is secondary and
cannot operate independently. In the ID-6 context, accessory uses would include parking areas,
bicycle parking, internal storage, and loading areas.
He presented the six proposed principal uses for the ID-6 district: office (general and medical),
parks and open space, advanced manufacturing, construction and contract services, and research
and development. He noted that of these, only advanced manufacturing was a new proposed use.
He walked through the new definition for advanced manufacturing in detail, describing it as an
industrial use designed to engage in the manufacturing of finished products or component parts
from previously prepared materials, utilizing a high level of specialized skill and advanced
technologies such as computer-controlled systems, robotics, and automation. He noted that the
definition also included sample accessory activities such as quality control, internal storage,
distribution, and on-site sales, provided they remain incidental and subordinate to the principal
use.
Mr. Stitt-White then outlined the use-specific standards applicable to advanced manufacturing
within ID-6. These standards required that the use operate entirely within a building, prohibited
on-site outdoor storage, and imposed performance standards to minimize adverse impacts from
odor, smoke, vibration, electromagnetic interference, and similar effects. He addressed
construction and contract services, noting that while the definition would remain unchanged, new
use-specific limits would require all activity within a building and restrict the outdoor storage of
heavy equipment, with an exception carved out for fleet vehicles. He defined fleet vehicles as small-
scale vehicles used for delivery, pickup, or service, such as a sprinter van for an HVAC company,
and clarified that the definition explicitly excluded heavy machinery, semi-trucks, non-recreational
trailers, and construction equipment.
Regarding research and development, Mr. Stitt-White explained that the definition would remain
the same but that ID-6-specific limits would be added, including requirements that operations occur
entirely within a building, prohibition on on-site outdoor storage, and a limitation that any
fabrication, assembly, or processing be confined to prototype or pilot-scale development only. He
noted that the intent was not to permit manufacturing under this use, but that incidental
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 4 of 14
manufacturing for prototype development would be allowable. On-site retail, wholesale distribution,
and commercial sales would be prohibited.
With respect to accessory uses, Mr. Stitt-White reported that all existing accessory uses would
remain as proposed, with one modification to the warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution
accessory use. New limitations would require that the use function solely to support the principal
use on site and would prohibit its operation as a standalone logistics, wholesale, or bulk storage
facility. Most significantly, the warehousing, wholesaling, or distribution of goods not created by
the principal use itself would be prohibited.
Mr. Stitt-White also addressed the similar use determination process, explaining that any use not
listed in the code would need to meet all established criteria, including consistency with the district's
intent statement, and could not be more intensive than any currently permitted use in ID-6.
Turning to development standards, Mr. Stitt-White confirmed that the building height would remain
at 45 feet, inclusive of rooftop equipment and screening. He noted that a building of 35 feet in
structural height would therefore have 10 feet available for mechanical installations. The 200-foot
setback from Cosgray Road would remain. Outdoor storage and operations would not be permitted.
Service areas including overhead garage doors would not be permitted on building elevations along
Cosgray Road. Ground signs would not be permitted along Cosgray Road. New site lighting
standards had been added in response to January meeting comments, including a zero-foot-candle
allowance for light trespass across property lines adjacent to residential uses, and a requirement
that parking lot lighting be reduced by 50 percent after 10:00 p.m. Landscape and buffering along
streets would be regulated by the buffer and setback design manual. Screening from residential
properties, aside from Cosgray Road, would require 90 percent opacity using a mix of deciduous
and evergreen trees and native understory shrubs.
Regarding architectural requirements, Mr. Stitt-White noted the addition of an architectural intent
statement specific to ID-6 that emphasized smaller-scale buildings, high-quality detail-oriented
design blending office aesthetics, and heightened architectural emphasis on facades for buildings
directly adjacent to residential properties. Permitted building materials were not proposed to
change.
Chris Hermann and Kymberly Ware, MKSK, 462 S. Ludlow Street, Columbus, presented the West
Innovation District Setback and Buffer Study. Mr. Hermann introduced the presentation as an
extension of Chapter 153.04, the site development requirements, specifically supplementing the
setback, landscape, and design requirements for the ID-6 zone. He noted that setback distances
applied to both buildings and pavement and were measured from the future right-of-way.
Mr. Hermann described the existing site conditions, identifying Cosgray Road along the east side
of the ID-6 area, the intersection of Cosgray and Shier Rings at the northeast corner, and a future
extension of Shier Rings along the north side. He noted the presence of two existing farmsteads
as well as existing tree rows that were considered important for preservation. He also identified
overhead transmission lines along the western property line, a park to the north, existing residential
development to the east, and railroad tracks to the south.
Ms. Ware then described the design approach, organized around three conditions: primary streets
(predominantly Cosgray Road and Shier Rings Road), local internal streets within the development,
and the roundabout at the intersection of Cosgray and Shier Rings roads. She explained that
primary streets would predominantly utilize mounding as the screening approach, internal streets
would use dense planting, and the roundabout would be treated as a gateway moment celebrating
entry into the district.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 5 of 14
Ms. Ware elaborated on the Cosgray Road corridor, describing it as the primary focus of the
mounding and dense planting approach given its adjacency to residential uses on the east side and
the requirement of the 200-foot setback. She stated that the intent was to maintain the rural
character of the corridor and provide maximum screening of future development. She noted that
the Cosgray Road corridor would be enhanced with two additional drive lanes and a planted center
median. She described how a 14-foot mound between the sidewalk and the development area
would substantially obstruct visual connections from the street right-of-way to any development at
the 45-foot building height limit. Along Shier Rings Road, a smaller setback would limit the mound
to approximately 8 feet in height but would still achieve the 90 percent screening standard, with
commercial adjacency on the north side allowing for a somewhat less intensive treatment than
Cosgray Road. For local internal streets, mounding would not be utilized and development would
be positioned closer to the right-of-way, with dense planting used as the screening method. Where
architectural features warranted it, more open planting could be employed to allow visual
connectivity into the development.
Mr. Hermann described the kit-of-parts approach to the setback area, consisting of the right-of-
way with shared-use path and street trees, a utility easement zone where applicable, mounding
with a naturalized slope on the public side and a steeper slope on the private side to maximize
developable area, stormwater management areas positioned behind the mounds and away from
the public edge, and ultimately the building itself. He noted the intention for stormwater areas to
be grouped behind the mounds.
Ms. Ware then addressed the approach to mound design, emphasizing that the intent was not to
create continuous toothpaste berms but rather naturalized, undulating forms that varied in both
vertical and horizontal dimensions. She described a maximum slope of 6-to-1 on the public side for
a natural appearance, and a 3-to-1 slope on the private side to reduce depth and maximize usable
area. This approach would create a rolling hills character along the Cosgray Road corridor.
With respect to planting, Ms. Ware described a layered approach using three to four layers of
naturalized drifts with organic groupings of both evergreen and deciduous trees. Near the
roundabout and Shier Rings Road, ornamental plantings with shrubs and grasses would be
incorporated to celebrate those intersections. Tree spacing would be staggered, ranging from 6 to
10 feet on center to achieve a naturalized appearance. Tree installation sizes at the time of
development would be 2-to-3-inch caliper, described as a middle ground between smaller whips
that would provide no immediate screening and larger specimens that would be difficult to establish
and cost-prohibitive. This size was selected to provide meaningful screening from day one while
establishing the intended character.
Ms. Ware addressed the treatment of mounds at property boundaries, noting that where a mound
reached the edge of a property, it would taper at a maximum slope of 4-to-1 toward its terminus,
creating a naturalized rolling-hills appearance without a visual break in the screening as viewed
from the corridor. Existing tree rows would be preserved in place, with new planting brought down
to meet them to create a sense of continuous treatment.
Mr. Hermann stated that stormwater management areas would be grouped behind the mounds
and away from the public edge. He described the desire for the shared-use path to meander
through the mounding wherever possible to create a more interesting and varied pedestrian
experience, potentially requiring easements in some locations. Ms. Ware emphasized that the
screening areas were also intended to function as public space and habitat, contributing to the
beautification of the corridor.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 6 of 14
Mr. Hermann outlined three special conditions identified in the guidelines. The first was the
roundabout, which would serve as a gateway and require careful coordination with city staff to
determine how mounding and buffering would taper back at an appropriate distance—estimated
at approximately 300 to 400 feet—to allow for a more celebrated entry feature before the mounding
and plantings resumed. The second was the farmsteads, which were described as character-giving
properties that would be preserved and incorporated into the corridor design to reinforce the rural
aesthetic, with screening provided around their sides to create distinct spatial moments along the
corridor. The third was the handling of entry drives through the mounding, where a curved drive
design was recommended so that views from the public right-of-way into the site would be blocked
even at entry points. Stone retaining walls would be required where the mounds flanked such
drives, creating a refined feature between the street trees, median, and mounding. The utility
easement condition along the western property line was also addressed, with a requirement for
no-mow or low-mow grass at minimum, and a desire to maintain landscape character to the extent
permitted by utility requirements.
Ms. Ware concluded the MKSK presentation with an overview of the landscape and planting
guidelines. She noted that the species list and maintenance regime had been developed in close
collaboration with city landscape and maintenance staff. The planting guidelines emphasized a
naturalized rural appearance achieved through dense layering with variation in density and
character based on adjacency. To encourage biodiversity and urban tree canopy resilience, the
guidelines established limits of no more than 10 percent of any single species, no more than 20
percent of any single genus, and no more than 30 percent of any single family. Installation sizes
of 2-to-3-inch caliper were confirmed, with no more than half of the trees installed at the smaller
end of that range. Year-round opacity was a specific goal, achieved through the placement of
evergreen trees behind deciduous trees in drift plantings so that screening would persist through
the winter months.
Commission Questions
Mr. Chinnock inquired about the nature of the stakeholder concerns regarding the landscape buffer.
Ms. Rauch clarified that the concerns centered on the reduction of buildable area, the significant
cost of constructing large mounds requiring substantial earthwork, and the volume of landscape
material necessary to meet the opacity requirements. Mr. Chinnock then directed a question to the
MKSK team regarding whether, in their professional experience, the scope of landscape treatment
being proposed was excessive. Mr. Hermann acknowledged that the scale of the proposed
landscape was substantial, comparable in density to what would be typical of a park-making or
placemaking project rather than a standard buffer. He explained that the dual objectives of creating
a park-like environment along Cosgray Road and achieving adequate screening of the 45-foot
buildings through large mounds together necessitated this level of treatment, and that simpler
approaches could have been taken but were not aligned with the design intent.
Mr. Chinnock then asked for clarification on the approximate distance between residential buildings
in Ballantrae and the buildable edge of the ID-6 area. Ms. Ware explained that the 200-foot setback
from the Cosgray Road right-of-way, combined with an approximately 60-foot road width that
would result from the planned improvements to Cosgray Road including two additional drive lanes
and a planted center median, would create a minimum distance of approximately 260 feet from
the residential side of the right-of-way to any development. Adding the depth of the residential lots
between the homes themselves and the right-of-way would further increase this separation to
approximately 300 to 400 feet. Ms. Ware also noted the existence of an existing mound on the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 7 of 14
residential side of Cosgray Road, which would provide an additional layer of screening between
residences and the future development.
Mr. Chinnock raised a question about screening of fleet vehicles at side-yard loading areas. Mr.
Hermann responded that the combination of the mounding and density of planting along Cosgray
Road at 90 percent opacity, and heavily vegetated edges along internal streets, would effectively
screen such vehicles from public view. Mr. Way noted that the code would not permit loading docks
to be visible from Cosgray Road.
Mr. Chinnock asked for a definition of the term “pilot scale” as used in the research and
development use standards. Mr. Stitt-White explained that while a specific definition was not
currently in the code, the intent was that prototyping would refer to activities not producing goods
for general public sale, and he acknowledged that a definition could be added to provide greater
clarity.
Mr. Chinnock then raised the broader question of whether the cumulative restrictions being
imposed in ID-6 might be too restrictive to attract the types of tenants the district was intended to
serve. Mr. Stitt-White responded that while the restrictions would be excessive for a standard
industrial district, given the site-sensitive context and proximity to residential uses, they
represented an appropriate balance between developer flexibility and resident protection. Ms.
Rauch further noted that staff had consulted with both property owners and development
professionals familiar with similar products, and that those parties had expressed confidence that
projects could be built consistent with the proposed standards.
Ms. Harter asked whether the development community was broadly comfortable with the buffering
and landscaping requirements, acknowledging that clarity had been a consistent theme. Ms. Rauch
responded that while developers naturally sought maximum flexibility, they understood the intent
and the community plan's recommendations, and recognized that the 200-foot setback and the
proposed treatment within it were established requirements. She noted that the intent of the code
was to provide clarity so that developers would know from the outset whether or not they could
meet the requirements.
Ms. Harter raised questions about tree installation size and the concern that 2-to-3-inch caliper
trees would take many years to provide meaningful screening. Ms. Ware acknowledged this
concern and noted the balance being struck between providing day-one screening and maintaining
realistic establishment expectations and cost efficiency. She also addressed Ms. Harter's question
about deer resistance, indicating that the species list developed in conjunction with City
maintenance staff incorporated deer-resistant plantings.
Ms. Harter asked whether residents on the second floor of homes across Cosgray Road would be
able to see the buildings from day one. Ms. Ware confirmed that this was a possibility, but noted
that the existing mound on the residential side, combined with a five-layer system of screening
including residential vegetation, a treed median as part of the Cosgray Road improvements, and
the mounding and dense plantings on the development side, would substantially reduce visibility.
Mr. Hermann elaborated that given the maximum 45-foot building height and the estimated 10-to-
20-foot line of sight from a second-floor window, a resident would be looking through five layers
of vegetation and across approximately 400 feet of separation.
Ms. Harter asked about the possibility of green roofs on development buildings as an additional
visual treatment when viewed from upper floors of neighboring homes. Ms. Ware and Mr. Hermann
noted that while green roofs were possible, the plantings involved were typically very low-growing
due to structural weight constraints and would provide limited visual interest when viewed
horizontally from neighboring properties. Mr. Hermann also advised that green roofs are most
effective when viewed from above.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 8 of 14
Ms. Harter asked about the cohesiveness of the east side of Cosgray Road from a landscaping
standpoint. Ms. Ware indicated that the intent was to match the existing character already present
on that side, including the existing rolling mound planting, though the mounding on the residential
side would be less tall. Ms. Rauch noted that much of the significant landscape on the residential
side was on private property within backyards, and that the City's beautification grant program
could potentially be explored as a resource. Ms. Harter also asked about code enforcement,
specifically whether it would involve proactive visits or only complaint-driven action. Ms. Rauch
confirmed that both approaches were employed, with staff conducting proactive driving surveys of
the city and also responding to complaints.
Mr. Alexander followed up on Mr. Chinnock's earlier comments and asked whether properties in
the ID-6 district with the 200-foot setback burden could qualify for the existing 5 percent buildable
area increase available under the code for sustainable practices, given the significant landscape
investment involved. Ms. Rauch indicated that this had not been considered in that framing but
that staff would explore it.
Mr. Alexander noted that the use table on page 10 of the memo showed that renewable wind
equipment, which was a conditional use in other WID districts, had no entry for ID-6, and asked
whether this meant wind energy equipment was not permitted. Ms. Rauch confirmed this was
correct and explained that the intent was to limit what could be seen and used on this particular
site. She noted that solar and geothermal were addressed separately. Mr. Alexander expressed
concern that this prohibition might be based on an assumption that all wind turbines resembled
large-scale utility turbines seen along Interstate 270, when in fact many small-scale rooftop wind
installations existed. He suggested that if the intent was to prohibit large-scale turbines, the
language should be more specific to what was being regulated rather than broadly excluding all
wind-related equipment.
