75-03 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank. Inc
Ordinance No.
75-03 Passed . 20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DUBLIN CODIFIED
ORDINANCES, SECTIONS 153.050 THROUGH 153.058 -
PLANNED DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND SECTION
153.234 -PROCEDURE REGULATIONS (CASE N0. 03-013).
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution 01-03 directed that a Development Code
Revision Task Force be created, and
WHEREAS, R esolution 01-03 directed that the Development Code Revision Task
Force make recommendations regarding revisions to the Planned District sections of
the Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, the Development Code Revision Task Force on June 11, 2003 did make
a recommendation to the City Council that a new section of the Code be utilized to
replace the current Code sections regarding Planned Districts as detailed in this
ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this Code
amendment on September 18, 2003 and recommends adoption,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Dublin State of Ohio,
of the elected members concurring, as follows:
Section 1. That Section 153 be repealed and replaced with the following:
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
153.050 Purpose and Application
153.051 Status of Previously Approved Planned Development Districts
153.052 Establishment of Planned Development Districts
153.053 Procedures
153.054 Submission Requirements
153.055 Plan Approval Criteria
153.056 Definitions
§153.050 Purpose and Application
(A) Purpose. The Planned Development District (PD) regulations are based on the
premise that the ultimate quality of a built environment or development proposal is
determined not only by the type, character and allocation of land uses but also by the
way in which such land uses are executed. In many cases, the subdivision regulations
and standard zoning district regulations and procedures do not adequately regulate the
design of buildings or enable the range of uses in a single zoning district that are
appropriate in the City of Dublin.
(1) The purposes of the Planned Development District regulations are to:
(a) Provide an opportunity for a mix of land uses otherwise not permitted
within the standard municipal zoning district classifications.
(b) Allow the creation of development standards that respect the unique
characteristics, natural quality and beauty of the site and the
immediate vicinity and protect the community's natural resources by
avoiding development on, and destruction of, sensitive environmental
areas.
(c) Enable greater review of design characteristics to ensure that the
development project is properly integrated into its surroundings and is
compatible with adjacent development.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank,
Ordinance No.
75-03
Passed Page 2 , 20
(d) Assure compatibility between proposed land uses within and around
the Planned Development District through appropriate development
controls.
(e) Pursue the housing and economic development goals of the City.
(f) Promote economical and efficient use of land and reduce
infrastructure costs through unified development.
(g) Provide for supporting community facilities.
(h) Establish objective criteria for development plan review that ensure
conformity to community and district standards and allow for
consistent treatment throughout.
(2) The procedures established for Planned Development Districts are
designed to encourage:
(a) Unified development projects that exhibit creative planning and
design in ways that cannot be achieved through a standard zoning
district or subdivision regulation, yet are consistent with all applicable
plans, including but not limited to, the Community Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan, infrastructure system, contiguous land uses, and
the intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Code.
(b) Imaginative architectural design.
(c) Flexibility in building styles and types.
(d) Proper relationships between buildings, between developments and
between structures and the land.
(e) The development of the land in an orderly, coordinated and
comprehensive manner consistent with accepted land planning,
landscape architecture practices and engineering principles according
to approved development plans.
(B) Application. The Planned Development District regulations assist in
accomplishing these purposes by establishing review steps that combine the request
for a zoning with the development plan review process, and when applicable, the
subdivision process. Subsequent plan review following the zoning amendment also
requires simultaneous review of subdivision plats.
(1) Each Planned Development District shall be considered a separate and
unique zoning district wherein a preliminary development plan, including
associated text depicting the specific development standards, is adopted
simultaneously with the amendment of the zoning map to apply the PD
designation. The preliminary development plan shall apply only to the
property within that particular Planned Development District.
(2) Planned Development Districts adopted and established in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter and the requirements contained herein
shall take precedence over any conflicting regulations contained in the
Dublin Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations.
(C) Ownership. The Planned Development District shall be an integrated, unified
development project wherein the entire project area shall be in joint ownership or
control at the time the application is made for the PD designation so that all property
owners are applicants. Any transfer of land within the development resulting in
ownership within the development by two or more parties after an application has
been filed shall not alter the applicability of the regulations contained herein. A
preliminary development plan approved in accordance with these or previous
regulations for a Planned Development District shall be binding upon the owners, their
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Tnc.
Ordinance Nn, 75-03 Passed Page 3 , Zp
successors and assigns and shall limit and control the issuance and validity of all
certificates of zoning compliance.
§153.051 Status of Previously Approved Planned Development Districts
(A) Existing Planned Development Districts. Planned Development Districts and
all associated development plans and supporting documentation adopted prior to the
effective date of these Planned Development District regulations shall continue in
effect and be considered legally conforming under this Code. The procedures for the
implementation of those developments must conform to the regulations indicated in
this Code. Such planned developments include:
(1) Planned Low-Density Residential Districts (PLR) and their development
plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned
Low-Density Residential District regulations.
(2) Planned Commerce Districts (PCD) and their composite plans and all
supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Commerce
District regulations.
(3) Planned Industrial Park Districts (PIP) and their development plans and all
supporting documentation adopted pursuant to the Planned Industrial Park
District regulations.
(4) Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD) and their preliminary
development plans and all supporting documentation adopted pursuant to
the Planned Unit Development District regulations.
(B) Consistency of Terms. For the purposes of this Code, plans including all
supporting documentation adopted at the time of rezoning shall be referred to as
preliminary development plans, and plans including all supporting documentation
approved subsequent to such rezoning shall be referred to as final development plans.
(C) Changes to Preliminary Development Plans. A change to an adopted
preliminary development plan shall be considered to be a zoning amendment and shall
be reviewed according to the procedures set forth in x'153.053 and the plan approval
criteria set forth in X153.055.
(D) Final Development Plans.
(1) A final development plan shall be required for each phase of development
in a Planned Development District, including the Planned Low-Density
Residential Districts. If the construction drawings for a particular phase
have already been approved as of the effective date of this ordinance, the
completion and submission of a final plat in accordance with Chapter 152
Subdivision Regulations shall complete that portion of the project.
(2) An application for review of a final development plan for a Planned
Development District established prior to the effective date of these
Planned Development District regulations shall follow the procedural
steps set forth in x'153.053, shall include the submission requirements set
forth in X153.054, and shall be evaluated according to the plan approval
criteria set forth in X153.055.
(E) Final Subdivision Plats. Applications for final subdivision plats for phases of
Planned Development Districts that are yet to be approved or for changes to
previously approved plats shall be reviewed according to the subdivision review
procedures in Chapter 152 Subdivision Regulations.
§153.052 Establishment of Planned Development District
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
Inc.
Passed Page 5 20
75-03
(a) Arrangement of Use Areas.
1. Buildings and uses within the proposed development shall be
located to reduce any adverse influences and to protect and
enhance the character of areas adjacent to the development;
2. Whenever a proposed development includes areas of a higher
intensity t han t hat p ermitted i n a dj acent a reas,the 1 ocation a nd
arrangement of use areas shall include appropriate buffers, open
spaces, setbacks, or other transitional areas to ensure
compatibility with the lower intensity areas.
3. Buildings, structures and parking areas shall be designed and
located within the PUD in ways that conserve environmentally
sensitive or unique natural, historic, or cultural features, and
minimize environmental impacts.
(b) Arrangement of Buildings and Yards.
1. The physical relationship of buildings and other site
improvements to one another and the surrounding open space, as
created by building size, mass, height, shape, and setback, shall
result in a harmonious development within the PUD and adjacent
to it.
2. The bulk and height of buildings within the proposed
development shall be compatible with the surrounding
development and sufficiently buffered from the surrounding
development to mitigate any potential adverse impact(s).
(c) Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
1. The pattern of landscaping shall be coordinated in design and
type of materials, mounding and fencing used. Landscaping may
vary in density, spacing and other treatments to reflect variations
of topography, existing landscape or land uses.
2. Privacy f or residential buildings shall be maintained through the
use of landscaping, screening and buffering.
3. Appropriate buffer zones with adequate landscaping shall be
provided between the proposed development and adjacent areas.
4. Alternative design approaches to meet the intent of the landscape
regulations maybe incorporated.
(d) Open Space. Adequate open spaces shall be integrated throughout the
development to meet the objectives of the Community Plan and shall
comply with the open space requirements set forth in Chapter 152:
Subdivision Regulations. PUDs that include residential uses shall
include open space that is located and designed as follows:
1. Open space shall be sufficiently aggregated to create large useable
areas of planned open space.
2. Open space shall conserve significant natural features within the
PUD to the extent practicable.
3. Open space shall provide a scenic natural environment along
existing public streets characterized by large building setbacks that
enable the preservation of natural features.
4. All open space shall be easily accessible to residents of the PUD.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No
Inc.
Passed Page 4 Zp
75-03
(A) Planned Development Districts Ad~ted After the Effective Date of These
Regulations. A Planned Development District that is adopted after the effective date of
these regulations shall be established according to the following:
(1) All rezonings to a Planned Development District shall be designated as
Planned Unit Development Districts (PUD).
(2) A request for rezoning land to a Planned Unit Development District
designation shall be made according to §153.234 Amendments.
(3) A p reliminary d evelopment p lan s hall b e r eviewed b y t he P lanning and
Zoning Commission and City Council according to X153.053 Procedures
and a preliminary development plan and supporting documentation shall
be adopted at the time of rezoning.
(4) Detailed final development plans shall be reviewed and acted upon by the
Planning and Zoning Commission according to x'153.053 Procedures.
(5) A preliminary subdivision plat may be reviewed simultaneously with a
preliminary development plan. A final subdivision. plat shall be reviewed
simultaneously with a final development plan, unless a final plat has
already been approved or is not required for completion of the project. All
subdivision plats shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission according to Chapter 152: Subdivision Regulations,
except as otherwise addressed in x'153.050 through §153.056 Planned
Development Districts.
(B) General Development Criteria: A Planned Unit Development shall be designed
and depicted on the preliminary development plan and final development plan in
accordance with the following General Development Criteria:
(1) Plan Design. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be
designed in accordance with accepted planning principles, including the
planning and development principles included in this section, to ensure that
the use of land, buildings and other structures; the building location, bulk,
layout, arrangement, design, and height; the percentages of lot areas that may
be occupied; the setback of buildings; the sizes of yards and other spaces;
and the density of population are in compliance with the purposes and
objectives of the PD regulations as set forth in ~153.050(A) Purpose.
(2) Permitted and Conditional Uses. A PUD may include any combination of
uses when such use(s) are found to be compatible with one another and in
keeping with the intent of these General Development Criteria, provided the
proposed location of the uses will not adversely affect adjacent property
and/or the public health, safety and general welfare.
(a) The list of specific uses to be included in the proposed PUD shall be
clearly delineated in the preliminary development plan and its
supporting documentation.
(b) Uses shall be identified as either permitted uses or conditional uses.
(c) Listed uses shall be defined by their customary name or identification,
except where they are specifically defined or limited in this Zoning
Code.
(d) Any listed use may be limited to areas delineated in the preliminary
development plan.
(3) Planning and Development Principles. The proposed PUD shall be designed
in accordance with the following planning and development principles:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
Inc.
75-03 Passed Page 6 . Zp
5. Where possible, open space areas shall be connected with open
space areas on abutting parcels, and wherever possible, by open
space comdors.
(e) Protection of Natural Features.
1. Trees shall be preserved, protected, and replaced in compliance
with the requirements set forth in ~~153.140 through 153.148 Tree
Preservation.
2. A riparian buffer shall be provided along the entire length and on
both sides of a river or perennial stream channel. Walkways may
be permitted to be located within riparian buffers when the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines that such will
create minimal change to the riparian buffer.
3. Floodplains shall be protected in compliance with X153.111
Floodplain Regulations and Chapter 151: Flood Control.
4. Wetlands that are to be retained in their natural state within the
PUD shall be protected. A buffer area not less than 20 feet in width
measured from the edge of the delineated wetland shall be provided
along the entire perimeter of the designated wetland. The buffer
area shall not be disturbed and shall be retained in its natural state.
Minimum building and pavement setbacks to protect such wetlands
and buffer areas shall be established and shall be measured from the
edge of such wetlands.
(f) Pedestrian Circulation S std. A pedestrian circulation system shall
be included and designed to provide convenient and safe pedestrian
access throughout the PUD, and to connect to neighboring
developments and community facilities. The pedestrian circulation
system may include sidewalks and other walkways not located along
streets. Trails with public right of passage should be incorporated in
the pedestrian circulation system.
(g) Bike Paths and Other Trail Systems. Trail systems for bikes and other
purposes shall be included and designed in accordance with the City's
plan for bike paths. Such trail system shall have a minimum width of
eight (8) feet and be properly buffered from any adjacent residential
areas.
(h) Street Design and Vehicular Circulation.
1. The proposed vehicular circulation system shall provide adequate
connections to the existing street network.
2. The area of the project devoted to streets and related pavement
should be the minimum necessary to provide adequate and safe
movement and access.
3. Street alignments should be designed to conserve natural features
and minimize the need for cut and fill practices.
4. The function of adjacent thoroughfares shall be maintained by
limiting access points to the minimum needed, relating them to
existing access points, the street patterns on surrounding
development, the Thoroughfare Plan and the intensity of
proposed uses.
5. Private streets as a common easement may be used to provide
access to clustered lots and/or structures.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Inc.
Ordinance No. 75-03 Passed Page 7 , 20
6. Street lighting and street signs shall be a dequate for safety and
security.
7. The applicant shall provide and construct on-site and off-site
street improvements for the PUD in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 152: Subdivision Regulations and
consistent with recommendations included in traffic studies and
with any agreements submitted as supporting documentation for
the PUD.
8. The design and locations of streets and parking areas shall
comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 53 Storm
Water Management.
(i) Off-Street P arkin~. The 1 ayout o f p arking a reas, s ervice a reas, and
related entrances, exits, signs, lighting, noise sources or other
potentially adverse influences shall be designed and located to protect
the character of the area and as well as those areas adjacent to the
development.
(j) Sim s. All signs and graphics within the PUD shall be compatible in
size, location, height, material, shape, color and illumination.
1. A sign plan for the entire PUD shall set forth the design
parameters for the entire project to ensure a consistent and
comprehensive character throughout the project. The sign plan
shall include the design, layout, and dimensions of all ground,
window and wall signs a s well as distances from rights-of--way
and the type and intensity of illumination.
2. Signs should contribute to an overall cohesive design, reflect
simplicity, and avoid visual clutter.
3. The overall design and placement of buildings should take into
account the general placement of signs so that all permanent
signs and their associated lighting fixtures complement the
appearance and architecture of the buildings and the PUD.
4. Ground signs should be designed to relate to and share common
design elements with the building.
5. The materials and colors of the sign, sign background and sign
frame should be compatible with the building's materials and
colors.
(k) Utilities. The applicant shall provide and construct on-site and off-
site water, sewer and other infrastructure improvements for the PUD
in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 152: Subdivision
Regulations and consistent with any agreements submitted as
supporting documentation for the PUD.
(4) Protect Phasing. If the PUD is to be implemented in phases, each phase
shall have adequate provision for access, parking, storm water
management, utilities, anal other public improvements to serve the
development in accordance with the applicable criteria set forth above.
Each phase shall be provided with temporary and/or permanent
transitional f eatures, b uffers, o r p rotective areas i n o rder t o p revent a ny
adverse impact on completed phases, future phases, and adjoining
property. Open space areas shall be reasonably proportioned in each
phase of the project, and the proposed construction of any recreation
facilities shall be clearly identified on a phasing plan.
(5) Common Facilities. Common facilities and park areas, regardless of
ownership, m ay b e r equired t o b e m aintained. Adequate a ccess s hall b e
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Inc.
Ordinance No. 75-03
Passed Page 8 20
provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health,
sanitation, and public utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous
or adjacent thereto. All streets and roadways not dedicated to the public
shall be operated and maintained at no expense to any governmental unit.
(C) Compliance with Existing Development Standards. Unless otherwise stated and
varied in the development standards text, the standards contained in the Dublin Zoning
Code that pertain to the specific uses or land development in the PUD shall be
applicable. Such standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Floodplain protection set forth in §153.111 Floodplain Regulations and
Chapter 151: Flood Control.