Mr. Alexander also asked about a reference in the memo to the exclusion of additional renewable
energy sources on individual sites, citing the notation that wind, nuclear, and natural gas were
excluded. He asked why natural gas was excluded. Mr. Boggs clarified that natural gas could be
used for building heating rather than electricity generation and was therefore addressed differently.
Mr. Alexander expressed appreciation for the shared-use path curving concept, likening it to the
varied pedestrian experience along Dublin Road north of the historic district. He asked how the
meandering path would be ensured across multiple property owners. Mr. Hermann explained that
each developer would work with city staff, and that opportunities would arise naturally at property
lines, entry drives, and areas where mounds varied, allowing staff to guide the path design toward
undulation and interest rather than a straight line along the roadway.
Mr. Alexander asked whether the code clearly defined how 90 percent opacity was to be measured,
at what time of year, and whether it accounted for seasonal variation. Mr. Hermann acknowledged
that this was an important question and indicated that the calculation was intended to account for
the combination of mounds, evergreens, and plantings, but that staff should verify the City's
specific methodology for measuring opacity and confirm whether seasonality was addressed. Ms.
Ware agreed that this should be further defined.
Ms. Newell acknowledged that this was her first time reviewing the materials and noted the
extensive effort reflected in the presentation. She asked whether the buffer maintenance
responsibility would rest entirely with developers rather than the city. Ms. Rauch confirmed that
maintenance would be the developer's responsibility at this stage. Ms. Newell then raised a concern
about cohesiveness of the buffer when properties were developed at different times by different
owners. She noted that the presentation depicted a highly cohesive design and asked how the city
envisioned ensuring continuity across property boundaries. Ms. Rauch acknowledged the challenge
and explained that the manual would guide each developer through the requirements, and that
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 9 of 14
the City's goal was to manage each site as it came forward with the ultimate objective of a cohesive
corridor. Ms. Ware noted that the species list, planting palette, and property edge guidance
contained in the manual were all designed to create inherent consistency even when properties
were developed separately. Mr. Hermann observed that the first development through the process
would likely receive the most intensive design scrutiny and could serve as the established precedent
that subsequent developments would be expected to match and continue.
Mr. Way noted that the buffer's minimum 200-foot measurement was to the building or pavement
edge, meaning the actual building setback could be greater in practice, for example where fire
lanes, parking areas, and circulation drives existed. He suggested that the graphics in the
presentation represented a near-worst case scenario in terms of proximity. Mr. Hermann and Ms.
Rauch confirmed this interpretation. Mr. Way also affirmed his support for the naturalized tree row
preservation approach while asking whether grading constraints around tree roots could create
challenges for stormwater management design. Mr. Hermann agreed that grading would be a
significant issue and that the guidance documents would be used to press applicants to
demonstrate how existing trees would be preserved.
Mr. Way expressed general support for the direction of the code revisions, noting that the language
appeared to effectively reinforce the intended district character, and that remaining items such as
definitional tweaks and clarifications about outputs could be addressed before the May 21st
meeting.
Public Comment
Mr. Way opened public comment, reminding attendees that the Commission had received and
reviewed all previous public comments, and noted that each speaker would be permitted up to
three minutes.
Jerry Hultin, 6665 Bantry Court, Dublin, addressed the Commission and described the proposed
development as a missed opportunity, contrasting what he characterized as the lively, walkable
character of the Muirfield Drive area with what he viewed as an isolated commercial district on the
west side of Dublin. He stated that the land in and around the WID area could instead be developed
into a vibrant, walkable 15-minute neighborhood with bike paths, retail, and housing. He expressed
the view that advanced manufacturing and research uses in this location would result in an area
that was empty on weekends and inactive at night, and urged the Commission to reconsider the
entire direction of the West Innovation District rather than continuing what he described as a
process driven by inertia.
Mindy Patrick, 6674 Traquair Place, Dublin, identified herself as a homeowner and former school
board member. She expressed appreciation for the landscape presentation and acknowledged the
value of nonresidential development for tax base diversification. However, she stated that she
came to the meeting as a homeowner with specific concerns about proximity to high-voltage power
lines and significant truck or vocational traffic, noting that both factors informed her original
decision to purchase her home. She expressed concern that the process was moving forward
without sufficient studies on traffic, environmental impacts, and fiscal impacts across various
development scenarios. She asked the Commission to proceed with caution, ensure that strong
conditions were in place, retain Commission oversight rather than delegating to administrative
review, and uphold at minimum the proposed code amendments.
Sandy McIntosh, 5792 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, stated that the neighborhood of nearly 1,000 homes
was directly across Cosgray Road from the ID-6 area. She challenged the estimated distances
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 10 of 14
presented in the staff materials, noting that her own property line extended to approximately the
midpoint of the shared-use path behind her home, making the separation closer to 300 feet than
400 feet. She also stated that she could currently see cars on Cosgray Road from her patio and
expressed skepticism that the existing mound on the residential side would provide meaningful
shielding from 45-foot buildings. She expressed astonishment at the volume of discussion devoted
to visual screening compared to what she described as a relative paucity of discussion about what
would be occurring inside the buildings. She urged the Commission to consider removing advanced
manufacturing and research and development from the list of permitted uses, or at minimum
reclassifying them as conditional uses requiring a more rigorous review process for each
application. She noted that there was little substantive difference between the proposed definition
of advanced manufacturing in ID-6 and the definition of manufacturing and assembly in ID-2 and
ID-3. She also raised concerns about the absence of a standalone definition for clean manufacturing
despite its use in intent language for other districts, and asked for clarification. She further noted
that the definition of accessory use lacked measurable standards and asked whether warehousing
and distribution could occupy up to 49 percent of a building's square footage. She also identified a
potential inconsistency in the setback language, noting that the prior roadmap referenced the
future right-of-way while the current draft referenced the existing property line, which she argued
would be a significant distinction given plans to substantially widen Cosgray Road.
Tim Myers, 5845 Glendavon Court, Dublin, expressed concern that the meeting had again focused
predominantly on landscaping and buffering rather than on what would occur inside the buildings.
He stated that while the intent language referenced minimizing toxic inputs, it did not address
byproducts, waste streams, or outputs of manufacturing processes. He called for the code to
incorporate a definition of clean manufacturing and to distinguish between advanced
manufacturing, which he characterized as treating pollution after it is created, and clean
manufacturing, which prevents pollution at the source. He stated that he had submitted detailed
comments to staff listing specific characteristics of each. He also questioned how the code would
prevent a facility from producing hazardous byproducts, expressing concern that the City lacked
the internal expertise to evaluate such risks. He referenced proposed changes to EPA risk
assessment frameworks and suggested that the absence of clear regulatory protections could
expose residents to harm. He urged the Commission to ask staff for further clarity on these issues
before the code was advanced.
Amy Schiebel, 5884 Baronscourt Way, Dublin, expressed concern that the proposed code relied on
vague intent language rather than clear, enforceable standards. She noted the absence of
measurable limits on noise, delivery frequency, or vehicle counts. She stated that without numeric
caps or location rules for fleet vehicles, a site could function like a dispatch yard. She described
the lack of enforceable traffic standards, including trip caps, time-of-day restrictions, and delivery
limits, as a significant gap. She argued that vague language shifted risk from the code to residents,
and asked staff to strengthen the ID-6 code by adding enforceable standards, a clear definition of
clean manufacturing, numerical limits or location rules for fleet vehicles, and objective traffic
controls at the residential interface.
Angela Griffin, 5559 Kinvarra Lane, Dublin, thanked the Commission and stated that she was
present to ask for advanced manufacturing and research and development uses to be reclassified
as conditional rather than permitted uses, arguing that doing so would add a needed layer of
protection for Dublin residents. She expressed appreciation for the exclusion of data centers from
the WID and noted the concern that Ballantrae was surrounded by proposed development on
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 11 of 14
multiple sides. She referenced a nearby situation in Hilliard involving controversial fuel cell
technology near an elementary school, as well as a previously approved data center across Cosgray
Road, as examples of developments that had negative impacts that were not fully anticipated at
the time of approval. She urged the Commission to use its authority to add protections and make
advanced manufacturing and research and development conditional uses.
Tara Roe, 5749 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, stated that she would look up at 45-foot buildings from her
front bedroom window. She expressed concern about language changes in the current draft that
she characterized as weakening protections compared to prior versions, specifically noting that tree
height minimums had been removed, that the screening of rooftop equipment was now described
differently from the prior draft, and that ground signs were now only prohibited within the 200-
foot setback rather than along Cosgray Road generally. She questioned why the building height
remained at 45 feet when she understood that Dublin building systems had indicated buildings
could be constructed at lower heights, and suggested that a graduated height transition—lower
near Cosgray Road and increasing further into the district—could be considered, as had been
suggested for apartment buildings in the Emerald Parkway context. She concluded by urging the
Commission to help ensure the safety and property values of existing residents.
Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road, Dublin, spoke to the situation of residents along Houchard
Road who he argued had been largely ignored throughout the WID planning process. He expressed
frustration that the code amendments and the buffer study focused extensively on Cosgray Road
and the Ballantrae neighborhood while the ID-3 district, which bordered Houchard Road residential
properties, remained unchanged and permitted heavy industrial uses including large substations,
manufacturing facilities, and potentially large warehousing at setbacks as close as 150 feet from
homes. He stated that residents on Houchard Road had attended numerous meetings and sought
to engage with staff and city council members without success, and that nothing had been done
to address the ID-3 context other than the removal of data centers. He asked the Commission to
direct staff to address the needs of Houchard Road residents and to recommend to City Council
that additional transition measures be implemented.
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, echoed the concerns of Mr. Hemmert and asked
when residents of Houchard Road would receive the same level of consideration and process that
had been extended to the Ballantrae neighborhood. Mr. Boggs clarified that the purpose of the
meeting was limited to the ID-6 code amendment and the buffering study, and that the ordinance
relating to properties east of Houchard Road and west of the railroad tracks had already been
forwarded to City Council and remained on the table. Mr. Weeks acknowledged the improvements
represented in the ID-6 proposal but again pressed for a timeline for similar engagement on the
Houchard Road context.
Jennifer Hamill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, identified herself as a former employee of the Ohio
Legislative Service Commission with professional experience in drafting code. She raised the issue
of research and development emissions, describing conversations she had had with Honda
engineers who indicated that research and development at their facilities included running engines
on test stands until failure, with emissions discharged through smokestacks. She expressed concern
that the code, as written, did not address smokestacks or the external discharge of process
byproducts. She further argued that the code language was insufficiently precise and that the
ambiguity created legal exposure for the City. She also raised the issue of the ID-3 context and
stated that property owners in the WID area had on at least two occasions submitted residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 12 of 14
development proposals prior to the ID-2 designation, and that those proposals had not been
acknowledged. She asked the Commission to exercise independent judgment and bring concerns
back to City Council if appropriate.
Kurt Smith, 6692 Roundstone Loop, Dublin, echoed the calls from multiple residents for more
objective, measurable standards addressing adverse impacts on the neighborhood. He stated that
while the Commission had heard a great deal about buffers and what residents would be unable
to see, the more fundamental concern was about what would be occurring behind the buffers in
terms of particulate matter, noise, and similar impacts. He asked staff to add more substantive
standards addressing these operational impacts and expressed appreciation for the work done to
date while asking for further refinement.
Commission Discussion
Seeing no additional members of the public wishing to offer comments, Mr. Way closed public
comment and invited the Commission to respond to the evening's discussion questions and provide
direction to staff.
Mr. Chinnock stated that the discussion had been helpful and confirmed his focus on ID-6
specifically. He expressed appreciation for the mounding and screening investment and
acknowledged the need for additional clarification on the advanced manufacturing definition,
particularly regarding sustainability provisions such as addressing wind turbine language, and
byproduct and clean manufacturing distinctions. He expressed support for adding language relating
to outputs. He stated that overall the process was working and that the direction was appropriate,
but that some further clarification was warranted. He also expressed appreciation for the inclusion
of rooftop screening within the building height limit, noting that this would prevent the issue from
recurring in future case discussions.
Ms. Harter thanked the public and the presenters and affirmed that the public engagement was
making a difference. She expressed general support for the landscape approach and the progress
made since the January meeting. She stated that clarity remained her primary concern, and that
code language should be understandable to both developers and the general public. She expressed
a view that conditional use classification for advanced manufacturing warranted consideration,
adding that it would bring applications back before the Commission for additional review. She also
noted the need for clearer language on operating hours and truck timing. She again raised the
issue of tree size, expressing the view that 2-to-3-inch caliper installations were still small relative
to what she would prefer. She stated that she saw a significant improvement since the previous
meeting and appreciated the 45-foot height limit and 200-foot setback.
Mr. Alexander stated that he would offer a dissenting opinion on the question of conditional use
classification, expressing opposition to reclassifying advanced manufacturing as a conditional use.
He stated that promoting advanced manufacturing was the core purpose of the ID-6 district and
that requiring conditional use approval would create a disincentive that was contrary to the entire
policy effort that had led to the district's creation. He expressed support for the buffer study,
describing it as outstanding, while acknowledging that it would place a significant burden on
developers. He reiterated his earlier comments regarding toxic outputs and expressed hope that
language could be added to address what is produced and emitted, not merely what is used as
input.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 13 of 14
Ms. Newell began with the landscaping, stating that it represented the most comprehensive buffer
approach she had seen in Dublin's planning history and that she supported it, with the caveat that
cohesiveness across properties remained a concern. She stated that she had read the code three
times and remained uncertain about the distinction between advanced manufacturing and clean
manufacturing. She acknowledged that her consideration of conditional use classification was tied
to this uncertainty rather than a settled policy position. She added that fleet vehicle parking needed
to be addressed, noting that companies frequently used fleet vehicles as de facto signage, and that
Dublin had previously required certain businesses to confine fleet vehicles behind structures and
away from street frontage. She also expressed support for revisiting the wind turbine language.
Mr. Way offered his perspective that the intent of the ID-6 district—economic development,
fostering innovation, sensitive residential transition, lower intensity, minimized adverse impacts,
sustainable practices, and nontoxic inputs and possibly outputs—represented the correct policy
framework, and that the code language was evolving to reinforce those objectives. He stated that
the Commission was approaching a code that would support the community planning exercise. He
indicated that refinements to fleet vehicle parking and visibility, opacity measurement, and clean
manufacturing and output language were the remaining areas needing attention. He confirmed
that the setback graphics showed a near-worst case and that the actual building separation in most
scenarios would be greater.
Ms. Rauch invited Mr. Dale to respond to the discussion about conditional use classification and to
articulate the structure by which the current code framework allowed staff to evaluate
environmental performance. Mr. Dale explained that the current approach required applicants to
demonstrate compliance with the intent statement, definition, and performance standards, with
staff having the authority to require documentation and seek specialized expertise. He expressed
concern about the alternative of drafting numeric standards for particulate matter, materials inputs,
and similar technical parameters, noting that such an approach would be both a drafting and an
enforcement challenge and could inadvertently create compliance thresholds that were gamed
rather than genuinely met. He argued that the burden-of-proof framework as written was
preferable and expressed willingness to sharpen the code language to more clearly state that staff
would apply this framework and could deny applications that failed to demonstrate compliance.
Mr. Boggs added that conditional uses in the WID districts generally were reserved for uses that
would pull the districts away from their intended light industrial and research flex character, and
that advanced manufacturing was in keeping with the WID's overall theme. He characterized
making advanced manufacturing a conditional use as generally out of character with the WID
districts.