(2) Landscaping requirements set forth in ~~'153.130 through 153.139
Landscaping.
(3) Tree preservation, protection and replacement requirements set forth in
~'~153.140 through 153.148 Tree Preservation.
(4) Sign regulations set forth in ~~153.1 SO through 153.164 Signs.
(5) Off-street parking and loading requirements set forth in ~~153.200 through
153.212 Off-Street Parking and Loading.
(6) Subdivision requirements set forth in Chapter 152 Subdivision Regulations.
(7) Provisions of the Residential Appearance Code ~'~'153.190.
(8) Requirements for storm water management set forth in Chapter 53 Storm
Water Management.
(D) Unique Requirements and Guidelines for PUD. Requirements and guidelines that
are necessary to ensure that the proposed PUD complies with the intent of these Planned
Development District regulations shall be clearly delineated in the development
standards text submitted as part of the preliminary development plan. Elements of the
development standards text shall include:
(1) All requirements that are necessary to ensure the PUD is consistent with the
Community Plan and compatible with the surrounding development,
including, but not limited to:
(a) The list of permitted and conditional uses,
(b) The maximum density for each use area,
(c) Standards for the protection of natural features,
(d) The major vehicular, pedestrian and bike circulation system,
(e) Setbacks and buffer standards for the perimeter of the PUD district and
between subareas and differing land uses, and
(f) Any unique development standards or other standards that are
determined essential for the project.
(2) All other provisions that set forth the methods for complying with the
General Development Criteria set forth in x'153.052 (B).
§153.053 Procedures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide adequate review of
applications for Planned Developments.
(B) General Provisions. Review of applications for Planned Development Districts
shall be conducted in compliance with the following general provisions:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Inc.
Ordinance No.
75-03
Passed Page 9 Zp
(1) Review for Completeness. Each Planned Development application shall be
reviewed for completeness and compliance with the applicable submission
requirements, unless specific items are determined by staff to be
inapplicable or unnecessary. If the application is deemed insufficient, the
staff shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies. Only complete
applications shall be placed on the Planning and Zoning Commission
agenda. When the application is determined complete and all applicable fees
have been paid, the staff shall officially accept the application for
consideration. This shall include either a preliminary development plan as
set forth in ~153.053(D)(1) or a final development plan as set forth in
~153.053(E).
(2) Previously Approved Planned Development Districts. Planned
Development Districts, including development plans and development
standards text adopted prior to the effective date of these Planned
Development District regulations, shall continue in effect and be
considered legally conforming under this Code. However, the procedures
for the implementation of those developments must conform to the
regulations indicated in this Code.
(3) Subdivision Plat Approval. If the proposed development includes the
subdivision of land, the development shall be subject to the requirements of
the plat approval process in accordance with Chapter 152: Subdivision
Regulations, including any subsequent changes to subdivision plats.
Preliminary development plan approval and preliminary subdivision plat
approval may proceed simultaneously. Final development plan approval and
final plat approval shall proceed simultaneously, unless a final plat has
already been approved or is not required for completion of the project.
(C) Zoning Amendment Pre-Application Meeting with Concept Plan. The applicant
shall meet with the appropriate staff of the Development Department for review of a
concept p lan p rior t o s ubmitting a n a pplication f or a P lanned D evelopment D istrict
zoning amendment. The concept plan is intended to outline the basic scope, character
and nature of a proposed project. The review is to provide input in the formative
stages of design.
(1) The a pplicant s hall s ubmit a c oncept p lan f or r eview b y t he s taff. The
concept plan shall include the elements indicated in ~'153.054(A)
Submission Requirements.
(2) The staff shall forward complex projects, projects involving more than 25
acres, and projects that may not comply with the Community Plan to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and feedback.
(3) The applicant may request review and feedback from the Planning and
Zoning Commission and/or City Council prior to preparing a preliminary
development plan.
(4) No discussions, opinions, or suggestions provided on any aspect of the
concept plan shall bind the applicant, or the City, or be relied upon by the
applicant to indicate subsequent approval or disapproval by the City.
(D) Zoning Amendment Request. An application for a zoning amendment to the
Planned Development District shall be submitted according to ,153.234 Amendments. In
addition to the submission requirements for zoning amendments, the applicant shall also
submit a preliminary development plan and supporting documentation as required below.
(1) Preliminary Development Plan Review Procedures. The application,
including all submission requirements for preliminary development plans
set f orth i n ~' 153.054(B), s hall b e r eviewed a nd d istributed a ccording t o
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, lnc.
Ordinance No. 75-03
Passed Page 10 Zp
the following procedures. A preliminary subdivision plat may be
reviewed simultaneously provided all the required plat information is
submitted.
(a) Staff Review. After determining that an application is complete
according to ,~153.053(B)(1), the staff shall forward the application to
the appropriate City departments and, if determined necessary,
professional consultants for review and comment.
1. The application shall be reviewed for compliance with the
Community Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, other adopted plans or
studies and the requirements of this Code and other applicable
City Codes.
2. During t he course o f t heir r eview, t he s taff m ay meet w ith t he
applicant to review the application, and the applicant may revise
the preliminary development plan application in response to
staff s comments.
3. Within 90 days of the application being deemed complete or an
extended time agreed to by the applicant, the application shall be
placed on the agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The application and supporting
documentation, administrative staff comments, any other reports
prepared above and any accompanying documents (such as but not
limited to letters from residents or maps) shall be transmitted to the
Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the meeting.
(b) Review and Action by Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application to
determine if it complies with the approval criteria set forth in
~'153.055(A) Preliminary Development Plan. The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall take into consideration any submitted staff
reports, comments, and expert opinions when reviewing the
application.
1. Request for Additional Information/Revisions. In their review of
an application, the Planning and Zoning Commission may
request additional information they deem necessary to adequately
review and evaluate the proposed development, and/or may
request the applicant to revise elements of the application. When
this occurs, the Planning and Zoning Commission may table the
application.
2. Timeframe for Review of Tabled Case. Within 60 days, the
applicant will, upon written request to the Director of Planning be
entitled to a fixed hearing date. The case will be scheduled for
the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
but not less than 30 days following receipt of the written request.
3. Action by Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall recommend to City Council one of the
following:
A. That the preliminary development plan and its supporting
documentation be approved as submitted; or
B. That the preliminary development plan and its supporting
documentation be approved with specific conditions set forth
by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and agreed to by the
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No
Inc.
75-03
Passed _ _ Page ll , 20
applicant, to further protect and improve the proposed and
surrounding developments; or
C. That the preliminary development plan be disapproved.
4. Transmission to Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall transmit the zoning amendment application and the
preliminary development plan in the form. of an ordinance along
with all appropriate documentation, including their
recommendation to City Council, within thirty (30) days of
taking action, unless otherwise requested by the applicant.
(c) Review and Action by City Council. City Council shall review and act
on the proposed ordinance(s), including conducting a public hearing,
in accordance with City Council procedures and public notice
provisions set forth in X153.234 Amendments.
1. In reviewing the ordinance(s), the City Council shall consider the
approval criteria set forth in ~153.055(A) Preliminary
Development Plan.
2. Disapproval by City Council shall terminate the process. Another
zoning amendment application p ertaining to the 1 and included i n
the disapproved application shall not be accepted within one year
from the date of disapproval, unless there has been substantial
change to warrant reconsideration.
(2) Approval of the Planned Development District/Preliminary Development
Plan.
(a) Adoption o f the o rdinance s hall c onstitute a r ezoning o f t he p roperty
included in the preliminary development plan to a Planned
Development District, and the preliminary development plan and
associated commitments become binding on the applicant.
(b) The Official Zoning Map shall be amended to reflect the zoning change.
(c) In the event City Council approves the preliminary development plan
with modifications, t he a pplicant s hall incorporate s uch m odifications
into the appropriate documents and file the revised preliminary
development plan with the staff. No final development plan application
will be processed until the revised preliminary development plan is
submitted and approved.
(3) Significance of Approved Plan. Approval or approval with recommended
modifications of the preliminary development plan by the City Council shall:
(a) Establish the development framework for the project, including the
general location of open space, use areas, densities, unit types,
recreational facilities, and street alignments;
(b) Permit the applicant to proceed with detailed planning of the final
development plan; and
(c) Authorize the applicant to apply for all other required regulatory
approvals for the project or subsequent phases thereof.
(4) Expiration of Zoning Approval. Given the nature of the Planned
Development District process and the unique standards simultaneously
adopted, the Planned Development District designation shall remain valid for
three years from the date of City Council approval. During that time, the
applicant shall prepare and submit a final development plan for review in
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, lnc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 75-03 Passed Page 12 20
compliance with ~153.053(E) below. In the event progress on the PUD is
discontinued, the City may begin procedures to rezone the property to the
zoning district in place prior to the Planned Development District or to
another district as maybe determined appropriate.
(a) For the purpose of this section, progress shall be considered
discontinued when:
1. The final development plan for the PUD, or for the first phase of
the P UD, i s n of s ubmitted w ithin t hree years a fter a pproval b y
City Council of the preliminary development plan; or
2. The final development plan for the PUD, or for the latest phase of
the PUD, is approved, but construction authorized by such final
development plan is not begun within three years after approval
of the final development plan; or
3. A final development plan for the PUD is approved, and
construction work is discontinued for a period of four years or for
a longer period as may be agreed to as part of the PUD zoning
amendment.
(b) At any time, the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant an
extension to the above stated timeframes for good cause shown.
(E) Final Development Plans. An application for final development plan review shall
include the submission requirements set forth in ,~153.054(C) and shall be submitted for
review according to the following. An application for final development plan review
shall b e r equired f or e ach p hase o f d evelopment. T he a ppllcant s hall a lso s ubmit a
final subdivision plat for simultaneous review unless a final plat has already been
approved or is not required for completion of the project.
(1) Area Included in Final Development Plan. The area included in an
application for final development plan review shall be in substantial
compliance with the phasing plan approved as part of the preliminary
development plan.
(2) Review Procedures. The application, including any conditional use
application, shall be reviewed according to the following procedures:
(a) Staff Review. After determining that an application is complete
according to ~153.053(B)(1), staff shall forward the application to the
appropriate City departments and, if determined necessary,
professional consultants for review and comment.
1. The application shall be reviewed for compliance with the
approved preliminary development plan, the requirements of this
Code and other applicable City Codes.
2. During t he course o f t heir r eview, t he s taff m ay meet w ith t he
applicant to review the application, and the applicant may revise
the final development plan application in response to staff's
comments.
3. The application and supporting documents, staff comments, any
other reports and accompanying documents (such as, but not
limited to, letters from residents or maps) shall be transmitted to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
(b) Review by Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and
Zoning Commission shall review the application to determine if it
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Bi~~~.
Ordinance No. 75-03 Passed Page 13 Zp
complies with the approval criteria set forth in ~'153.055(B) Final
Development Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall take
into consideration any submitted staff reports when reviewing the
application.
1. Request for Additional Information/Revisions. In their review of
an application, the Planning and Zoning Commission may
request additional information they deem necessary to adequately
review and evaluate the proposed development, and/or may
request the applicant to revise elements of the application. When
this occurs, the Planning and Zoning Commission may table the
application.
2. Timeframe for Review of Tabled Case. Within 60 days, the
applicant will, upon written request to the Director of Planning be
entitled to a fixed hearing date. The case will be scheduled for
the next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
but not less than 30 days following receipt of the written request.
3. Conditional Use Review. If the application includes conditional
uses, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the
application according to the procedures set forth in x'153.236
Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use including the
requirement for a public hearing. During their review of a
conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission may
prescribe appropriate conditions, stipulations, safeguards and
limitations on the conditional use as they may deem necessary and
in conformance with the intent and purposes of §153.236
Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use.
4. Compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan. In reviewing
the application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
determine if the final development plan substantially complies with
all specific requirements, the purposes, intent and basic objectives
of the preliminary development plan, and any commitments made
or conditions agreed to with the adoption of the preliminary
development plan and if it represents an expansion and delineation
of the approved preliminary development plan.
A. The Planning and Zoning Commission may determine that the
proposed plan complies with the preliminary development plan
and may proceed to review the Final Development Plan in
accordance with the procedures of § 153.053.
B. The Planning and Zoning Commission may, in reviewing the
final development plan, approve a modification of a provision
of the development standards text if they determine that all of
the following provisions are satisfied:
i) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines that,
for this PD, the Code compliance is not needed in order to
ensure that the PD is consistent with the Community Plan
and compatible with existing, approved, or planned
adjacent development;
ii) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the
proposed modification does not significantly alter the
list of permitted or conditional uses, cause an
inappropriate increase in density or cause
inconsistencies with the Community Plan;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
Inc
75-03 Passed Page 14 20
iii) The proposed modification results in a development of
equivalent or higher quality than that which could be
achieved through strict application. of the requirement(s);
iv) The principles of ~153.052(B) General Development
Criteria are achieved; and
v) The development, as proposed on the final development
plan, will have no adverse impact upon the surrounding
properties or upon the health, safety or general welfare of
the community.
C. Any proposed modification to a Preliminary Development
Plan that fails to meet the above criteria shall require a zoning
amendment to the preliminary development plan according to
x'153.234 Amendments.
5. Compliance with Current City-Wide Standards. In the event
development standards or construction standards that apply City-
wide are updated, all subsequently approved final development
plans shall comply with the updated standards when the Planning
and Zoning Commission determines that such updated
standard(s) will not cause undue hardship.
(c) Action by Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning
Commission shall take one of the following actions:
1. Approve the final development plan as submitted; or
2. Approve the final development plan with modification(s) as agreed
to by the applicant; or
3. Disapprove the final development plan when the application does
not demonstrate that the required standards have been met.
Disapproval of the final development plan shall terminate the
process. The applicant may revise the final development to
respond to the Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and re-
submit the plan. Such action shall be considered a new application
for review and shall contain all the information required for final
development plans, including payment of the application fee.
(F) Zoning and Building Permits. Following the approval of the final development
plan, and recording of the final subdivision plat if applicable, the applicant may proceed
with the certificate of zoning compliance and building permit process, consistent with
approval as granted, including any conditions and modifications made by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
(1) After approval of the final development plan, the applicant shall obtain a
certificate of zoning compliance and building permit prior to construction.
(2) A certificate of zoning compliance and building permit shall not be issued
until the appropriate final plat has been recorded and the City has accepted
any applicable land areas that are to be dedicated to the City.
(3) All construction and development under any building permit shall be in
accordance with the approved final development plan, except as may be
permitted in ,~153.053(G) Modifications to Approved Final Development
Plans. Any unauthorized departure from such plan shall be cause for
revocation of the certificate of zoning compliance. All required
covenants, easements and restrictions shall be recorded prior to the
approval of any construction permit in a location where such covenants,
easements, or restrictions are intended to apply. The City may require a
copy of the recorded document prior to issuing any construction permit.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Inc.
Ordinance No. 75-03
Passed Page 15 20
(G) Modifications to Approved Final Development Plans. Requested modifications
to approved final development plans shall be reviewed according to the following:
(1) Administrative Approval. The Director of Planning, in administering the
approved final development plan, may authorize minor design modifications
that are required to correct any undetected errors or that are consistent with
the purpose of the approved final development plan.
(a) Such modifications shall not allow increases in intensity of development
or additions to the list of permitted or conditional uses.
(b) Such modifications shall be limited to:
1. Minor adjustments in lot lines provided no additional lots are
created;
2. Minor adjustments i n 1 ocation o f building footprints and parking
lots provided the perimeter setbacks, yards and buffers remain in
compliance;
3. Minor adjustments in building height(s);
4. Substitution of landscaping materials;
5. Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities;
6. Redesigning and/or relocating mounds;
7. Minor modifications to the design of signs, including the sign face,
and sign lighting, provided the color palette, maximum sign area
and maximum sign height, approved in the final development plan,
are not exceeded;
8. Minor changes in building material that are similar to and have the
same general appearance as the material approved on the final
development plan.
(c) The Director of Planning shall report any approved modification to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
(2) Board of Zoning Appeals Approval.