Mr. Dale noted that the language in the performance standards referenced inputs but not outputs,
and agreed that adding language to address outputs and clean manufacturing distinctions would
be a constructive refinement. Ms. Rauch confirmed that staff would revisit this and that the intent
had always been for a narrower and cleaner version of manufacturing than permitted in other WID
districts. Mr. Dale indicated that staff could also sharpen the language describing the burden-of-
proof mechanism for evaluating applications.
Mr. Way asked whether there was consensus on making the sustainability bonus applicable to
developments in the ID-6 district that constructed the required buffer, given the significant
landscape investment involved. Mr. Alexander indicated that this was already available under the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes – May 7, 2026
Page 14 of 14
existing code and could be addressed administratively on a project-by-project basis, and that it
may not need to be explicitly written into the district code. Ms. Rauch confirmed that it could be
addressed through the Administrative Review Team (ART) process.
Mr. Way raised the issue of fleet vehicle visibility upon entry to the site, noting that even with
significant mounding, a visitor driving in could potentially view parking areas directly before
reaching the building. He asked whether language could be added requiring screening of parking
areas visible from entry drives. Ms. Rauch indicated that staff would look at this, acknowledging
the legitimate concern while noting the need to balance site functionality. She confirmed that
limiting the number of fleet vehicles was not pursued in the draft due to concerns about over-
restricting site operations, but that location and additional screening requirements were more
appropriate approaches. Ms. Newell agreed, emphasizing that the concern was not the existence
of fleet vehicles but rather their potential visibility and use as signage. Mr. Boggs noted that fleet
vehicle placement on specific sites could be addressed through the existing ART review process
when site plans were submitted.
Ms. Rauch summarized the direction received from the Commission and indicated that staff would
incorporate feedback regarding clean manufacturing and output language, sharpening the burden-
of-proof mechanism for applicant demonstration, fleet vehicle screening and location, the opacity
measurement and seasonality definition, and the wind turbine language, and would aim to bring a
refined final draft back for the May 21st meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Rauch announced that City Council had scheduled a work session on June 15th from 6:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at which two topics would be discussed: the West Bridge Street streetscape
study and the zoning code audit. She stated that City Council had extended an invitation to
Commission members to attend and participate in that work session, with approximately one
hour allocated to each topic. She indicated that calendar invitations would be distributed through
the OnBoard platform and that packet materials, as well as a recording of the West Bridge Street
presentation by Jeff Speck, would be provided in advance.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 pm.
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Deputy Clerk of Council
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Community Planning and Development
Sustainable | Connected | Resilient 614.410.4600
dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 20, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4.West Innovation District
25-008Z Rezoning
Proposal: Review and recommendation of approval for a rezoning of nine parcels
from R, Rural District to ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3,
Research Assembly District.
Location: Southwest of the intersection of Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road,
and northeast of the intersection of Rings Road and Houchard Road.
Planning Contact: Zachary Hounshell, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4652, zhounshell@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/25-008
MOTION: Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Alexander seconded, to recommend to City Council
approval of the standard district rezoning.
VOTE: 5-0
RESULT: The rezoning was recommended for approval and forwarded to City
Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Rebecca Call Absent
Kim Way Yes
Kathy Harter Yes
Jamey Chinnock Absent
Gary Alexander Yes
Jason Deschler Yes
Dan Garvin Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Zachary Hounshell
Planner II
Docusign Envelope ID: 9F12C216-DFEB-4E96-A854-6B28D45177F2
City of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 20, 2025
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Way called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in Council Chamber and welcomed
everyone to the February 20, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that the
meeting also could be accessed at the City’s website. Public comments on the cases were welcome
from meeting attendees and from those viewing at the City’s website.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Way led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: | Gary Alexander, Jason Deschler, Dan Garvin, Kathy Harter, Kim
Way
Commission members absent: Rebecca Call, Jamey Chinnock
Staff members present: Thaddeus Boggs, Jenny Rauch, Tammy Noble
ACCEPTANCE OF MEETING DOCUMENTS
Mr. Deschler moved, Mr. Alexander seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and
approval of the 02-06-25 meeting minutes.
Vote: Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes.
[Motion carried 5-0. ]
Mr. Way stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) is an advisory board to City Council
when rezoning and platting of property are under consideration. In such cases, City Council will
receive recommendations from the Commission and make the decision. In other cases, the
Commission has the final decision-making responsibility. The Rules and Regulations of the Planning
and Zoning Commission state that no new agenda items are to be introduced after 10:30 p.m.
Anyone who intends to address the Commission on administrative cases must be sworn in. Mr.
Way explained the hearing process that would be followed.
Mr. Way swore in staff and audience members who anticipated providing testimony.
CASE REVIEW
CONSENT CASE
Mr. Way stated that one case is eligible for the Consent Agenda this evening.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Page 6 of 11
Ms. Harter asked if the section on odor and fumes addresses marijuana. Ms. Rauch stated that
Code Enforcement would investigate any complaint, make a determination and take enforcement
action if necessary. As currently written, odors may not be offensive or cause a hazard.
Ms. Harter asked how this will be communicated to homeowners’ associations (HOAs). Ms. Rauch
stated that Communications and Marketing staff sends out a regular newsletter. Staff is always
available to speak to HOAs about what has been updated.
Mr. Deschler asked about firewood in the exemptions. He would like to see it required to be
stacked or maintained in a fashion that is not just a pile of firewood. Ms. Rauch stated that staff
can look at that and talk to Code Enforcement to determine the best language before this moves
to City Council.
Mr. Deschler asked if it should be covered.
Mr. Deschler stated that regarding the landscape barrier, there cannot be any gaps. Ms. Rauch
stated that the language requiring year-round 100% opacity should cover that. She will look for
opportunities to add clarity.
Mr. Way stated that there is nothing to prevent someone from having nicely stacked firewood
deteriorate. Mr. Boggs stated the City of Beavercreek states that firewood cannot be in a
deteriorating state.
Mr. Way asked if material is included in definition of fence. Mr. Boggs stated that it cannot be
vinyl. There are permitted materials in the fence chapter of the Code.
Mr. Deschler asked how many complaints are received regarding trash receptacles. Ms. Rauch
stated that Code Enforcement does receive complaints and typically people are very compliant.
Mr. Deschler stated that residential waste and recycling container screening is subject to review
and approval through the certificate of zoning plan approval process. Ms. Rauch stated that
Planning and Building Standards staff would review it.
Ms. Harter asked about snow removal on sidewalks. Mr. Boggs stated that there is no ordinance
requiring residents to remove snow from sidewalks. That has been looked into and it becomes
complicated from a shifting liability perspective.
Public Comment
No public comments on the case were provided.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Deschler seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Code with the recommendations put forth through discussion this
evening.
Vote: Mr. Deschler, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Garvin, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes.
[Motion carried: 5-0]
Case #25-008Z
West Innovation District - Rezoning
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Page 7 of 11
Rezoning of eight parcels from R, Rural District to ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-
3, Research Assembly District. The parcels are located southwest of the intersection of
Shier Rings Road and Cosgray Road, and northeast of the intersection of Rings Road
and Houchard Road.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that this is a request for a rezoning from one standard district to another within
the West Innovation District. Staff is requesting a recommendation of approval to City Council.
Considerations for the Commission include future land use recommendations, thoroughfare plan
recommendations, area plan recommendations, surrounding land use and neighborhood
considerations. There are no development proposals associated with the request. There are nine
parcels that are part of the rezoning request. The City acquired the northern two parcels located
at the intersection of Shier Rings and Cosgray roads and those have been recently annexed into
the City. Staff was bringing forward the City-owned parcels and found there are additional
property owners in the area that wanted to be a part of this application in alignment with the
recommendation of the Community Plan and the City’s Economic Development Strategy.
A lot of discussion related to the West Innovation area was part of the future land use
recommendations within the Envision Dublin Community Plan. The West Innovation District
currently exists in the Code and there are a number of properties north of Shier Rings Road that
already have that zoning classification.
The determination through the Envision Dublin process was to provide an alternative to creating
the economic engine for the City. There are research and innovation uses that would be helpful
to the City from a financial sustainability perspective. The future land use recommendations try to
create a balance and transition of uses moving further out of the City.
The Community Plan recommends a 200-foot buffer along the Cosgray Road frontage that would
have mounding and landscaping creating a significant setback from Cosgray Road and the
residents in Ballantrae. There is an existing farmstead on the City-owned parcels that would be
located within that buffer and the Plan recommends that be preserved as part of any
development.
The whole purpose of this West Innovation District is economic development potential and this
rezoning application helps to set that up. These properties are currently zoned R, Rural District.
Any property annexed into the City becomes Rural District. The proposed zoning for the area
south of Shier Rings Road and east of the railroad would be ID-2, Research Flex. The area on the
other side of the railroad tracks, with the exception of the property on Rings Road would be ID-2,
Research Assembly.
Ms. Rauch shared that ID-2, Research Flex allows many kinds of office. Data Centers,
Manufacturing and Assembly are all part of the Code amendment that is being recommended to
City Council as Conditional Uses. Those particular uses would come before the Commission for
approval. ID-3 allows data center, warehousing, and distribution as a permitted uses. The WID
has additional standards related to setbacks, building height, architectural requirements,
landscaping, and parking. The Code has many standards that must be met and any application
submitted within this District has to go through the Administrative Review Team. That is a formal
application process. If the requirements in the Code are not met, that is what is forwarded to the
Commission for review.
Staff is seeking a recommendation of approval of the rezoning.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Page 8 of 11
Commission Questions
Mr. Garvin sought confirmation that the standing historic home is part of the consideration. Ms.
Rauch confirmed that the home is recommended to be preserved as part of any future
development.
Mr. Deschler asked if some of the land in question is owned by property owners that want to
annex into the City. Ms. Rauch stated all properties are currently within City, there is no
annexation required.
Mr. Deschler asked if civic, public, and institutional uses would allow for a world class outdoor
recreational facility. Ms. Rauch stated that the goal of these properties south of Shier Rings Road
would be economic development focused. Mr. Deschler asked if ID-3 would allow that. Ms. Rauch
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Alexander asked if the definition of ID-2, Research Flex came from the City of Dublin
determining what should be there or if it is a general planning standard. The permitted uses
promote a variety of building types that may not be compatible. Ms. Rauch stated that the Future
Land Use Plan provides a larger district intent for the area. Flex Innovation has the opportunity
for commercial and neighborhood services. Indoor entertainment and fitness have a size
limitation so it is very minimal and may be associated with something else. Mr. Alexander stated
that his question was answered — the definition was an internal idea of what would work for the
area.
Mr. Alexander asked if the property owners have been involved. Ms. Rauch answered in the
affirmative. She stated that property owners provided their legal descriptions as well as
authorization to move forward with this process. Staff has had many discussions with each of the
property owners. As part of the Economic Development Strategy, staff is doing a larger WID
integrated plan with Planning Next.
Mr. Alexander asked if adjacent property owners have been notified. Ms. Rauch stated that staff
sent the typical notice and emailed Ballantrae directly.
Ms. Harter asked if City Council would have the opportunity to review projects or if all
development applications in these districts (ID-2 and ID-3) go through ART only. Ms. Rauch
stated that the intent of this process is speed to build. The Code is established and if all
requirements are met, the project would go through an administrative process. ART includes staff
from Planning, Engineering, Building Standards, Parks and Recreation, Police, and the Fire
Department. There is notification for the meetings so public comment can be made. This is a
standard district with very robust requirements. Unless there is a development agreement, City
Council would not be involved.
Ms. Harter asked about the possible impact of a future rail station. Ms. Rauch stated that has
been contemplated and would have similar recommendations in terms of land use. There is
flexibility there.
Mr. Way stated that the 200-foot buffer is quite a good amenity between uses. Hyland Croy Road
and Brand Road have a decent buffer and that is a park. A 200-foot buffer becomes an amenity
for that area, which is really positive.
Public Comment
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Page 9 of 11
Lynn Roose, 5830 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that though they are not City of Dublin
residents, they are adjacent property owners to what is before the Commission. They have lived
there for 34 years. There is an Amazon data center north of his property. Amazon is not fully
online yet but produces a noise called ultra low frequency (ULF) and very low frequency (VLF). It
travels through walls and very long distances. They began hearing that about one year ago. Their
property is in the middle of the woods that abut the railroad tracks. Development of properties to
the north over the last 35 years has caused light and noise pollution. He thanked the Commission
for their time.
Mr. Way shared that the City went through a lengthy community planning process that resulted
in the approved Envision Dublin Community Plan. This process is rezoning to align with the
Community Plan.
Mr. Roose asked if there were environmental impact studies done of the web services building.
Ms. Rauch answered that she was not aware of any.
Ms. Rauch stated that lighting standards are not just to ensure adequate lighting but also to
minimize light pollution. There are buffering requirements that must be met.
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that when they moved to the area eight
years ago, the area south of theirs was a rural transition area. The notice for this meeting is the
first of its kind that he has ever received. He is concerned because his property could be
surrounded by industrial buildings of all kinds on which they have no input. That is a concern for
property values. Light pollution is also a concern. They can no longer see the stars at night. He
feels left out of the planning process.
Lauren Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that they moved to their current address
from Ballantrae to be out in the country. She had previously heard discussion of adding
Ballantrae homes on Cosgray Road, of which she was supportive. She had also heard about rural
transition, which is great. Light pollution is huge. She loves Dublin and this area. She hopes that
the Commission will consider those who live on Houchard Road. They have eight acres and a nice
piece of property and intended to live there the rest of their lives. It is a different area than what
is in Dublin proper. She is shocked and upset by this proposal.
Ms. Rauch stated that when an application gets submitted any property within 300 feet gets
notified. Staff is looking at the WID for potential Code amendments that may be necessary. This
feedback is helpful.
Mr. Way stated that PZC is guided by the Community Plan. Their charge is to uphold the
Community Plan in the process of development on a case-by-case basis.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Deschler asked if people who do not live in the City had the opportunity to comment on the
Community Plan. Ms. Rauch answered affirmatively. Mr. Deschler asked if anyone was invited
directly. Ms. Rauch explained that there were many communications shared regarding the
Community Plan. It was on the City’s website and social media. It was before PZC, Architectural
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Page 10 of 11
Review Board and City Council many times. There was also a steering committee that included
representatives from Washington Township.
Mr. Deschler shared that PZC would be making a recommendation to City Council, meaning that
there would be an additional chance to share comments.
Mr. Deschler stated that if this rezoning is approved by City Council, any project that fits within the
guidelines of these zoning code sections will not be back before this body or City Council. Ms.
Rauch stated that a developer would submit an application to be reviewed by the ART and notice
would be given. If there is a Conditional Use or a standard of the Code that is not met, that
particular issue would come before the Commission.
Mr. Garvin stated that the noise is a concern he would like to see considered moving forward. He
is generally supportive of this to align with the Community Plan. Mr. Boggs stated that noise is not
typically addressed as a land use issue but as a nuisance.
Mr. Deschler stated that this area is ripe for development. This proposal is essentially allowing
development to happen as long as it is within the guidelines to speed up efficiency of the design
build. He is sympathetic to the homeowners that spoke this evening. It is the cost of a growing
community.
Mr. Alexander stated that buffering requirements are based on compatibility of uses. Regardless of
whether the adjacent property is in Dublin or not, the property in Dublin would have the same
requirements for buffering. There are protections built in. The noise ordinance is one of those
protections. There is a lot of logic to the Community Plan and how it was developed. He is
supportive of this request.
Ms. Harter stated that she is supportive of the recommendation. This is also about flexibility in that
area. There are many safeguards built in.
Mr. Way is supportive of the recommendation. This is an area suitable for these types of uses. The
Community Plan set the direction and the zoning reinforces it.
Mr. Garvin moved, Mr. Alexander seconded to recommend to City Council approval of the standard
district rezoning.