(a) Any request for a variation to the development standards text that
pertains to an individual single-family dwelling shall be reviewed as a
variance according to the procedures set forth in §153.237 Procedure
for Variance.
(b) Requests for establishing a model home within the Planned
Development District shall be reviewed according to the requirements
of §153.098.
(3) Planning and Zoning Commission Approval.
(a) Modifications other than those listed in (1) and (2) above shall be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. If they determine
the modifications are compatible with the surrounding development and
that they are not requirements that are necessary to ensure consistency
with the Preliminary Development Plan, the Planning and Zoning
Commission may approve such change.
(b) Any such changes shall be indicated on an amended final development
plan. An application for an amended final development plans shall
follow the review procedures for final development plan review set
forth in §153.053(E) Final Development Plans. If approved, such
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Inc.
Ordinance No. 75-03
p~SSed Page 16 , 20
amendments to the final development plan shall supersede the originally
approved final development plan.
§153.054 Submission Requirements
(A) Contents of Concept Plan Application. It is the intent of these regulations that
the concept plan shall generally indicate overall design of the proposed project.
Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the staff to
understand the existing site and concept for the proposed development. The applicant
shall submit a number of copies as determined by the Director of Planning. The
information submitted should include the following:
(1) Completed Application Form along with the application fee.
(2) Vicinity Map indicating the location of the site in the City and the general
location of principal thoroughfares.
(3) Regional Context Map. A map indicating the proposed site and all areas
within 2000 feet in all directions showing both the basics of the proposed
layout contained in the application and the property lines of the adjacent
areas on a drawing that is 11 inches by 17 inches.
(4) Map of Existing Conditions and features drawn to scale, with accurate
boundaries of the entire project and a north arrow, including the property
proposed for development, all adjacent rights-of--way and 100 feet of
property immediately adjacent thereto, indicating:
(a) Existing public improvements, permanent facilities, easements and
property boundaries;
(b) General indication of existing structures on the site and abutting
properties;
(c) Physical features and natural conditions of the site including the
location of streams, tree masses, open spaces, etc.;
(d) General topography;
(e) Existing zoning district boundaries and jurisdictional boundaries;
(f) Surface drainage and areas subject to flooding;
(g) Existing public and private utility systems;
(h) Regional transportation system.
(5) The C oncept P lan M ap, d raven t o sc ale w ith a ccurate boundaries o f t he
entire project and a north arrow, including the property proposed for
development, all adjacent rights-of--way and 100 feet of property
immediately adjacent thereto, indicating:
(a) Depiction of proposed land uses, including open space areas,
indicating the approximate acreage by land use, density and type of
buildings or dwelling units;
(b) The location of any lands to be dedicated to any public agency;
(c) The general circulation pattern;
(d) The relationship of the proposed project to the surrounding area.
(B) Contents of Preliminary Development Plan Application. The application shall
include the maps, plans, and supplementary documentation itemized below. The
applicant shall submit a number of copies as determined by the Director of Planning.
The information submitted should include the following:
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blunk,Inc
Ordinance No.
75-03
Passed Page 17 . 20
(1) Completed Application Form along with the application fee. The
application shall be signed and notarized.
(2) Vicinity Map showing the relationship of the proposed PD to existing
development and including existing property lines, easements, utilities, and
street rights-of--way of the subject property and property within 500 feet of
the site, zoning district boundaries, and existing land uses and structures.
(3) Regional C ontext M ap. A m ap o f t he p roposed s ite a nd a 11 a reas w ithin
2000 feet in all directions showing both the basics of the proposed layout
contained in the application and the property lines of the adjacent areas on a
drawing that is 11 inches by 17 inches.
(4) Legal Description.
(5) Map of Existing Conditions and features drawn to scale, with accurate
boundaries of the entire project and a north arrow, including:
(a) Boundaries of the area proposed for development, dimensions and
total acreage;
(b) Existing public rights-of--way, buildings, pernianent facilities, access
points and easements on, and adjacent to, the site;
(c) Identification of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or
demolished;
(d) Existing zoning district boundaries and jurisdictional boundaries;
(e) Existing utility systems and providers;
(f) The 1 ocation o f e xisting topography s howing c ontour 1 Ines a t v ertical
intervals of not more than 5 feet, highlighting ridges, rock outcroppings
and other significant t opographical features and identifying any areas
with slopes over 5 %;
(g) Locations of all wooded areas, tree lines, hedgerows, and a
description of significant existing vegetation by type of species,
health, and quality;
(h) Delineation of existing drainage patterns on the property;
(i) Location of wetlands (and potential wetlands) the 100-year floodplain,
floodway boundary, 20-foot buffer area beyond the floodway, and flood
elevation as delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
maps including rivers and streams and their related river or stream bank,
ponds, and water courses and as required by Chapter 151.
(6) The Preliminary Development Plan Map shall include a plan for the entire
area o f t he p roposed p roj ect a nd s hall b e d yawn t o a n a ppropriate scale
with accurate boundaries of the entire project including a north arrow. The
applicant shall submit a number of copies as determined by the Director of
Planning. The information submitted shall indicate:
(a) The proposed location, use and size of areas of residential, retail, office,
industrial or institutional uses, community facilities, parks, playgrounds,
school sites and other public areas and open spaces with the suggested
ownership and maintenance provisions of such areas, and their related
parking areas, and access points;
(b) The general layout of the proposed internal road system, indicating the
proposed vehicular right-of--way of all proposed public streets, general
indication of private streets and pedestrian circulation, bike paths and
other trail systems, access drive locations, improvements to existing
streets, and traffic control requirements;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank.lnc.
Ordinance No. 75-03 Passed Page 18 , Zp
(c) Any proposed off-site improvements and/or utility lines/extensions
needed to serve the site;
(d) Natural areas and other natural features to be conserved and any
required buffer areas;
(e) Natural features to be altered or impacted by the development and areas
where new landscaping will be installed, etc.;
(f) A summary table showing total acres of the proposed development; the
number of acres devoted to each type of use, including streets and
common areas; the number of dwelling units by type and density for
each residential use area and the building height(s); and square footage
as proposed for retail, office, industrial and institutional uses, by use
area; and the number of parking spaces provided for each use area;
(g) Space for signatures of the applicant and the Planning and Zoning
Commission Secretary, and the dates of Planning and Zoning
Commission and Council approvals.
(7) Preliminary Plat, if appropriate, designed in compliance with the Subdivision
Requirements set forth in Chapter 152: Subdivision Regulations. The
required subdivision information may be included on the preliminary
development plan.
(8) Architectural Drawings demonstrating the prototypical designs of the
proposed buildings, to demonstrate the exterior design, character and general
elements in sufficient detail to indicate the proposed visual character of the
development.
(9) Project Phasing Map. A phasing plan and schedule identifying the separate
phases of the project, including utilities and any off-site improvements.
Such schedule shall include the proposed use or reuse of existing features
such as topography, structures, streets, easements and natural areas.
(10) Proposed Utilities including the proposed provision of water, sanitary
sewer and surface drainage facilities, including engineering feasibility
studies or other evidence of reasonableness, including verification of
availability.
(11) Traffic Study indicating the impact of future traffic on the existing and
proposed roadway system, as required by the City Engineer.
(12) Explanation of Relationship of Proposed Development to existing and future
land use in the surrounding area, the street system, community facilities and
open space system, services and other. public improvements. If the proposal
is not fully consistent with Community Plan, the applicant shall submit a
letter justifying the proposed deviation from the Community Plan.
(13) Development Standards Text. The development standards text identifying
the requirements that are to govern the design and layout of the PUD.
(a) The development standards text shall include signature and date lines
for the applicant certifying the text.
(b) Dimensions and/or acreages illustrated on the development plan shall be
described in the development standards text.
(c) Any dimensions or other provision that departs from any applicable
standards set forth in the Dublin Zoning Code, especially addressing
signs, landscaping, appearance, and parking, shall be clearly described.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No
[nc
passed Page 19 Zp
75-03
(d) Adequate provision shall be made to establish a private organization
(i.e. Homeowners Association) with direct responsibility to provide for
the operation and maintenance of all common facilities that are part of
the Planned Development, and, in such instance legal assurances shall
be provided to show that the private organization is self-perpetuating.
(C) Contents of Final Development Plan Application. The application shall
include the maps, plans, designs and supplementary documents itemized below.
Copies of the maps, plans, designs and supplementary documents shall be submitted.
Final development plans are intended to be detailed refinements for development and,
as such, shall be accurate, detailed representations of the total aspects of the approved
preliminary development plan. The applicant shall submit a number of copies as
determined by the Director of Planning. The information submitted shall include the
following:
(1) Completed Application Form along with the application fee.
(2) Vicinity Map showing the relationship of the area of the final development
plan to the entire Planned Development District and including existing
structures, property lines, easements, utilities, and street rights-of--way of the
subject property and property within 500 feet of the site;
(3) Regional C ontext M ap. A m ap o f t he p roposed s ite a nd a 11 a reas w ithin
2000 feet in all directions showing both the basics of the proposed layout
contained in the application and the property lines of the adjacent areas on a
drawing that is 11 inches by 17 inches.
(4) Final Subdivision Plat. A Final Plat shall be submitted in accordance with
Chapter 152, if the proposed development includes the subdivision of land
and a final plat has not already been approved;
(5) Leal Description of the property, if a final plat is not submitted, with
accurate distances and bearings from an established monument on the
project to the three nearest established street lines or official monuments;
and stamped or sealed evidence from a surveyor registered in the State of
Ohio or engineer that the monuments actually exist and that all
dimensional and geodetic details are correct;
(6) Final Development Plan Map prepared by a qualified professional such as a
licensed architect, surveyor, engineer or landscape architect, and drawn to an
appropriate scale indicating the following items, to the extent that the
information is not already shown on the final subdivision plat or construction
drawings for a subdivision:
(a) A bar scale, north arrow, and total acreage of the area that is the
subject of the final development plan, and accurate location of all
monuments;
(b) Radii, arcs, points of tangency, central angles for all curvilinear street,
radii for all rounded corners, and length of all straight center line
between curves on all public and private street;
(c) The right-of--way lines of adjoining streets and alleys with their width
and names, and indicating the edge of pavement and centerline;
(d) All lot lines and easements with their dimensions;
(e) The dimensions and locations of proposed structures, buildings,
streets, parking areas, yards, playgrounds, school sites and other
public or private facilities; the proposed pedestrian and bike path
systems; the arrangement of internal and in-out traffic movement
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Inc
Ordinance No.
75-03 passed Page 20 Zp
including access roads and drives; lane and other pavement markings to
direct and control parking and circulation; and the location of signs
related to parking and traffic control;
(f) Location of existing and proposed structures including fences, walls,
signs, and lighting;
(g) Location and layout of all proposed and existing outdoor storage areas
including storage of waste materials and location of trash receptacles;
(h) Sanitary sewers, water and other utilities including fire hydrants, as
required, and proposed drainage and storm water management;
(i) Delineation and identification of areas to be dedicated or reserved for
public use, provided t hose a reas a re a cceptable t o t he C ity, with the
purposes i ndicated t hereon, a nd o f a ny area t o b e r eserved b y d eed
covenant for the common use of all property owners, listing who will
maintain the acreage of such areas, or indicating if it is to be
dedicated or reserved and the proposed timing of dedication or
reservation;
(j) Space for signatures of the owner, and applicant if different that the
owner, and the Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary, and the
date of Commission approval;
(k) Summary table showing total acres of the proposed development, the
number of acres devoted to each type of use including streets and open
space, and the number of proposed dwelling units by type, building
square footage, number of parking spaces, pavement coverage,
impervious surface area and acreage devoted to open space, private
streets, and other public facilities.
(7) Proposed Utilities. Verification of availability of all utilities, including
water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, cable, etc., and indication of all utility
line extensions;
(8) Additional Plans for Proposed Development.
(a) Topographic maps showing existing and proposed grading contours,
water courses, wetlands and flood plains and other flood hazard
boundaries and information;
(b) Landscaping and screening plans as required by §153.136(A);
(c) A tree preservation plan, tree survey and tree replacement plan required
by X153.143,153.144, and 153.146;
(d) Alighting plan, including, but not limited to, light pole heights and
locations, building accent lighting, pedestrian lighting, average foot-
candle calculations minimum foot-candles and maximum foot-candles.
(e) A dimensioned sign plan indicating the character, material, dimensions,
location, shape, color(s) and type of illumination of signs;
(f) Architectural plans for the proposed development, showing all exterior
elevations and building floor plans, colors, materials, and other details to
indicate the type of architectural style proposed for the development and
conformity with applicable appearance standards, prepared by a licensed
architect;
(g) Construction plans for all public improvements, site grading, and
required development practices specified by City Code.
(9) Ownership. The ownership interests of the subject property, including liens
and easements, and the nature of the developer's interest if not the owner.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank. inc.
Ordinance No. 75-03 Passed Page 21 Zp
(10) Covenants, Easements and Restrictions.
(a) The substance of covenants, grants of easements, or other restrictions
which will be imposed upon the use of the land, buildings, and
structures, including proposed easements or grants for public utilities;
and proper acknowledgment of owners and/or holders of mortgages
accepting such restrictions.
(b) For projects that include any area for common use of or to be
maintained by multiple property owners, the Association's bylaws or
Code of regulations, which shall include provisions that comply with the
following requirements:
1. Membership in the Association shall be mandatory for all
purchasers of lots in the development or units in a condominium;
2. The Association shall be responsible for maintenance, control, and
insurance of common areas;
3. The Association shall have the power to impose assessments on
members for the maintenance, control and i nsurance of common
facilities, and have the power to place liens against individual
properties for failure to pay assessments;
4. The Association shall have the authority to enforce reasonable rules
and regulations governing the use of, and payment of assessments
for maintenance, control and insurance of, common facilities by
such means as reasonable monetary fines, suspension of the right to
vote and the right t o use any common recreational facilities, the
right to suspend any services provided by the Association to any
owner, and the right to exercise self-help to cure violations;
5. The conditions and timing of transfer of control from the developer
to the unit or lot owners shall be specified;
6. The Association shall convey to the City and other appropriate
governmental b odies, a fter p roper n otice, t he r fight t o e ntrance t o
any common facilities for emergency purposes or in the event of
nonperformance of maintenance or improvements affecting the
public h ealth, s afety and w elfare. T he C ity s hall h ave t he r fight,
after proper notice, to .make improvements and perform
maintenance functions. In addition, the City shall have the right to
proceed against the Association for reimbursements of said costs,
including the right to file liens against individual condominium
units, houses and vacant building lots.
(c) The provisions and authority for any required Architectural Review that
may control any aspect of the project beyond the City Requirements.
(11) Modifications. A statement identifying any aspect of the Final Development
Plan in which the applicant is requesting a modification from the preliminary
development plan, pursuant to ~153.053(E) Approval of Final Development
Plans, subsection (4) Compliance with Preliminary Development Plan.
(12) Updated Existing Conditions. An updated/revised map of Existing
Conditions indicating all changes since the map w as submitted with the
preliminary development plan.
(13) Table of Contents. Table of contents or other index indicating where each of
the plan submission requirements is located within the application package
(page number of narrative or drawing).
§153.055 Plan Approval Criteria
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Inc
Ordinance No. 75-03
Passed Page 22 . Zp
(A) Preliminary Development Plan. In the review of proposed Planned
Developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall
determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the
following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that
the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of
these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and
applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code;
(2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions
thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing
street network;
(3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and
immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding areas;
(4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and
value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded;
(5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas
that meet the objectives of the Community Plan;
(6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural
features and protects the natural resources of the site;
(7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary
facilities have been or are being provided;
(8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public
streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate
pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development
provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for
motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians;
(9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other
facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development
within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of
Dublin as a quality community;
(10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks,
distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout
of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other
elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development
plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the City;
(11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so
as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses
and drainage areas;
(12)The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed
development justify any deviation from the standard development
regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision
Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of
the Planned Development District regulations;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
~~~.