Vote: Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes.
[Motion carried: 5-0]
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Rauch reminded the Commission that there is still time to sign up for training/conferences.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 pm.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — February 20, 2025
Paga 11Lof 11
Vice\fhair, Planning and Zoning Comission
Trntis€o J
Deputy) Clerklof Council
RECORD OF, PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-G538 FORM NO, 10128
Held Fit, 2025 20
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, April 7, 2025 Regular Meeting of Dublin City
Council to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Vice Mayor Alutto, Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. Fox, Mr. Keeler,
Ms. Kramb and Mr. Reiner. Ms. De Rosa was absent.
Staff members present were Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Hartmann, Chief Paez, Ms. Weisenauer,
Ms. Rauch, Mr. Gable, Ms. Wawszkiewicz, Ms. Willis, Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Barker, Ms. LeRoy,
Ms. Holt, Mr. Hounshell, Ms. LeRoy, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Gracia and Mr.
Taylor.
Others present were Dan Sullivan of the Memorial Tournament; Greg Daniels of Squire
Patton Boggs; Lisa Shuneson, CEO of Whalen and Company CPAs; David Guion of Dublin
Arts Council; and Joe Bott of Veo.
ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to adjourn to executive session for the purposes of:
e Personnel Matters: Considering the Employment of a Public Employee and the
Appointment of a Public Official.
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner,
yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
RECONVENED: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Ms. Kramb to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION/RECOGNITION
Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Mr. Sullivan to come forward and share an update on the
2025 Memorial Tournament. Mr. Sullivan stated that the Memorial Tournament will be held
May 26" through June 1* this year with 72 players confirmed. CBS Sports, the Golf
Channel and other international media will watch the top players on the PGA Tour play for
20 million. The charities benefitting from the Memorial Tournament is Nationwide
Children’s Hospital; the Eat, Learn, Play Foundation and over 50 other charities. This is the
50° playing of the Memorial Tournament (Mr. Sullivan noted that the celebration for 50
years will be held next year in 2026). Mr. Sullivan shared that this year’s Memorial
Tournament honoree is Barbara Nicklaus. In addition to the Legends Luncheon, Mr.
Sullivan provided a brief overview of the other signature events celebrated during
Memorial Tournament week. Mr. Sullivan shared the signage for the Riverside Crossing
Park and around Bridge Park during the Tournament. He thanked the City for the
partnership.
Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. Sullivan for the effort made in getting the commentators to say
that this Tournament is in Dublin and not Columbus. He asked if there is a completion date
for the Bogey Inn improvements. Mr. Sullivan stated that he is hopeful that it will open
prior to the 2026 Memorial Tournament.
Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Sullivan and the Memorial Tournament for the
attention it brings to Dublin from around the globe.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
David Venne, 56 South Riverview Street, Dublin, came forward to speak about the
beautification efforts being made in downtown Historic Dublin on the east side of High
Street and Blacksmith Lane, but not on South Riverview Street. He stated that he and
some of his neighbors were disappointed that Riverview was not included in the pole
Minutes of RECORD Oifuirfl-Q,{e�INGS
Meetin
Held ____________ A....:...p_ri_l 7....;'....;2_0_2 _s ____ P_a...:g=--e_2_o _f_2 _s_20 __ _
removal and burial of all the utilities. He would like the efforts extended to Riverview Street. He stated that it feels like a missed opportunity. He stated that his street is the southern gateway to the park system. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a staff member could follow-up with him to discuss planning efforts that are underway and the priorities of the City.
CONSENT AGENDA
•Minutes of the March 17, 2025 Regular Council Meeting
There was no request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCES
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that pursuant to the Council Rules of Order, she is reordering the second reading ordinances to allow Ordinance 08-25 to be read first.
Ordinance 08-25
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to Whalen and Company, CPAs,
Inc. to Induce it to locate and expand its Office and its Associated Operations
and Workforce within the City; and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic
Development Agreement Mr. Fleming stated that there are no changes to this Ordinance from the first reading. He introduced Ms. Shuneson, CEO of Whalen and Company CPAs. Ms. Shuneson stated that she was present to express her gratitude to the City for consideration of the incentive. She stated she is looking forward to the move and they are excited to become part of the Dublin community. Mayor Amorose Groomes welcomed Ms. Shuneson and her team to Dublin.
There were no public comments.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes.
Ordinance 07-25
Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153.002, 153.004, 153.037-153.042
and 153.236 regarding the West Innovation District, 153.002, 153.048,
153.066, 153.176 regarding the Concept Plan review process, 153.158
regarding temporary signs for special events, and 153.076 regarding
Property Nuisance regulations (25-00SADMC} Ms. Rauch stated that this proposal for zoning code amendments was introduced at the March 17 City Council meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a very detailed presentation reviewing the proposed changes. This past weekend, staff received follow-up questions, and she has included a couple of slides that will hone in on the West Innovation District (WID) portion of the discussion. There are components to this proposed Code amendment that concern the Concept Plan review process, temporary signs for special events, and property nuisance regulations. No additional changes are proposed since the first reading of the ordinance. Regarding the property nuisance section, Oty Council requested a number of clarifications. As described in the staff memo, those clarifications are related only to typos; no other changes were made to the property nuisance section. The majority of the changes made following Council's feedback are related to the WID. The Envision Dublin Community Plan included updates to the WID Special Area Plan, as
RECORD OF PRQGEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644-224-0008 FORM NO. 10146
Held April 7, 2025 Page 10 of 25 55
Mr. Reiner stated that this Code will continually be refined. We love the Ballantrae
residential community. The City approved a golf course there adjacent to that really nice
development. There is no way City Council is going to jeopardize that community. He is
very concerned about the noise issue. We cannot permit that continuous buzzing noise. He
wants to see that issue resolved. He appreciates the proposed Code changes that will
strengthen the Code. It is an improvement on the direction we are going, but all the
needed Code changes are not included; more are anticipated.
Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if a motion is needed to include the two recommended
changes that data centers be considered a conditional use rather than a permitted use in
ID-3 and the maximum height requirement.
Ms. Rauch stated that it is necessary for the data center. There is already a maximum
height limitation of 58 feet, and if the building proposal exceeds that, it would become a
conditional use consideration. It can be left as it is or, because this is an incremental
process, Council can ask staff to look into that further and bring it back in a future
amendment.
Mr. Reiner stated that for a future amendment, if the elevation of a building would
increase, the elevation of the surrounding mounds must also be increased. He would
prefer the heights not be increased. With all the ground that is available here, very nice
earthen mounds of 150-200 feet are possible and we should have a permanent, fixed
screen.
Ms. Rauch responded that staff would also look into adding that language.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to amend the Code Section applicable to the West
Innovation District to reflect that data centers will be a conditional use rather than a
permitted use in the ID-3 zoning district.
Ms. Alutto seconded.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kramb,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
Vote on the Ordinance as amended: Ms. Fox, no; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor
Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 06-25
Rezoning Approximately 370 acres located within the West Innovation District
from R, Rural District, to ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3, Research
Assembly District (CASE 25-0082)
Mr. Hounshell stated that this is the second hearing for the rezoning of nine properties.
The Future Land Use Plan was updated along with the Community Plan last year (2024).
The sites under consideration are split between Flex Innovation and Industrial. The Future
Land Use Plan intent statement reads that Flex Innovation is intended to be a vibrant,
modern development, incorporating a variety of uses including innovation, office, art and
collaboration, that are integrated into the existing natural and built environment. The
intended uses within this category are office, research and development, flex
office/warehouse, and clean manufacturing. The Future Land Use Plan states that
Industrial is intended for medium to heavy, large-format industrial uses in close proximity
to major arterials for ease of access to accommodate unique site and operational
conditions. Intended uses within the designated area are warehousing, light industrial,
research and development, distribution, assembly, office, advanced manufacturing and
data centers. These are intended uses, not permitted uses as listed in the Zoning Code.
The West Innovation District Special Area Plan is one of the six areas listed in the
Community Plan and was of great focus throughout the Community Plan Update. The
West Innovation District Special Area Plan contemplates the 200-foot buffer along Cosgray
Road, which is now a codified requirement. Also included is the preservation of the 1900s
farmstead.
Mr. Hounshell stated that the nine properties under consideration are currently zoned R,
Rural and the proposed zoning is ID-2, Research Flex and ID-3, Research Assembly. Data
centers and warehousing and distribution are included as conditional uses in ID-2.
RECORD OF PRQGEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148
Held April 7, 2025 Page 11 of 25 59
Conditional uses require Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) approval. Data centers
will now be conditional uses in ID-3 as well. The development process will go through the
Administrative Review Team (ART), which requires public notification of any property
within 300 feet of the subject site. The ART has the authority to refer projects to PZC.
When reviewing standard district rezonings, staff uses the recommendations of the Future
Land Use Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan. PZC recommended approval on February 20,
2025. Staff recommends approval.
Ms. Weisenauer stated that 16 comments were received online regarding Ordinance 06-25,
all in opposition to the rezoning. She summarized the reasoning provided in the submitted
messages as follows: increased traffic, potential health risks from data centers, noise,
lighting, loss of community character, and negative effects on property values.
The following residents signed up to speak on this agenda item:
Richard Nolan, 6724 Glasin Court, Dublin, stated that he became concerned upon reading
possible uses for the ID-3 area west of the CSX railroad. His background is in industrial
manufacturing and distribution. That will bring very high traffic loads of tractor trailers.
There is a lot of residential traffic on all of the roads there and he is quite concerned. He
would sleep better if that area was not zoned ID-3.
Kurt Smith, 6692 Roundstone Loop, Dublin, stated that he is president of the condominium
association, the Lakes at Ballantrae. He was glad to hear the previous discussion because
it highlighted to him that there are still issues to be worked out. He asked if there were
representatives from the Ballantrae community at the 18 months of meetings leading up to
this. If not, there may be a communication problem. As president of an association, he
was unaware of this. When revisions to the West Innovation District were communicated
in 2017, many in his community were a part of that. The vision was clearly directed toward
creating spaces for research and development, innovation, technology and the intersection
with education. A strong emphasis was placed on establishing areas of work-life balance.
It seems now that the discussion may be moving away from that vision. He feels that it is
important to slow the process down. He is questioning the process. He urged the City
Council to take a step back and request a more clearly defined vision for the area. Once
developed, that vision can be clearly communicated to stakeholders who can provide
feedback, help refine and support the work that the City is doing.
Tara Roe, 5749 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, stated that she has been a resident of Ballantrae
for 21 years. Her current house will face whatever is built on this parcel. They have an
issue of their homeowners’ association (HOA) being extremely uncommunicative with
neighbors. She was notified of this rezoning by a piece of paper at her mailbox just one
week ago. She had previously believed that the parcel was to be a 55-plus community.
Other areas in Ballantrae are close to the railroad without issue. Notes from that meeting
made it seem like residential development would move forward. Now she is hearing about
an Amazon data center going in the space. This land is next to the very vibrant sports field
at Darree Fields and Sports Ohio. She attended several community planning meetings and
sports fields were of high interest. She proposed extending this area to support those
needs. She is worried about the environmental impact and noise her family and neighbors
will endure. She is afraid of the expected health problems that will occur that she is
learning of from others that have Amazon warehouses nearby. She does not want to see
an Amazon warehouse in her front yard nor hear that noise. She asked City Council to
please not move forward with rezoning this to heavy industrial. Many Ballantrae residents
are starting to feel like Ballantrae is a stepchild of Dublin. If heavy industrial would not be
placed across from Muirfield, the same should be true for Ballantrae.
William Ostarchvic, 7018 Wind Rose Way, Dublin, stated that his initial questions were
about the size of the buildings permitted in the rezoning of the nine parcels along Cosgray
Road. He reiterated that no one in attendance wants buildings over six stories going up on
that property. It would be devastating.
RECORD OF, PRQCEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644-224-3338 FORM NO. 10745"
Held April 7, 2025 Page 12 of 25 49
Cristian Cooney, 5835 Baronscourt Way, Dublin, stated that he would love to know more
about what ID-2 might entail. He referenced ID-3 and heavy industrial. He built
distribution centers for a food distributor, and they relocated them because the neighbors
were miserable from the traffic generated by employees coming to work at 5:00 a.m. and
trucks dispatching at 6:00 a.m. It is unclear how trucks would get to the highway and
there is already congestion on US33 and State Route 161. It would be interesting to hear a
proposed solution. He would challenge Council to consider how they would feel with six
story buildings across the way from Cosgray or Muirfield. The City typically does a really
good job with development and it is a great place to live. This [the rezoning] is a big ask
without a lot of information. He spent a lot of time on the West Innovation District and
how that was going to look and feel. This is miles away from that. What to put near a
railroad track is a huge planning and zoning challenge. He would really like more
information.
Patty Moreland, 6976 Inchcape Lane, Dublin, thanked Ms. Fox for supporting the residents
in their questions. She does not want Dublin to look like Hilliard. This is a beautiful
community and having warehouses across the street would be terrible. It would be an
insult to the community. She is concerned that her home's value will go down. Ballantrae
Woods is a beautiful community with lovely people. She was present for the meeting
regarding zoning on Rings Road and has not seen any follow up on that. Ms. Moreland
stated that there is no infrastructure in place first. Traffic is already difficult. She expressed
appreciation for such a beautiful city.
Theresa White, 5882 Vandeleur Place, Dublin, thanked City Council for the opportunity to
provide comments today. Dublin and Central Ohio are rapidly growing and the Community
Plan anticipates significant housing development and population growth. The Ballantrae
area has long been planned to be surrounded by residential development and the
proposed rezoning would effectuate the opposite of those needs by decreasing the
housing opportunities while altering the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She
noted that as Ms. Fox stated, data centers do not meet the intent of Dublin’s community
plans. One of the goals was quality of life being integrated with the community. Data
centers do not achieve that. They are not commercial locations that drive or contribute to
consumer spending. They are not parks that contribute to the play aspect of work, live,
play. They are aesthetically displeasing, noisy box buildings that detract from the
community appeal in addition to presenting logistical concerns. Some logistical concerns
are construction traffic, noise, and light pollution. The position of changing data centers
from permitted to conditional uses was well received because it is unclear if electric
reliability would be met if these energy intensive centers are placed there without
infrastructure. Ms. White stated that she had not noticed this meeting until she received a
flyer in her mailbox. Her most recent read of the PUCO tariffs for AEP Ohio showed a
60/40 split for the cost of a new distribution line. That 40% would be borne by the rest of
the customers and is not something that is part of this process. Those are very important
things to be aware of before zoning changes are made.
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that he came to Dublin 35 years ago
from the air force. After 10 years on Workingham Drive, they moved to Ballantrae on
Baronscourt where they spent 10 years and then moved to Washington Township with a
Dublin address. It is next to a rural transition area, which they felt would protect them
from what is proposed this evening. He is a stakeholder in that his property abuts one of
the ID-3 areas. He is very opposed to seeing a 68-foot building behind his house even with
a 200-foot buffer. He received notification early in February of the PZC meeting and he
attended that meeting. He is concerned about how fast things are going. They were only
notified two months ago.
Lynn Roose, 5830 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that they received notice in February of
a meeting which he attended. They thought the area was going to be a residential
transition zone. Over a year and a half ago they began hearing the Amazon noise. The
building is not fully online. It is more than just noise. He thanked Ms. Fox for looking into
it. It is noise that is environmentally damaging. It hurts and is inescapable. It is called low
RECORD OF PRQCEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held April 7, 2025 Page 13 of 25 0
frequency noise and goes through almost everything. If you do not build earth and
mounds as high as the producer of the noise, it will not be blocked by trees or fences or
setbacks. The very low frequency category of noise travels six to sixty miles. It is how
whales and nuclear submarines communicate. Mr. Roose listed various negative effects of
the noise according to reports from the World Health Organization. They did not receive
notice and they share a property line with this. He has lived there for 35 years and loves
Dublin. He urged City Council to give this a reasonable amount of time for people to learn
more about it.
Sandy McIntosh 5792 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, stated that she has lived in the Ballantrae
neighborhood for about 12 years. She has been spoiled by the City of Dublin and all of the
great things it does and the level of service and caring for residents. The City does a
wonderful job of maintaining parks and bike paths and putting on community events and
programs like the Citizen University program. She was surprised to learn that the City is
considering allowing warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, electric
substations, data centers, and maybe even a helipad to be built directly behind her
neighborhood and directly behind her house. Specifically, this would allow untold numbers
of semis to and from a distribution facility at all hours of the day and night. This is
completely inconsistent with Dublin’s identity as a single-family home suburban community
where people want to raise their families. She is not against data centers or other types of
facilities, but she is against building them next to a residential community. Putting this sort
of industrial development up against a large family neighborhood is the kind of thoughtless
development and planning that she would expect from some other nearby communities
that she chose not to live in for precisely that reason. She has never been to a City Council
meeting before. There has not been one comment online or in person in support of this
rezoning. She asked City Council not to ruin her property value and quality of life in what
is otherwise a lovely City in which to live.
Eric Biddle, 5679 Ballantrae Woods Drive, Dublin, stated that he and his wife live in
Ballantrae Woods and it is a beautiful neighborhood. They are concerned about the light
pollution, noise, traffic, environmental impact and health concerns that have been
mentioned. He thanked City Council for listening.
Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road, Dublin, stated that his property is seven- and one-
half acres. He worked for Honda and knows what manufacturing is. He moved there to
have space. He has been lucky for 25 years there. He was a large project lead for the
Honda Passport and knows how parts are made, how production is done, and how
pollution can happen. There is a ton of noise and there could be fumes. He asked how
many manufacturing facilities are in the City right now. He does not think there are any, so
it is not understood what manufacturing will bring. This is about drawing in companies and
creating more money for the City. The train goes down those tracks infrequently and does
not block the road. He expressed concern over his property value dropping. He is on a well
and has a septic system, both of which he feels will be impacted. He suggested Council
stop the process to gain a better understanding of manufacturing.
Jason Ray, 5760 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, stated that he backs up to the property being
proposed for rezoning. He learned of this very late last week when he received the flyer.
He represents his neighbors. He recognized Council has a difficult job. He is curious if any
of them live in the community that they are proposing to change. Cosgray is very noisy as
a two-lane road. He would assume if this becomes heavy industry, that the road would be
expanded. That would be noisier. He is an acoustic engineer. The idea of a 70-foot mound
in that amount of space to protect the view and sound from a 70-building is not possible.
He is terrified of what he will be looking at and hearing. This will destroy the property
value, especially for people who live on Cosgray Road. He requests heavy consideration
and much more information about the actual plans before any big proposal and rezoning is
approved.
Ms. Weisenauer read a comment that was received during the meeting from:
Jennifer Chung, 5661 Alderbrook Drive, Dublin. Ms. Chung wrote:
RECORD OF PRQCEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644- 224-3508 FORM NO. 10148
Held April 7, 2025 Page 14 of 25 59
I strongly oppose the proposal to rezone this area for industrial and commercial use. This
would drastically disrupt the residential communities surrounding this area and cause
increased traffic issues, which the roads around this area can ill afford. There are already
plenty of facilities in the area for office use, so it seems that this area may end up
supporting manufacturing or data centers, which are an eyesore to the area and destroy
much of the natural landscape, not to mention the decrease in property value when these
types of structures are close to residential areas.
Mayor Amorose Groomes invited anyone else interested in speaking to come forward. The
following residents came forward to speak.
DeAnne Johnson, 7011 Inchcape Lane, Dublin, stated that she lives in the Cottages of
Ballantrae and heard about this because of a flyer placed on the edge of her mailbox. She
loves Dublin because it is green and lush and is a beautiful community. She envisioned
that they would have a lot more sprawling subdivisions like Ballantrae that would extend
into those rural farm areas. She is familiar with data centers. Amazon is one of her clients
so she loves them but does not want them near her home. Traffic on Cosgray is already
bad. Semis are there all the time. She shared an example of not being able to turn onto
Cosgray from Churchman. She asked City Council not to approve this. The City needs
more areas for kids and families and greenspace.
Richard Mutzman, 5688 Ballantrae Woods Drive, Dublin, stated that he and his wife moved
to Dublin in 2019 after he retired from 40 years of government service at Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base. They chose to build in this location because their children live in Dublin.
Before choosing that specific development, they did review the City’s plans across
Cosgray. That 2017 development plan showed residential medium density housing. He
asked why plans changed from residential to industrial. He is opposed to this change in
plans. The community is owed an explanation as to the motivation behind the change.
Tim Myers, 5845 Glendavon Court, Dublin, asked if any alternatives to this request were
explored and what the motivation for the request was. He ran a manufacturing plant and
there are unintended consequences with manufacturing facilities. Traffic concerns on
Cosgray Road are real. He asked if anyone knows the economic impact of not rezoning
these properties or looking for alternatives.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that staff is assembling a list of questions that will be
addressed at the conclusion of public comment.
Scott Haring, 3280 Lilly Mar Court, Dublin, stated that two or three years ago, there was a
motion to rezone a parcel known as Block Y. There was a designation that allowed a
maximum of five stories. A new designation allowed six-story buildings. It is very unusual
to rezone a parcel without a specific development plan. The unknown is scary. He
suggested this be tabled and brought up when there is more certainty.
Ted Nix, 6602 Baronscourt Loop, Dublin, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to
speak before Council. He recognized that Council has a difficult job in making tough
decisions. He appreciated Ms. Fox's support. There is a housing crisis, not only in central
Ohio, but within the United States. Looking for affordable housing in an area where
children can be raised in a nice community is imperative. Data centers move too far from
that goal. Data centers pose health risks. This is not the area to start innovation. If anyone
making decisions were living across the street from this area, they would not want a data
center there with those risks. This is a misshapen idea that needs to be put on hold and
evaluated.
Mr. Hounshell addressed some of the questions posed by the public. There was a question
about Rings Road Development. That is on the other side of Ballantrae (east) and is called
Avery Crossing. It is working through the PZC process and will go before the Commission
at least two more times and then to City Council. That will have public input as it moves
through the development process.
RECORD OF,.PRQCEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held April 7, 2025 Page 15 of 25 20
Mr. Hounshell stated that the City is currently engaged in the West Innovation District
integrated implementation strategy, which is directly related to utilities and infrastructure
in the area. It will show how these plans have changed in the past 10 to 15 years and
what needs to be updated to handle what could be there in the future.
Mr. Hounshell stated that the Code currently has a requirement that any building over 68
feet in height requires a conditional use. Staff is more than happy to do a study of that
number.
Mr. Hounshell addressed the term conditional use. Anytime an application would come
forward to the City for a conditional use, it would require approval through the PZC, which
has a public process similar to City Council requiring a public notice to addresses within a
certain distance. These applications are also posted to the City’s website as well as signs
placed on the sites. There are specific criteria attributed to potential impacts to
surrounding areas. A conditional use is not permitted outright and must go through the
public process.
Mr. Hounshell stated that the Thoroughfare Plan currently considers Cosgray Road to be a
two-lane road. The integrated strategy will consider the load on these streets and how to
better design them for long-term sustainability.
Ms. Rauch shared more information about the Community Plan process. Under discussion
this evening is one small area of the City. When updating the Community Plan,
designations for future land use were considered citywide. A separate consultant looked
citywide at how to balance uses and locate them appropriately. There was significant
discussion about data, research and economic forecast. As part of that Community Plan
process, the southwest area was identified as residential knowing that the West
Innovation District was where it was desired to have innovation and flex innovation. It was
a very thoughtful process. There was consideration from a fiscally sustainable standpoint
around how to balance those uses.
In response to comments made regarding Amazon and their status, Ms. O'Callaghan
stated that Amazon is completely built out on their current site. She is not aware of any
data center proposals on these sites at this time.
Ms. Kramb stated that she is in favor of tabling the item. She thanked everyone for coming
out and speaking. She requested that staff research what representation from the
Ballantrae area there was in the various meetings. In response to a comment about Dublin
not having manufacturing, she stated that there is manufacturing in the City, and it is
handled well because residents are unaware of it. The manufacturing being anticipated is
light manufacturing. Hidaka on Shier Rings Road is an example, and they are a parts
supplier for Honda. There are others as well. There was a question about what this would
look like. This zoning currently exists and has been in place since 2014. The existing data
center, the Ohio State University hospital, and projects in the 2017 West Innovation Plan
were all built under the existing code. There is a current study, the West Innovation
Integration Implementation Plan, considering traffic and infrastructure. One main reason
to table this is because the results of those studies are unknown. She noted that it is
difficult to find things on the City’s website.
Mr. Keeler stated that he is in favor of tabling the item. Building height and traffic are still
unresolved. The data center noise is not unique to Dublin. There are other communities
experiencing the same thing. If Amazon wants to build another data center, they must fix
the problem here and everywhere. Mr. Keeler addressed how Dublin can afford the
amenities that they do. If a resident pays $10,000 in property taxes, the City of Dublin
receives $200. That does not pay for trash pickup or snowplowing or all the amenities
offered. Dublin can afford these things not because of single-family homes but because of
Wendy’s, Cardinal Health and companies like that. There are less people in office buildings
today than in 2018. We are doing well, but we are thinking ahead. We need to be
responsible if we want to have economic sustainability and continue to provide the
amenities that we are currently providing.
RECORD OF PRQGEFRINGS
Minutes of Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644-224-3508 FORM NO, 10146
Held April 7, 2025 Page 16 of 25 59
Ms. Fox thanked everyone for coming out. It is important to hear the concerns. She stated
that Dublin is currently working with Planning NEXT to do a comprehensive look at all of
the City’s studies and special area plans. A consultant shared at a work session that this
study will lead to an implementation strategy. At the end of the study, an integrated map
of the full build-out scenario in the Envision Dublin Plan will be proposed, and an analysis
will be conducted of anticipated uses. City Council will have a chance to review and affirm
the strategy prior to adoption. Dublin can make this entire area good for everyone. There
has never been any success in this City without public engagement. The West Innovation
District can be beautiful if residents sit at the table and help figure out best outcomes. Ms.
Fox noted that there are substantial development pressures for land like this. The City paid
a lot of money for the land and it is in high demand. The potential arrival of passenger rail
may change the whole scenario. Ms. Fox expressed a preference to take time to talk and
consider. The analysis process is continuing until August. She would prefer to be proactive
rather than reactive.
Mr. Reiner thanked everyone for the public input. It is unknown if Dublin will have light
rail. He stated that much of the area is undetermined. Mr. Reiner commended the
planning staff for working out details. He stated that there are people stamping out steel
in Dublin and you would never know it. There are industries in this City that are well
hidden. It does not have to be an ugly mess and if Dublin gets involved, it won't be. He
noted the success of Bridge Park and encouraged everyone to have confidence in their
government.
Vice Mayor Alutto expressed her gratitude for the public comments and attendance. She
moved to Dublin because it is an amazing community. Part of what makes it amazing are
people like her colleagues. They all have different perspectives and talents. They, too, are
residents and love this community. She commended staff for their commitment. She
stated her support for tabling the item.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she wants to set expectations. There appears to be
significant support for ensuring everyone understands where this is in the process and
how it got to this point. She asked staff to reach out and schedule a meeting to provide
more information and gather additional feedback. This process will then resume, because
there are property owners anticipating use of their land. Mayor Amorose Groomes noted
how important it is for residents to be passionate about their community. There are people
not in attendance whose thoughts are different and are also important. This proposal
represents a large area and some of it is adjacent to residential while some of it is not.
There probably will not be a blanket solution. There was an attempt made to engage
residents in this process. City Council will pause this because it is important to get it right
and to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be heard and to understand the process.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 06-25.
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Kramb, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes
Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 09-25
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Development Agreement and
other related Agreements for the Development of J Block with Crawford
Hoying Development Partners, LLC
Vice Mayor Alutto introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Rauch stated that staff has been working collaboratively with Crawford Hoying
Development Partners regarding the development of J Block which is located at the
southeast corner of Bridge Park Avenue and Dale Drive. The Developer is in the initial
planning phases of this proposal. The proposal includes construction of a 100,000 square
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City CouncilMinutesof Meeting
OVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO, 10148
Held June 23,2025 Page 2 of 20 20
ORDINANCES FOR ADDITIONAL READING/PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance 06- 25
Rezoning of Nine Parcels (PID 272- 000195, 272-000086, 274 -001259, 274 -001260, 274-
001261, 274-001419, 274-001420, 274-001313, and 274-001421) from R, Rural District to
ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3, Research Assembly District (Case 25-008Z)
Mr. Hounshell provided Council a presentation summarizing the proposed rezoning of nine
parcels totalling approximately 370 acres in size. Two of the parcels (65 acres) are owned
by the City of Dublin and are located at the intersection of Shier Rings Road and Cosgray
Road. The remaining sites are privately owned and within the City of Dublin corporation
limits. There are no development proposals that are being submitted in coordination with
this rezoning application.
Mr. Hounshell provided a history of the public engagement since this item was last before
City Council on April 7. Ordinance 06-25 was tabled by City Council following concerns
and questions from residents regarding the rezoning. A public neighborhood meeting was
held on May 8 to share the Envision Dublin Community Plan’s provisions for this area, the
rezoning request and the development process in the West Innovation District (WID).
Additional meetings were held in May and June with the Ballantrae Homeowner's
Association (HOA), individual meetings with neighborhood residents and the rezoning
property owners and representatives. Mr. Hounshell stated that the concerns raised at
each of these meetings were similar to those raised at the April 7 meeting and included
permitted uses, data centers and their environmental and physical impacts, the impact of
development on the thoroughfare system, the height of future development, negative
impacts on property values and health and safety of residents adjacent to industrial
development. Residents also expressed their dissatisfaction about the public engagement
and communication regarding the zoning changes. Regarding the meetings with property
owners within the WID, Mr. Hounshell added that staff met with the current property
owners of this rezoning application to provide an update on the status of the ordinance,
share resident concerns and answer questions about the next steps in the process. Those
property owners and representatives did express concern about how potential changes to
the code could impact the future developability of these properties and expressed a desire
to retain flexibility with the permitted uses and development standards. On June 11, a
meeting was held specifically for the representatives and residents of Washington
Township. The presentation that was shared by the residents at the June 11 meeting was
provided to Council as well as all public comment that has been received. Coordination is
ongoing for follow-up meetings between staff and members of the Ballantrae
neighborhood board.
For the purposes of providing updates on the rezoning, staff has created a West
Innovation Rezoning website (https: //dublinohiousa.gov/west-innovation-district-
rezoning/), which not only includes information about the rezoning, but also includes
frequently asked questions and answers. The website also includes future changes that
staff is considering and some future plan updates that will aid in seeing the vision for the
WID.
Staff met with representatives from the existing data facility regarding the concerns raised
by residents about the noise. This was the first that they had heard these concerns. They
were appreciative of the meeting, and staff committed to engage and coordinate with the
facility to help identify any additional measures for sound mitigation that could be
implemented.