Ordinance No. 75-03
Passed Page 23 20
(13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building
designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of
the City;
(14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and
proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various
phased to ultimately yield the intended overall development;
(15)The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or
planned p ublic i mprovements a nd n of i mpair t he e xisting p ubhc s ervice
system for the area;
(16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent
with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new
development;
(B) Final Development Plan. In the review of proposed Planned Developments,
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether or not the proposed
development, as depicted on the final development plan, complies with the following:
(1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary
development plan provided however, that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may authorize plans as specified in ~153.053(E)(4);
(2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular
circulation within the site and to adjacent property;
(3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces;
(4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of
the site in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in
this Code;
(5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of
the streets, walkways, driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily
spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties or the general vicinity;
(6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be
coordinated within the PUD and with adjacent development; are of an
appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building,
site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly
pedestrian and vehicular circulation;
(7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site;
maintain existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible
uses; break up large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide
appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate;
(8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site
which complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other
design criteria established by the City or any other governmental entity
which may have jurisdiction over such matters;
(9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so
planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of
each stage;
(10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other
local, state and federal laws and regulations;
§153.056 Definitions
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Inc.
Ordinance No.
75-03
passed Page 24 20
(A) Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall
apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
(B) Plan Definitions.
(1) CONCEPT PLAN. A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a
proposed PUD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant
and the City to discuss the concept for the proposed development and to
determine if the proposal is generally consistent with the Community Plan.
(2) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of
all site improvements, including easements, utilities, buildings, parking
areas, circulation routes, points of ingress and egress, transportation and
other public improvements (both on- and off-site), landscaping,
architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground
signage, directional signage, location of refuse containers, lighting and
accessory structures, and may include a subdivision plat. Critical
dimensions are shown unless otherwise indicated.
(3) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD). Any unified development project for
which a specific plan for development and related set of development
regulations has been adopted concurrent with the zoning designation for a
planned development. A planned development includes any project
approved in a Planned Low-Density Residential District, Planned
Commerce District, Planned Industrial Park District or Planned Unit
Development District prior to the adoption of this ordinance.
(4) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). A form of a Planned
Development that includes one or more uses permitted by right or as
conditional uses and which is established according to the requirements of
X153.052 Establishment of New PD Districts, or was approved as a PUD
prior to the adoption of these regulations.
(5) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan, submitted at the time
of rezoning, outlining permitted and conditional land use development
sites, major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open
space areas and linkages, buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and
their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of X153.050
through 153.056, a preliminary development plan shall include a
composite plan and any other development plan adopted prior to effective
date of these regulations that are still in force.
Section 2. That Section 153.234 be amended in Section (C) as follows.
§153.234 Amendments.
(A) Procedure for consideration of proposed change or amendment.
(1) Procedure. Upon receipt of an application from an owner or lessee of
land or a resolution by City Council, or the passage of a motion by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall review the proposed amendment and shall have not
less than 30 days in which to submit a recommendation to City
Council. The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission s hall be transmitted to City Council at which time City
Council shall set a date for a public hearing upon the proposed
amendment.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank. Lic
Ordinance No.
75-03
Passed Page 25 , 20
Section 3. That this ordinance shall take e ffect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this ~ day of 2004.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
L
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Planning Division
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Oh~io/Revised Code.
C~~:LQJ~z~ ~ .a~~r1111C~
eputy Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
CITY OF DUBLIN
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage~~a~w~-J`- (~~~ce.~>
Memo
DATE: April 14, 2004 /
INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gunderman, Assistant Plan~~~irector / ~~~
RE: Ordinance 75-03 Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Sections
153.050 through 153.058 -Planned District Regulations, and Section
153.234 -Procedure Regulations (Case No. 03-013ADM).
SUMMARY:
This ordinance is the recommendation of the Code Revision Task Force appointed
by the City Council in February 2003. This proposed ordinance is a rewrite of the
Planned Districts Section of the zoning ordinance, and replaces all current sections
of the Code. This ordinance was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission
in June of 2003 after a 1st reading. The ordinance was reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission during the summer and fall of 2003 and was recommended
with some adjustments to the City Council. Modifications include a large number
of word edits, minor reorganizations of the material, relatively few substantive
changes and no fundamental changes from the first reading.
~.. , The largest issue discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was the
potential appeal process for final development plans. As is the case in portions of
the current code, this draft has no specific provision for an appeal of the Planning
and Zoning Commission action; by default, the matter can only be appealed by
being taken into the court system as a Chapter 2506 Appeal.
As was also the case during the first reading, the ordinance also contains an
amendment to Section 153.234 that no longer requires a rezoning application to
have its first reading at Council prior to referral to the Planning and Zoning
Commission consideration. As revised, the new petitions will be automatically
referred and have both the first and second reading by Council after Planning and
Zoning Commission action. The second reading would continue to be a public
hearing on the petition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of Ordinance 75-03.
_crn ul~ ut~al,i
Division of Planning
SanO Shier-Rings Road
D~ Ohio 43016-1236
Phor~.:, :JD:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-161-6566
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Administrative Requests 03-013ADM -Code Amendment -Planned District
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create new planned
district regulations.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director.
MOTION: To approve this Code amendment because this ordinance for planned districts is a
City Council goal, and it will clarify planned district procedures and processes, and the revisions
will streamline and enhance the overall public review process.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This Code amendment was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a
positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
~srtt~~ooow+a~
~I~~ortoN ~ ~~
.crr~~ uH ut Ill.l~
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
D~ i, Ohio 43016-1236
Phc:, ~DD:614-410-4600
Fax: 614-761-6566 ='
Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003
1. Administrative Request -Code Amendment - 03-013ADM -Planned District
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create new planned
district regulations.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2003, City Council Resolution #01-03 authorized a review of specific sections in the
Zoning Code that included the Planned Development Districts. City Council also created a
Development Code Revision Task Force to assist in this effort. Members appointed were:
Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair; Tim Lecklider, Vice-Chair; John Reiner, Richard Gerber,
Richard Ritchie, Samuel Lillard, William Mullett, Mark Gialluca, Steve Capliner, and James
Houk.
The Development Code Revision Task Force met seven times from February 2003 through June
2003 and reviewed the Planned District portions of the Zoning Code. It recommended revisions
that would completely replace the existing regulations. The final report of the Task Force was
presented to City Council on June 23, 2003. Ordinance #75-03, containing those final
recommendations, was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a review and
recommendation.
Recent Changes
• The Commission met and reviewed the proposed ordinance on August 28, 2003 and
adopted it in principle. The Commission requested that the language referring to a
Category A and Category B structure be deleted. The Planning and Zoning Commission
will continue to make determinations as to the nature of any deviation from a planned
district.
• Several sections were changed to remove Category A and B. The following sections
contain the revised language:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -September 18, 2003
Page 2
A. - 153.052 (D)
(D) Unique Requirements and Guidelines for PUD. Requirements and
guidelines that are necessary to ensure that the proposed PUD complies
with the intent of these Planned Development District regulations shall be
clearly delineated in the development standards text submitted as part of the
preliminary development plan. Elements of the development standards text
shall include:
(1) All requirements that are necessary to ensure the PUD is consistent
with the Community Plan and compatible with the surrounding
development, including, but not limited to:
a. The list of permitted and conditional uses with delineation of
requirements and guidelines applicable to each;
b. The minimum and maximum density for each use area;
c. The major circulation system;
d. Setbacks and buffer standards for the perimeter of the PUD
district adjacent to planned, approved or existing residential
development; and
e. Such other standards as are determined essential for the
project.
(2) All other provisions that set forth the methods for complying with the
General Development Criteria set forth in §153.052 (B).