Mr. Hounshell shared that staff is also considering potential code amendments to help
address some of the concerns that have been raised by residents and City Council. These
future code amendments would need to be vetted for not just these properties in the
rezoning, but for all properties in the WID, as there are properties that are currently zoned
ID-2 and ID-3. Any amendments will be considered through the public review process
beginning with review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC)
and then a final determination by City Council. Mr. Hounshell highlighted a few of the
changes that have already been identified as potential amendments. Staff is exploring
removing data centers as a permitted or conditional use in the ID-2 District, which is
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held June-23,2025. Page 3. of 20 — 20
immediately adjacent to the Ballantrae neighborhood. With respect to the ID-3 District,
staff is exploring data centers as a conditional use, but requiring use specific standards
that would regulate and restrict the operations and negative impacts that may occur to
surrounding properties. Mr. Hounshell offered examples of specific standards regarding
location of mechanical equipment, size and height limits on buildings and setbacks from
residential uses and noise studies before and after construction. Staff is currently
conducting the research necessary to develop recommendations for what would be
appropriate in the WID area. Regarding Utility District Energy Plants, they are currently a
primary principle use. Staff is exploring a change that would make them an accessory
use, in which case they would have to be supporting an existing use. Additionally, staff is
working to update or add any relevant definitions for uses that are currently being used in
the WID, making sure they are aligned with the vision for the WID. In terms of service
area locations and operations, staff is trying to address loading bays and service areas to
make sure that they are not visible or impacting adjacent properties. Restrictions regarding
operating hours is also being explored to make sure that adjacent properties are not
impacted during the night hours. Staff is exploring potential height buffers adjacent to
residential areas. There are areas of the WID where height would be encouraged, such as
along US 33 and on the Ohio University (OU) campus. The final update provided by Mr.
Hounshell was regarding a landscape buffer study that would determine if current
buffering requirements meet the WID intent. This study is important, not only to the
adjacent residential areas, but also to the entire WID area to develop its character.
Mr. Hounshell shared the future land use plan that was shared at the April 7 meeting,
which shows the properties along Cosgray Road designated as Flex Innovation and the
properties adjacent to Houchard Road that are designated as Industrial. The WID Special
Area Plan continues to reinforce the future land use plan. The use categories are
consistent with that plan and this establishes more recommendations for the district as a
whole. They address preservation of certain structures, buffering from Cosgray Road, the
extension of roadways and leveraging economic development opportunities. Staff supports
the proposed rezoning to ID-2 and ID-3. Staff also recognizes and appreciates the
concerns expressed by neighboring residents. Staff recommends preparing targeted
amendments to the zoning code in collaboration with both residents and current property
owners to provide additional assurances and reinforce the City’s commitment to high
quality context and sensitive development in the WID.
Mayor Amorose Groomes explained the public comment process. She reviewed what
information and comments Council had already received and reviewed prior to the
meeting. She encouraged anyone wishing to speak and provide new information to do so.
Each speaker was provided 3 minutes to share their comments.
The following citizens came forward to express opposition to Ordinance 06- 25, citing
concerns of traffic, pollution, noise and the potential reduction of property values and
quality of life:
Angela Whitfield, 5891 Baronscourt Way;
Lynn Roose, 5830 Houchard Road;
Victoria McDonald (including children Maddie and Devin), 5642 Tynecastle Loop;
Lindsay Bartow, 5797 Trafalgar Lane;
Sandra McIntosh, 5792 Trafalgar Lane;
Tara Roe, 5749 Trafalgar Lane;
Amy Schiebel, 5884 Baronscourt Way;
Theresa Collins, 5619 Tynecastle Loop;
Dr. Michael Loochtan, 5857 Vandeleur Place;
Mark McNelis, 7069 Wind Rose Way;
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road;
James Martinson, 7074 Cormac Way;
Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road;
Lisbeth Lovell, 5753 Bonaly Court;
Kathy Balmert, 5860 Houchard Road;
Chris Brown, 6720 Stone Circle Way;
Tim Myers, 5884 Glendavon Court;
Minutes of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Meeting
OVERNMENT FORMS 8 SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held June 23,2025 Page 4 of 20 _ 20
e Joe Black, 5920 Trafalgar Lane;
Cathy Butler, 5965 Roundstone Place; and
Daniel Hammel, 5725 Trafalgar Lane.
Ms. Weisenauer read three comments that were submitted online as follows:
e Kory Shinlever, 5816 Trafalgar Lane, wrote:
I am Kory Shinlever, a Dublin resident living at 5816 Trafalgar Lane in Ballantrae.
My property backs up to Cosgray Road and would be directly across from the
proposed rezoned WID area. As part of this community, I am writing to express my
opposition to the proposed rezoning of West Innovation District Ord 06-25 from R,
Rural to ID-2 and ID-3. My opposition is based on these potential/probable
negative effects:
The loss of neighborhood and community character and integrity
A decrease in the market value of my home
Increased traffic congestion
Safety
Environmental — lighting, noise, hazardous fumes
Commurnication- lack of transparency from HOA and within Council
Permitted and Conditional uses that need to be defined and not ambiguous
Would you want this behind your home? Would you want it to hear the noise in
your back yard? Would you want your kids or grandkids near this type of
development where you've built a home, family, and community? Most reasonable
people would say ‘no’. Please DO NOT rezone this site to ID 2 or ID 3.”
e Juli Hetrick, 6995 Ballantrae Loop, wrote:
Please table action on this matter until the August 11" meeting.”
e Darmawan Wardhana, 6718 Dunheath Circle, wrote:
We have concerns about rezoning 9 parcels due to: 1) potential light, noise, and
heat pollution, 2) potential power supply and electric grid issues, 3) lack of
communication & transparency in the due process by the city council. Thanks for
your considerations.”
Ms. Kramb thanked all the residents who attended and expressed appreciation for the
research people have done. She recommended visiting the new webpage that the City
created. There is a lot of good information on there and a section for frequently asked
questions and answers. She encouraged asking questions, because these considerations
help to improve our code. There are already some code changes in the works, and she
encouraged those in attendance to attend the PZC meetings where any proposed code
changes will be reviewed. She added that the code is not static; we learn and adjust as we
go.
Ms. Fox thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. She stated that even though
discussions can be difficult and uncomfortable, they are very healthy. She added that this
is what democracy is and it is what we are here to do. She stated that she is also
impressed with the amount of work the residents have put into their comments. She finds
it helpful as Council considers making adjustments. She used the Bridge Street Code as an
example of code that has undergone many amendments. She stated that the development
of the WID around the hospital, the university and the opportunities around a new sports
center could be very exciting and complementary to the (Ballantrae) neighborhood. She
added that there is more work to be done. She encouraged the continuation of the
conversation and working together in a trusting way. She shared that she will always be
interested in talking with the residents and that it is important to find the right solutions.
Mr. Reiner stated that he has been on Council since the start of the Ballantrae
neighborhood. He stated that Council is not willing to sacrifice any of the quality of life or
aesthetics that the residents of Ballantrae enjoy. He shared that the City of Dublin was
recently awarded the “Best City to Live in” a few weeks ago due to the high standards that
Council has for the community. He stated his appreciation for using the Landscape code in
these developments. He is concerned with mounding for noise abatement and other park-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City CouncilMinutesof Meeting
OVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844-224-3338 FORM NO. 10148.
Held June 23,2025 Page 5 of 20 20
like aspects. He thanked the residents for their participation and expressed appreciation
to staff for continuing to refine this application. He assured those in attendance that
Council has always stood by the residents to make Dublin a great City.
Mr. Keeler complimented the young speakers on their impactful statements. He stated that
Council is listening to the comments and is appreciative of the research that has been
done. He stated that Council does deserve some credit for working with residents given
past experiences. He stated that Council wants to make the best decision for the
community. He shared that it is Council’s job to recognize the economics of this. He
explained that there is not a great deal of tax revenue that comes from the homes in the
community. He stated that the proposed adjustments that are coming to the code are
proof that the residents have been heard. He is hopeful that in the end, we will all have a
product with which we are happy.
Ms. De Rosa stated that one of her mentors in her professional life said to her, “it is more
important that we ask questions than talk about answers.” She thanked everyone who
attended the meeting to ask important questions. She stated that Council and staff hear
the citizens, and we are committed to working to try and find answers that make good
sense for both short and long term. She stated her appreciation for the continued
dialogue.
Vice Mayor Alutto expressed gratitude to the residents who came to speak to Council on
this item. She was apologetic about any communication issues and stated that certainly
was never the intention. She stated that several speakers brought up good points to
consider. She stated that the staff in this City is excellent, and she requested that staff
follow-up with a few items, including:
e The sewer and water requirements as they pertain to future development;
e Potentially refining the noise requirements regarding both the level and duration.
She agrees that limits are necessary to ensure it is followed.
e Ensure that any studies that have been conducted are made available to the
residents; and
e Any code violations that may be present with Turkey Hill.
She encouraged everyone to attempt to understand their tax bill and how the taxes are
spent. She acknowledged that this is a difficult conversation when attempting to balance
needs and desires. She asked that residents give Council and staff the opportunity to
continue these conversations and work together toward great solutions.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this ordinance will have another reading and public
hearing on August 11" and notices will go out prior to that. She also stated that the City
will communicate to the HOA leadership, and anyone who at any point has signed in,
spoken or provided their contact information, upcoming agendas and packet materials
prior to August 11. She asked staff to follow up with the following information:
e Research and guidance that may exist regarding noise ordinances; and
e Water and sewer and how it will be provided to the areas within the WID. She
added that the expectation is that whatever development happens in the WID that
drainage would get better, not worse. She stated that standard will be held to any
development. She stated that the City has worked extensively on the Cosgray Ditch
to improve the drainage for the Ballantrae area.
She stated that in the City of Dublin, the code is a living document. Continuous
improvements are made as needed and as appropriate. PZC will review each of the
proposed code amendments as they come forward. She encouraged participation from the
public regarding the proposed updates. It is the code that will govern the development
that is in this area.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to hold an additional reading and continuation of the
public hearing on August 11, 2025.
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
OVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844- 224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held June 23,2025 Page 6 of 20 20
Vote on the motion: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. De
Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 17- 25
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Notes in the Maximum Principal Amount
of $4,875,000, in anticipation of the Issuance of Bonds, for the Purpose of
Paying the Costs of Improving the Municipal Recreational Facilities by
Constructing, Renovating and Equipping various Structures and Athletic Fields
and Courts, Constructing various Site Improvements Thereto, Providing Parking
Facilities, and Acquiring Real Property and Interests Therein in Connection
Therewith, Together with all Necessary and Related Appurtenances Thereto
Ms. Hoffman stated that there have been no changes to this Ordinance from the first
reading. Staff recommended approval.
There were no public comments.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose
Groomes, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 18- 25
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Principal Amount
of $5,000, 000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Improving the Municipal
Recreational Facilities by Constructing, Renovating and Equipping various
Structures, Courts and Pools, and otherwise Improving the Site Therefor,
Together with all Incidental Work and Related Appurtenances Thereto
Ms. Hoffman stated that there have been no changes to this Ordinance from the first
reading. Staff recommended approval.
There were no public comments.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Kramb, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De
Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
Ordinance 19-25
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Principal Amount
of $10,430, 000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Improving the City’s
Vehicular and Pedestrian Transportation System within and Serving the
Northern Historic Dublin area by Rehabilitating, Renovating, Redeveloping, and
Constructing Roadways and Pedestrian Pathways, Stairways and related Site
Preparation, Streetscaping, Landscaping and Aesthetic Improvements,
including Adjacent Park Improvements, Installing Sanitary Sewer, Storm
Sewer and Water Improvements, Relocating Certain Existing Utility Lines, and
Acquiring Interests in Real Estate therefor, Together with all Incidental Work
and related Appurtenances Thereto
Ms. Hoffman stated that there have been no changes to this Ordinance from the first
reading. Staff recommended approval.
There were no public comments.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms.
Kramb, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
Ordinance 20-25
Providing for the Issuance and Sale of Bonds in the Maximum Principal Amount
of $650,000 for the Purpose of Paying the Costs of Improving the Municipal
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City CouncilMinutesof Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 644- 024-d0a0 FORM NO, 10146
Held 20August11, 2025
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Amorose Groomes called the Monday, August 11, 2025 Regular Council Meeting of
Dublin City Council to order at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members present were Vice Mayor Alutto, Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. De Rosa, Ms.
Fox, Mr. Keeler, Ms. Kramb and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were Ms. O'Callaghan, Mr. Ashrawi, Chief Paez, Ms. Weisenauer,
Ms. Rauch, Ms. Wawszkiewicz, Mr. Earman, Ms. Willis, Mr. Rubino, Ms. Falcone, Mr.
Gracia, Mr. Barker, Mr. Hammersmith, Mr. Hounshell, Ms. Singh, Mr. Hendershot, Mr.
Ament, Ms. Hunter and Ms. Blake.
Others present were Greg Daniels, Squire Patton Boggs.
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to adjourn to executive session for the purposes of
discussing the following:
e Conferences with an Attorney for the Public Body concerning Disputes
involving the Public Body that are the subject of Pending or Imminent
Court Action; and
e To consider the Purchase of Property for Public Purposes
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto,
yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Ms. Kramb to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
e Minutes of the June 16, 2025 Council Work Session
Minutes of the July 1, 2025 Regular Council Meeting
There was no request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner,
yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
ORDINANCES FOR ADDITIONAL READING/PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance 06-25
Rezoning of Nine Parcels (PID 272- 000195, 272-000086, 274 -001259, 274 -
001260, 274-001261, 274-001419, 274-001420, 274- 001313, and 274-
001421) from R, Rural District to ID-2, Research Flex District and ID-3,
Research Assembly District (Case 25-008Z)
Mr. Hounshell provided Council a presentation summarizing the proposed rezoning of nine
parcels totaling approximately 370 acres in size. Two of the parcels (65 acres) are owned
by the City of Dublin and are located at the intersection of Shier Rings Road and Cosgray
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City CouncilMinutesof Meeting
GOVERNMENT FORMS & SUPPLIES 844- 224-3338 FORM NO. 10148
Held August11, 2025 Page 2 of 10 20
Road. The remaining sites are privately owned and within the City of Dublin corporation
limits. There are no development proposals that are being submitted in coordination with
this rezoning application.
Mr. Hounshell provided a history of the public engagement since this item was last before
City Council. Since the June 23rd meeting when Council moved to hold the initial reading,
staff has conducted multiple meetings with the Ballantrae Community Association and held
several community conversations over a three-week period. Public concerns centered on
permitted uses near residential areas, environmental and physical impacts, traffic and
utility impacts, building height and massing, impacts on property values, and health and
safety concerns.
Staff recommended tabling the ordinance to allow for Code amendments through a public
review process. The proposed amendments would include removing data centers, various
utilities, conference centers, hospitals, and certain recreational uses from permitted uses.
Maximum building heights would be reduced from 68 feet to 45 feet east of the railroad
and to 55 feet west of the railroad.
The following citizens came forward to express opposition to Ordinance 06- 25, citing
concerns of traffic, pollution, noise and the potential reduction of property values and
quality of life:
Suzanne Ewart, 7090 Cormac Way;
Wendy Johnson, 5632 Newtonmore Place;
Daniel Hammel, 5725 Trafalgar Lane;
Tim Myers, 5884 Glendavon Court;
Jennifer Hammel, 5725 Trafalgar Lane;
James Martinson, 7074 Cormac Way;;
Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road;
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road; and
Cristian Cooney, 5835 Baronscourt Way.
Ms. Weisenauer stated that all comments that were submitted online have been provided
to Council.
Council members expressed unanimous support for tabling the ordinance. They
acknowledged the extensive community engagement and appreciated residents’ thoughtful
participation. Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified the process moving forward by explaining
that staff would draft Code language over 2-3 months, Planning and Zoning Commission
would review it at least twice, then it would return to Council - a total timeline of 4-6
months with three additional opportunities for public input. She stated that parties that
have expressed interest in this ordinance to the City will receive notice of those public
input opportunities.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 06-25.
Vice Mayor Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. De
Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor Alutto, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 33- 25
Rezoning approximately 2.95 acres (PID 273-007004) from PCD, Planned
Commerce District (Perimeter Center, Subarea I) to PUD, Planned Unit
Development District (Crown Campus) to add Subarea B and associated
development text (Case 25-031Z)
Ms. Rauch stated that there have been no changes to this Ordinance from the first
reading. Staff recommended approval.
There were no public comments.
City of Dublin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 22, 2026
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Way at 6:31 PM at 5555 Perimeter Drive. Mr. Way welcomed
attendees and noted that the meeting could be joined in person or accessed via livestream on the
City's website.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Way led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Gary Alexander, Jamey Chinnock, Hilary Damaser, Jason
Deschler, Kathy Harter, Kim Way
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Thaddeus Boggs, Zachary Hounshell, Jeremiah
Gracia, Tina Wawskiewicz, Christopher Will, Cameron Burell
Also present: Greg Dale and Keeghan White, McBride Dale Clarion and Chris
Hermann and Tyler Clark, MKSK
ACCEPTANCE OF MEETING DOCUMENTS
Mr. Alexander moved, Mr. Deschler seconded acceptance of the documents into the record.
Vote: Mr. Chinnock, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Ms. Damaser, yes; Mr. Alexander, yes;
Mr. Garvin, yes; Mr. Deschler, yes.
[Motion carried 7-0. |
Mr. Way explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council
when platting and property rezoning is under consideration, with Council receiving
recommendations from the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has final decision-making
responsibility.
He outlined the procedures for the evening, stating that the Commission would hear an update
from staff and consultants on a pending code amendment as well as the West Innovation District
Setback and Buffer Study. No determination would be made, but public comment would be
accepted. He requested that anyone wishing to make public comment keep their remarks to 3
minutes or less and refrain from repeating information. He also asked the audience to refrain from
side conversations, applause, or other audible reactions to protect the process.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 2 of 12
CASE REVIEW
There were no cases for consideration before the Commission this evening.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Case #26-001ADMC
West Innovation District-ID-6 — Administrative Request — Code Amendment
Discussion and Feedback for Code Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code
Sections 153.016 and 153.037-153.042 for the creation of the ID-6, Research
Transition District in the West Innovation District.
West Innovation District Setback and Buffer Study
Update on the setback and buffer study as it relates to the ID-6 district
implementation.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hounshell began the presentation by explaining that this was strictly for an update on work
the City had been doing for the ID-6 district being proposed.
Mr. Hounshell explained that when the rezoning was seen by Planning and Zoning Commission in
February of 2025, it included 370 acres of land consisting of 9 parcels. The proposal at the time
was to rezone the east side of the railroad to ID-2 and the west side to ID-3. As of today, the scope
had been limited for the purposes of the ID-6 discussion to approximately 144 acres and 5 parcels
within the area east of the railroad. The goal was to focus on property fronting along Cosgray
Road, as that was a sensitive area with existing single-family residential to the east. The other area
was not included in the rezoning or code amendments but would be expected to be revisited in
future planning phases.
Mr. Hounshell referenced the City's adoption of the Envision Dublin Community Plan update in
2024, noting that the focus area was recommended for Flex Innovation. The intent was to provide
vibrant, modern development incorporating a variety of uses such as office research and
development, flex office warehouse, and clean manufacturing. He emphasized this site was just a
small piece of the larger West Innovation District (WID), which captured about 2,200 acres of land
within the City of Dublin.
Specific recommendations from the Envision Dublin Plan included landscape buffers along Cosgray
Road of 200 feet to transition and screen from existing single-family residential, preservation of
the 1900s farmstead on the north side of the site, and leveraging economic development potential
throughout the entire district.
Mr. Hounshell detailed the extensive community engagement that had occurred since the process
began. The rezoning has been before Council four times. It was introduced in March 2025, then
was heard again in April, June, and August before being tabled with a recommendation that staff
look into creating an ID-6 district with new code amendments targeted at addressing public
concerns. Separate engagement opportunities with the public were held throughout May, June,
and July in various formats, including direct meetings with the homeowners’ association (HOA)
board and individuals, and community conversations where the public could discuss the community
plan and rezoning process. In December and January, staff met with the Ballantrae HOA board and
their planning and zoning committee to share proposed amendments.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 3 of 12
The primary concerns heard from the community included: industrial uses not being compatible
with adjacent single-family residential; concerns about negative environmental or physical impacts
on the neighborhood; increased traffic volumes on Cosgray Road; increased utility needs and
impacts on the neighborhood; larger building heights adjacent to single-family residential; potential
negative impacts on private property values; and health and safety concerns for residents and their
children. Mr. Hounshell emphasized that the code amendments being presented were aimed at
targeting and limiting these concerns.
Staff also met with stakeholders and those within the development community focused on flex and
research industry to understand both sides - resident concerns and developability of what was
being proposed. Mr. Hounshell noted that the comments shared were recommendations from
stakeholders, not what was being brought forward in the Code road map, but shows what has
been heard to inform the process going forward.
He concluded by highlighting the extensive information added to a web page for the West
Innovation District rezoning, including all communications provided to the community, frequently
asked questions, and other materials to ensure transparency throughout the process.
Consultant Presentation - Road Map
Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion, 5721 Dragon Way, Cincinnati, introduced himself and explained
their role was to write code that implements the policies of the City. He emphasized that they had
not written the code yet - what they were presenting was a "road map," essentially an annotated
outline of future code identifying intent without yet doing the detailed drafting.
Mr. Dale stressed that this was not just about writing a new district for this area, but implementing
a whole series of efforts including Council's 2025 and 2026 goals and recommendations from the
Envision Dublin Comprehensive Plan. He noted the Comprehensive Plan was not just about colors
on a map but was a carefully constructed framework including land use, transportation,
infrastructure, and fiscal modeling. This led to the West Innovation District Special Area Plan,
followed by various initiatives including the Innovation District Integrated Implementation Study.
Mr. Dale explained they had made their best good faith effort at trying to balance citizen concerns
with the City's policies for implementing this important economic development strategy. He noted
that Keeghan Stitt-White had read everything available in the public record and watched every
meeting and public comment to inform their work. While not everything citizens asked for could
be included, they tried their best to balance concerns about setbacks, building heights, landscaping,
and buffering.
Keeghan Stitt-White, McBride Dale Clarion, 5721 Dragon Way, Cincinnati, presented the specifics
of the road map. He began by proposing one district-wide change: removing data centers as a
conditional use in ID-1, 2, and 3 districts, and not permitting them in ID-6 either.
The proposed ID-6 Research Transition District is intended to create context-sensitive development
integrated into both the built and natural environment. This means uses of lower intensity located
solely within buildings with no outdoor operation and limited traffic impacts. Buildings would be of
lower footprint and height.
Mr. Stitt-White explained the difference between principal uses (predominant on the lot) and
accessory uses (incidental and subordinate to a principal structure). The basis for the district was
ID-2, but based on public comment, uses were whittled down to six that meet the district's intent:
e Office (general and medical)
e Parks and open space
e Construction and contract services (with proposed use-specific standards limiting outdoor
use - no outdoor storage or uses if included in ID-6)
e Advanced manufacturing (a new use created specifically for this district)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 4 of 12
e Research and development (with propositions to further limit this use)
Advanced manufacturing was explained as industrial in nature but with specific protections
regulating structure use and limiting nuisances beyond property lines. It would have to be fully
contained within a building, minimize environmental impacts, emissions, and waste, and specifically
not create any noise, vibration, odor, or hazardous byproducts detectable beyond the property line.
The intent is to attract businesses with high skill training specific to a company, commonly involving
processes more advanced than typical manufacturing.
For research and development, the proposal was to specifically list what is and is not permitted
within this use, clarifying it does not include manufacturing and assembly or direct retail as a
principal use.
Accessory uses would include bicycle facilities, community activity, construction trailer and office,
parking structures, utilities, essential services, renewable energy, and vehicle charging stations.
Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution would be allowed as an accessory use, recognizing that
businesses would need incidental and subordinate storage areas for products. This is not intended
for large-scale distribution centers but solely for incidental use supporting the principal structure.
The similar use determination process already existing in code would remain unchanged, requiring
any use not listed in ID-6 to go through this process and follow established criteria.
Development standards were based on ID-2 with several familiar elements: 2-acre minimum lot
size and 75% maximum lot coverage. However, significant changes included:
e Building height reduced from 68 feet in other ID districts to 45 feet maximum (including
any screening on top)
e Variable side and rear setbacks for properties not adjacent to residential based on building
height (45-foot building would have 35-foot setback)
Codification of 200-foot buffer along Cosgray Road
150-foot buffer for residential properties not along Cosgray Road
Prohibition of outdoor operations (all uses to be inside buildings)
Outdoor storage prohibited along Cosgray Road
Service areas prohibited along Cosgray Road
e Signs prohibited along Cosgray Road
Architectural requirements would be similar to ID-2 but with higher attention to quality of detail
and design given the focus on smaller building footprints. Greater architectural emphasis would be
required along Cosgray Road, with 80% of building facades required to be constructed of high-
quality primary materials.
The development review process would remain the same as currently used for projects in other ID
districts.
Consultant Presentation - Buffer Study
Tyler Clark, MKSK, 462 S Ludlow Street, Columbus, presented the setback and buffer study. He
explained the intent was to look at an updated approach for screening views of future buildings
within the WID, including buildings, service areas, and parking from public right-of-way and existing
residences. The study aimed to establish a desired character for the public realm within the West
Innovation District and work through methods for implementing screening requirements through
zoning code updates.
Three key objectives guided the study: applying sustainability practices, protecting economic
viability and development potential of properties, and establishing clarity and predictability in
expectations for screening and buffering.
Mr. Clark reviewed existing conditions, noting current setback requirements are based on street
typology with maximum front setback of 50 feet for arterial streets, 35 feet for collectors, and 30
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 5 of 12
feet for local streets. He showed examples of developments built under current requirements,
demonstrating that existing setbacks and screening primarily screen parking lots while keeping
views of office buildings visible.
Key takeaways from the existing conditions analysis showed that original setbacks were established
with traditional Dublin landscape treatments intended to screen parking while maintaining building
views. Additional setbacks would likely be needed to achieve proper screening with mounding
heights and planting density. Landscape and planting strategies need consideration, particularly
for year-round screening rather than just when trees are in bloom. Larger setbacks could provide
opportunities for placemaking and Dublin character innovation while preserving rural character.
The recommended approach focused on preserving the rural character of the WID landscape,
which is primarily agricultural. This included preserving tree rows and stands of trees, native
grasslands and prairie, open canopies, periodic small structures typical of farmsteads, and strategic
preservation of periodic vistas and long views into fields and pastures.
Chris Hermann, MKSK, 462 S. Ludlow Street, Columbus, interjected to emphasize that when
thinking about setbacks and screening, they were considering both how to screen buildings and
create character on the corridor. He noted that often what people experience of a community is
what they see from the public right-of-way, making that experience crucial. Rural character means
vistas framed by tree rows rather than continuous mounds with evenly spaced trees; it involves
clusters of trees and occasional structures close to the road.
Mr. Clark detailed specific design approaches including slope specifications (6:1 slope on public-
facing sides for natural appearance, 3:1 on private side), overlapping undulating mounds rather
than uniform "toothpaste mounds," varying heights and breaks in mounding, and consideration of
drainage, drives, parking, stormwater, and underground utilities in setback calculations.
For planting strategy, the focus was on year-round screening with mixed plant types and species,
naturalized groupings rather than evenly spaced plantings, evergreen trees on mound backsides
for year-round screening, deciduous trees on public side as street trees, and shrubs and taller
grasses along mounds.
Three different approaches were proposed depending on property type and location:
e Enhanced buffering (150-200 foot setback) - for fully screening buildings, parking, and
service areas with taller mounds and denser plantings
e Traditional landscape - for areas with limited setback where properties don't allow 150-200
foot setbacks
e Iconic moments - gateway opportunities at roundabouts and transition zones
For the ID-6 area specifically along Cosgray Road, the proposal included the 200-foot setback
(starting at the right-of-way line, not the curb), 14-foot mounds with dense plantings for year-
round screening, and consideration of the 45-foot maximum building height. Mr. Clark emphasized
that with the expanded street right-of-way, the total distance from existing buildings to potential
new buildings could be 400-500 feet.
Ground-level renderings showed what this could look like from Cosgray Road, with new streetscape
including sidewalks, street trees, planted median, and new berms with buildings hidden behind.
Mr. Hermann reiterated that using prairie plantings rather than turf on mounds would help achieve
the rural character.
Commission Questions
Mr. Garvin asked Mr. Hounshell about buildable area calculations with the 200-foot setback, seeking
confirmation that in the example shown, 28 of 40 acres would remain buildable. He questioned
whether the 75% minimum lot coverage requirement would need adjustment given the reduced
buildable area. Ms. Rauch clarified that the graphic was intended to show how setbacks reduce
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 6 of 12
developable acreage, with the 75% lot coverage being a separate element calculated on total
acreage. Mr. Garvin also confirmed that permitted high-quality materials would include fiber cement
and EFIS siding, and raised questions about construction and contract services restrictions on
outdoor storage and how that would affect contractor vehicles and equipment storage.
Mr. Deschler asked Ms. Wawszkiewicz from Transportation & Mobility about plans for Cosgray
Road, inquiring if it was envisioned as a 4-lane divided boulevard from Route 161 to Hayden Run
(with a small village character section remaining 1 lane each direction). Ms. Wawszkiewicz stated
that while a study was beginning with proposals due next week, no timeline for funding or
construction existed. Mr. Deschler expressed concern about how road expansion would impact
buildings and buffers, with Ms. Wawszkiewicz clarifying that setbacks would start at the proposed
right-of-way line.
Mr. Deschler discussed the City's position on residential use, noting public comments strongly
favored residential development. Mr. Hounshell explained that a residential proposal in 2023-2024
was denied by the Commission as it was not aligned with the Community Plan, which designated
the area for flex innovation. The current proposal intends to align with Council's approved
Community Plan. Ms. Rauch added that City Council's motion to table included direction to abide
with the policy direction adopted in the Plan while allowing code amendments to address concerns
raised.
Mr. Deschler questioned whether discussions had occurred with the Ballantrae community about
the City's position that residential would not be included, and whether property owners felt
restricted in their ability to sell. Ms. Rauch explained that staff had individual meetings with property
owners about the code road map, acknowledging it was more restrictive than ID-2 but had received
feedback that owners understood the need for investment in buffering as good neighbors. Concerns
about setbacks, buffering, and reduced developability were acknowledged.
Mr. Boggs clarified the Commission's purpose was to collect feedback on the ID-6 road map and
buffer study, not to reconsider the rezoning already recommended to Council.
Mr. Deschler asked about the City's satisfaction with land purchased for the sports park component.
Mr. Will confirmed that through a visioning process for the premier athletic and recreation campus,
it was determined the City conceptually has enough property within Darree Fields and Sports Ohio
to achieve identified program elements.
Mr. Alexander asked about revisions to dimensional standards, with Mr. Hounshell explaining most
revisions were adding the zoning district to code as cross-references. Mr. Alexander noted that
while residential districts typically have 35-foot height caps, the proposed 45-foot buildings would
only be 10 feet taller. He expressed concern about construction and contract services restrictions,
particularly regarding storage of company vehicles versus equipment. Regarding buffering, Mr.
Alexander asked if the landscape consultant saw their district-wide approach as giving the district
a distinct character, which Mr. Clark confirmed was the intent with a similar planting palette and
approach throughout.
Ms. Harter raised questions about noise, wondering if there could be restrictions on when trucks
arrive and depart. Mr. Boggs noted that Council was already addressing vehicular noise with
legislation at first reading covering operation, sound amplification, and land uses. Site development
requirements were designed to minimize traffic interaction with residences. Mr. Dale added that
the 200-foot setback would prevent any vehicular parking, circulation, or trucks in that area.
Ms. Harter asked about industry responsibility for maintaining landscaping over time, whether
companies might request the City take over maintenance burdens like some HOAs have done. Mr.
Boggs explained that with ID codes spelling out rules in advance rather than negotiating through
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 7 of 12
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) processes, property owners would be signing up for known
requirements. The City would be unlikely to take over maintenance, and property maintenance
obligations would be enforceable through various means including citations, environmental court,
injunctions, and fines.
Ms. Harter also asked about screening between properties and Darree Fields for safety
considerations. Mr. Hounshell noted the implementation plan shown was a draft and could change,
emphasizing they were looking at this globally across the district for consistency. She inquired if
mounds could be used by the public for walking or recreation. Mr. Hermann and Mr. Boggs clarified
it would be private property, so public use would require property owner agreement and raise
maintenance and liability issues. The objective was to buffer uses, not create conditions attracting
people to cross Cosgray Road.
Mr. Chinnock followed up on screening accessory uses and the substantial investment being asked
of property owners with buffering and screening. He questioned whether they were being too
restrictive for development with the 200-foot setback. Mr. Dale responded that while the 200-foot
setback was robust compared to typical 150-foot setbacks in similar situations, it was actually City
policy from the Comprehensive Plan and reasonable given single-family homes come right up to
the property line. As a local example, Mr. Clark added that New Albany had implemented similar
approaches.
Ms. Damaser pointed out apparent contradictions in the road map regarding outdoor storage and
service areas in setback requirements when storage and service were supposed to be inside
structures. Mr. Hounshell acknowledged this as a carryover requirement needing refinement. She
asked about addressing residents’ environmental concerns about advanced manufacturing, with
Mr. Hounshell explaining the intent was to include use-specific standards controlling environmental
impacts, though work remained on defining those controls. Enforcement would fall to code
enforcement.
Ms. Damaser asked about landscaping tree size minimums to ensure immediate screening rather
than waiting 20 years for growth. Mr. Clark acknowledged this important consideration had not
been decided yet but would need to be addressed, especially given renderings showing full-grown
trees blocking views.
Mr. Way raised concerns about loading docks, noting that while they were prohibited along Cosgray
Roas, they could be on sides or rear of buildings, potentially creating visibility issues if facing each
other across property lines. Mr. Hounshell noted existing requirements for screening loading bays
and service areas but indicated they would look at this further.
Regarding the buffer study, Mr. Way questioned accessibility of the space and whether passive
recreation mentioned could lead to park-like conditions similar to other Dublin examples. He was
concerned about implementation of the beautiful berm and landscaping incrementally while
keeping it cohesive, suggesting it should be infrastructure installed upfront to set the tone. Mr.
Hounshell acknowledged staff having the same conversations about avoiding piecemeal
implementation.
Mr. Way noted the buffer study addressed the whole WID with different land uses, questioning
whether mixed-use center areas near the Ohio University campus should have different street
character than industrial areas. He also encouraged reconsideration of plant material mix,
suggesting drifts of mixed evergreen and deciduous plantings rather than strict separation to create
a softer edge.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 8 of 12
Public Comment
Mr. Way opened public comment, reminding attendees that the Commission had received and
reviewed all previous public comments, and encouraged specific comments on the presentations
heard tonight.
Gene Bostic, 7143 Carlton Road, Dublin, thanked the City Council and staff for working with
residents regarding their concerns during the nearly year-long process.
Victoria McDonald, 5642 Tynecastle Loop, Dublin, addressed Mr. Deschler's question about
residential use, explaining the application denied in June 2024 was because it was not part of the
Envision Dublin Plan, but had been reproposed several times including last month. She noted the
developer still wanted residential, and owners opposed rezoning to ID-6, having sent an email that
day. She emphasized the Envision Dublin Plan could be changed, quoting page 242 stating it is not
a static document and should be revised if community attitudes change. She referenced Mr. Boggs'
article about municipalities balancing fiscal needs with community expectations. Ms. McDonald
stated parcels subject to ID-6 zoning were changed at the eleventh hour without public comment,
having always been intended as residential. She questioned whether zoning changes fit the existing
landscape, whether industrial manufacturing with health risks was appropriate next to homes and
sports complexes, and whether anyone had visited the neighborhood to understand how disjointed
the plan appeared. She asked the commission not to support the code direction and work toward
balance, meeting resident expectations while achieving positive fiscal outcomes.
Jim Martinson, 7074 Cormac Way, Dublin, acknowledged the journey from broad, loosely defined
language to shaping an ID-6 district after strong community input. As a member of Ballantrae's
planning and zoning committee, he thanked staff for productive meetings in December and January
and looked forward to continued review opportunities. He had analyzed community feedback using
AI to identify top concerns, highlighting loss of neighborhood character and potential decrease in
property values. Building heights at 45 feet remained concerning as a stark contrast from the
residential side despite buffering. He suggested tapering heights as a lead-in to 25 feet or less.
While appreciating consideration for seasonality in mounding, he noted Ohio's "skeletal winters"
when deciduous trees drop leaves. Definitions still needed tightening - while data centers were
removed, the language still left openings. Principal versus auxiliary uses remained unclear. Other
concerns included quiet zones around railroad crossings (long overdue), no Cosgray widening
eastward, light pollution, and noise pollution. He reiterated residential remained the predominant
preference for residents. Regarding landscaping maintenance, he referenced Turkey Hill at Shier
Rings and Avery roads as an example of where they had struggled with landscaping maintenance.
Tim Myers, 5845 Glendovan Court, Dublin, identified himself as "the advanced manufacturing guy,"
appreciating progress made from initial fears but not yet comfortable. With experience in advanced
manufacturing, he understood the risks and challenges including exotic chemicals, unique
materials, and constant rapid changes to meet customer demand and remain competitive.
Managing complex change points within complex systems was difficult even for Honda's best and
brightest employees, and issues occurred despite best efforts. He expressed disappointment that
discussion focused extensively on landscaping while missing significant impacts of business types,
products, raw materials, processes, and byproducts. While landscaping hides development, the real
issue was the content going into the area. He raised concerns about trailer storage and potential
leaks affecting groundwater, noting residents west of the development would be first to notice air
and water quality issues given west-to-east winds. He called missing this point irresponsible and
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 9 of 12
inconsistent with Envision Dublin's sustainability goals, noting PFAS "forever chemicals" do not align
with sustainability. He emphasized needing only one person's mistake to create big problems, and
while EPA requires self-reporting, damage would already be done. He asked consultants to dig
deeper into advanced manufacturing risks.
Todd Hemmert, 5824 Houchard Road, Dublin, referenced three emails sent to commissioners and
thanked Mr. Deschler for acknowledging receipt. Working at Honda R&D for 28 years, he echoed
Mr. Myer’s comments about no discussion of content and commissioners not understanding
development realities - it's messy, dirty, and complicated. He stated the root cause was that
Envision Dublin didn't think deeply about community impact, calling it completely wrong to think
they had considered these impacts. He characterized it as a concept, not a binding goal
guaranteeing outcomes, calling it irresponsible to shut down discussions thinking industrial use was
definite. He noted Houchard Road residences were wiped out in the Envision Dublin Plan with no
transition after 40+ years of large properties. Land use could include residential such as senior
citizen homes providing economic benefits, but this was being dismissed. He stated commissioners
should ask tough questions and get data, which was not there to support these items. The
community had pulled data themselves showing poor return on investment - $1.3 billion investment
for only 0.3-0.5% return ($600 million), calling this irresponsible for Dublin's reputation and
resident livelihood. He expressed deep disappointment that only "window dressing" was
accomplished, saying they needed to stop and go back completely.
Richard Weeks, 5826 Houchard Road, Dublin, introduced himself as a pilot with 20 years Air Force
and 22 years NetJets experience who had never crashed because he follows procedures and
examines everything going into his airplane. He raised awareness that EPA had just provided a
permit for the data center north of them for 95 diesel generators for backup power. Each gallon of
diesel burned produces 0.284 pounds of pollutants and 0.149 pounds of carbon monoxide. Nitrogen
oxides can cause respiratory irritants, skin burns, eye burns, coughing, shortness of breath,
worsening asthma, high levels leading to bronchitis and COPD. They harm ecosystems through
acid rain, haze, and nutrient pollution. Carbon monoxide is odorless and colorless, causing flu-like
symptoms potentially leading to brain damage, coma, or death. With 95 generators, that's 41-plus
pounds when operating, going into the area around the Darree Fields sports complex. In November,
Monitoring Analytics (independent marketing monitor for PJM grid) filed a complaint with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recognizing insufficient capacity to serve data centers,
leading to mandatory curtailment (brownouts) due to insufficient capacity. This would cause
generators to turn on, though frequency and duration were unknown. While unable to stop the
already-permitted data center, he cautioned this important issue needed consideration for future
development.
Jennifer Hammill, 5725 Trafalgar Lane, Dublin, quoted Thaddeus Boggs about municipalities
balancing fiscal needs with community expectations. She referenced comments from Sandy
McIntosh about how land south of Shier Rings Road west of Cosgray Road got included in the WID,
calling it suspect that it was not originally part of the WID in Envision Dublin. The City remained
unable to quantify income tax revenue expected from expanding this area into the WID. She
questioned why this information was not important for determining ROI or balancing financial gain
against resident concerns, asking if it should not be important given Mr. Boggs' statement about
considering such things. Regarding the Cosgray Road expansion going west instead of east, she
noted her legislative and ODOT consulting experience with right-of-way expansion, pointing out
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 10 of 12
utility poles would need to move. She questioned who would pay, whether they would go
underground as they should, or if giant poles would be needed for industrial electricity needs. She
disputed that property owners were aware residential was impossible, noting they submitted new
residential plans in December and sent an email today planning to fight ID-6. She urged considering
time and value rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole following unnamed city staff
advice to shove it into the WID, suggesting they step back and consider residential uses between
Houchard Road residences and Ballantrae, as the Envision Dublin studies called for.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Garvin expressed support for the changes from ID-2 to ID-6, believing they showed honest
reaction to resident concerns about building intensity and size. The buffering was a big move in
the right direction. While understanding logistical challenges, he would like to see buffer zone
utilization creating a park-like buffer, agreeing with consistency across buffering zones. He noted
areas requiring the most space for overlay buffering were where residents would want the shortest
buildings, presenting challenges for development with smaller buildings using less space. For
recommendations on ID-6 revisions, he emphasized need to drill down on defining advanced
manufacturing and broadly defining manufacturing impacts respectfully to the surrounding area.
He supported the 200-foot setback over 150 feet as an effective transition buffer. He expressed
concern about minimum lot coverage potentially being problematic for creating space integrating
into natural and built environments, needing more vacant land and considering spacing between
industrial buildings versus residential sides.
Mr. Deschler struggled with being instructed residential was no longer supported. He stated that
he was unsure what to do. He found public comments about R&D and advanced manufacturing
very good, noting that while he had not asked questions, he was personally concerned. The
language was too vague and needed significant overhaul regarding what goes in, byproducts, and
potentially an approval process for building contents. He requested consultant input on similarly
situated cities with advanced manufacturing/R&D adjacent to significant residences. He supported
Ms. Damaser's comment about screening tree size minimums, though acknowledged the burden
on property owners and uncertainty about city participation. Light pollution had not been discussed
but was prominent in comments, suggesting need for road map components addressing security
lighting, possibly with movement triggers rather than constant blue lighting. He felt the 200-foot
setback sounded reasonable based on feedback but remained unsure about residential
reintroduction, and is planning to abstain from that component.
Mr. Alexander expressed general support for the code direction, noting multiple approved uses
beyond advanced manufacturing. However, he shared concerns about byproducts, processes, and
environmental impacts, wanting code tightened to address these issues. He emphasized the actual
distance between houses and structures exceeded a football field at over 400 feet with three
isolation levels: existing plantings and mounds at Ballantrae, road median, and enormous 14-foot
mounds twice human height. He had never seen mounds like this locally except New Albany. The
additional trees would provide carbon sequestration meeting environmental standards. He was
impressed with the innovative mounding approach and supported it.
Ms. Harter thanked everyone for participation, appreciating the City meeting with neighbors and
building rapport. She was generally supportive of the code direction, emphasizing that moving
forward would require attention to particulars. Height reduction from 68 to 45 feet was helpful,
and enclosed structures provided opportunities for different office space including medical
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 11 of 12
possibilities. Setbacks were substantial, and seasonal planting considerations were key. No large
data centers was quite important. Proximity of residents should be first consideration, including
Darree Fields users' experience. Regarding the road map, she appreciated City Council examining
noise in-depth with recourse for odd noises established prior. Storage limits made sense, but leak
concerns were important. For landscaping, consistency with mature area landscaping was
important, incorporating existing stones and features. Public interaction opportunities would be
beneficial. She encouraged neighbors to participate in city inspections ensuring precise completion.
Darree Fields' proximity needed consideration to ensure appropriate experience.
Mr. Chinnock echoed appreciation and noted criticism of Envision Dublin as just a guide showed
the process was working - the fact they were discussing ID-6 showed Envision Dublin's flexibility.
This unprecedented effort by the city to hire consultants and create extensive road maps based on
public input proved public engagement, City, and consultants were working together to develop
the property. He noted ID-6 would apply to other locations beyond this first one, so they needed
to think bigger scale about future use requirements. Limits on advanced manufacturing was a
consideration, with language about not creating noise, odor, vibration, or hazardous byproducts -
though clarification was needed. Other services were also proposed beyond manufacturing. The
boulevard creation on Cosgray Road would enhance residential feel with landscaping, mounding,
and reduced building heights, creating the boulevard character that might not happen with other
high-density uses without this level of character investment. He challenged them to consider the
additional effort going into boulevard streetscaping and what shared-use paths creating active
landscape areas could mean. He was generally supportive while echoing needs for further
development of raised concerns, emphasizing they were doing a lot and asking future owners for
significant commitment that could result in nice development with the right approach.
Ms. Damaser expressed appreciation for all participants including the City, residents, and expert
consultants. Echoing others' comments, she believes it is a good road map (not just a start given
a year's work) although it needs tightening on advanced manufacturing and tree specifics. She
suggested considering lighter uses toward Cosgray Road with heavier uses in back if possible, and
endorsed everything others had said.
Mr. Way provided final thoughts, appreciating the comments and discussion. The road map was a
work in progress toward text development. Advanced manufacturing as a new use type might have
similar activities already occurring in Dublin, suggesting understanding how current activities are
managed would be helpful. When reading current language, it seemed innocuous and needed
precision to avoid dangerous situations. He was totally supportive of the buffer concept but
imagined it as linear open space contributing to community rather than keeping community out.
Such an important district element should be thought of holistically and done in totality. Integration
possibilities could include hidden fencing within buffers keeping people contained while allowing
broader recreational use, requiring exploration of public/private arrangements and potential
easements. The setback should be a contributing element to the district rather than individual
business buffering requirements. His comments echoed the Commission's support for the process
with the road map as a good conversation starter, emphasizing tighter use definitions and thinking
of setbacks as contributing district elements rather than just requirements.
Staff confirmed they had received sufficient feedback from the Commission.
COMMUNICATIONS
x \
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes — January 22, 2026
Page 12 of 12
Staff shared no communications.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 pm.
VW)
7
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
oN gaa 0 Deputy‘Clerk of Council