B. - 153.053 (E) (4)
(4) Compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan. In reviewing the
final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
determine if it substantially complies with all specific requirements,
the purposes, intent and basic objectives of the preliminary
development plan, and any commitments made or conditions agreed
to with the adoption of the preliminary development plan.
a. The Planning and Zoning Commission may determine that the
proposed plan complies with the preliminary development plan and
may proceed to review the Final Development Plan in accordance
with the procedures of §153.053.
b. The Planning and Zoning Commission may, on the final
development plan, modify a provision of the development
standards text when the Planning and Zoning Commission
determines that all of the following provisions are satisfied:
1. If the proposed modification is to a requirement of the
Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Code, the Planning
and Zoning Commission may determine that, for this
PD, the Code compliance is not needed in order to
ensure that the PD is consistent with the Community
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -September 18, 2003
Page 3
Plan and compatible with the existing, approved, or
planned adjacent development;
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine
that the proposed variation does not involve an
inappropriate change in the list of permitted or
conditional uses, an increase in density or a
modification to any other standard that was included
in the preliminary development plan to ensure that the
final development plan is consistent with the
Community Plan;
3. The proposed modification results in a development of
equivalent or higher quality than that which could be
achieved through strict application of the
requirement(s);
4. The principles of §153.052(6) General Development
Criteria are achieved; and
5. The development, as proposed on the final
development plan, will have no adverse impact upon
the surrounding properties or upon the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
c. Any proposed modification to a requirement in the Preliminary
Development Plan that is necessary to ensure the PD is
consistent with the Community Plan and compatible with the
surrounding development, as set forth in compliance with
§153.052(D) Unique Requirements and Guidelines for PUD,
shall require a zoning amendment to the preliminary
development plan according to §153.234 Amendments.
C. - 153.054 (B)
(13) Development Standards Text identifying the requirements that are to
govern the design and layout of the PUD as follows:
a. The development standards text shall include the signature of
the applicant certifying to the applicant's full understanding
and agreement to the terms of the text;
b. Dimensions illustrated on the development plan shall be
described in the development standards text; and
c. Dimensions or other provisions that are departing from any
applicable standards set forth in the Dublin Zoning Code,
especially addressing signs, landscaping, appearance, and
parking, shall be clearly described.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -September 18, 2003
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Task Force took action on the proposed Planned Development District regulations in June.
The staff has been technically reviewing the draft since that time and has made several minor
additions and clarifications, etc to the Code. Staff recommends approval of Sections 153.050-
153.056 and the revised Section 153.234.
Bases:
1) The development of a new ordinance for planned districts is a major goal adopted
by City Council.
2) The proposed Code will better define and clarify administrative procedures for
planned districts, as well as improve the ability of the general public to understand
the planned district process.
3) The proposed Code revisions will streamline and enhance the overall public review
process for planned districts.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -September 18, 2003
Page 2
material of the rest of the wall? She thought the Commission had agreed if it were not brick, that
it could match. She asked to have Mr. Harvey double check this for the record. With that
notation, Mr. Gerber moved for approval of the August 14, 2003 meeting minutes. Mr. Ritchie
seconded, and the vote was: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Sprague, abstain, Mr.
Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0-1.)
Mr. Gerber said the seven cases tonight would be heard in the published agenda order.
1. Administrative Request 03-013ADM -Code Amendment -Planned District
Mr. Gerber said this was discussed at length at the August 28, special meeting. The only new
direction given was to change the Category A and Category B language. Mr. Gunderman said
the draft ordinance is consistent with that language. Staff has made a few other corrections.
Ms. Boring referred to page 2, AD 1(b). She understood the maximum density, but she asked
why a minimum density is included. Mr. Gunderman said it does not seta "do" or "don't"
situation for a minimum density. If it is included in the text, it would require Council action to
amend it. In certain types of projects, there may be a certain density you want to achieve.
Ms. Boring was uncomfortable because the language begins with, "All requirements that are
necessary" and asked for further explanation. Mr. Gunderman said if these were things listed,
we know the need to go back to City Council for any future amendment.
Mr. Gerber made a motion for approval because this ordinance for planned districts is a City
Council goal, and it will clarify planned district procedures and processes, and the revisions will
streamline and enhance the overall public review process. Mr. Zimmerman seconded, and the
recorded vote was: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Boring, yes;
Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Gerber
thanked Mr. Gunderman, Mr. Ritchie, and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher for their work.
2. Area Rezoning 03-OSSZ -Muirfield Lots Area Rezoning
[Mr. Zimmerman recused himself due to a business relationship with Jack Beatley.] Anne
Wanner showed a location map for the area rezonings. She said this 14.33-acre area rezoning
involves land south of Glick Road, and west of Dublin Road in the middle of Muirfield Village.
These areas were annexed around 1973 but were not part of the Muirfield PUD. Three of the
four parcels contain houses. Staff proposes R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District for the
area north of Glick Road. R, Rural District is proposed for two other parcels.
Ms. Wanner had received inquiries regarding future development of the property located south of
Drake Road. Nothing is planned. She said staff recommends approval.
Mr. Gerber said Ms. Wanner had done a nice job of summarizing this. These are primarily
housekeeping efforts and do not affect most property rights. Mr. Ritchie made the motion to
approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, will
provide for effective development administration, will maintain the established development
pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan. Mr. Gerber seconded, and the vote was as
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
AUGUST 28, 2003
Division of Planning
Shier-Rings Road
ubii io 43016-1236
roe,;~e0: 614-410-4600
fax: 614-761-6566
+6 Site: www-duhlia.oh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Administrative Requests -Code Amendment - 03-013ADM -Planned District
Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to create new planned
district regulations.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017
Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director.
MOTION: To approve this Code amendment in concept, with the elimination of Category A and
B, because developing a new ordinance for planned districts is a City Council goal, and it will
better define and clarify planned districts administrative procedures, streamline the public review
process and make the regulations easier for everyone to understand.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: After much discussion, this concept was approved. The revised ordinance will be
scheduled for the next Commission administration meeting.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_ ~. ~~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 12
6. Administrative Request 03-013ADM -Code Amendment -Planned District
Mr. Gerber said he had promised that special meetings would end by 9 p.m., and because it was
8:45 p.m., he made a motion to table this case. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion, and the vote
was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes, Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr.
Saneholtz, no; and Mr. Messineo,yes. (Motion toTable approved 4-2, but the Commissioners
after discussion decided to continue the meeting.)
,, Gary Gunderman said the Development Code Taskforce met seven times to discuss the planned
district sections of the Code. The group included private sector representation. Mr.
Gunderman showed a map of the City showing that the majority of Dublin is zoned in a planned
district. The districts currently in use are the PLR, PUD, and PCD Districts.
Mr. Gunderman said in the current Code, each district uses different steps and procedures. Many
of the steps are similar, but no two districts use exactly the same process. This causes confusion
for the staff, applicants, Commission, and Council. He said the Code for the planned districts
sets up the procedures to establish and administer them, but the Code does not design anything.
Mr. Gunderman showed a slide of the various steps for preliminary and final plats, preliminary
development plans, final development plans, etc.
The Taskforce recommended keeping the zones used on the current zoning map and deleting the
unused zones. The Taskforce chose to rely on the "PUD" process as the model for administering
all planned districts. Even though four districts are kept, the same process, procedure, names,
and terms will be applied throughout the district. The proposed Code has sections that cover the
purpose and application, previously approved planned districts, how to establish new ones,
procedures to be used, submission requirements, plan approval criteria, and some definitions.
Mr. Gunderman said the proposed Code maintains all previously approved planned projects.
The approved plan and text for uses, density, layout, etc. will still be valid. The proposed Code
requires all projects, old and new to follow the same procedure. It includes only one procedure
and approval process, based on the current PUD language. The proposed Code combines the
plan review and plat review wherever possible. Simultaneous consideration of the (zoning) plan
and (preliminary) plat was not required because it might adversely affect very large projects.
Mr. Gunderman said one important change is that the final development plan and final plat
approvals will be completed before construction begins. That is not now true in all districts.
Some projects will be in the middle of the old process. Conditional uses will still be included in
a planned district. None of the districts have a minimum size. He listed several major topics:
Conc,~t Plan. The concept plan is proposed as a requirement for all districts. This is designed
as a staff function for less complex cases. The Commission will review more complicated cases,
and those that do not match the Community Plan.
Timeline for Processing Applications. Several Taskforce members felt that applicants are
entitled to a hearing/decision in a reasonable time. The timelines in the current Code are largely
ignored. Cases are held back generally by agreement of the applicant and staff as applicants fix
the known problems before a Commission hearing. This stays the same in the new Code.
However, if the applicant insists, a place on the Commission agenda is guaranteed within 90
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 13
days. The Commission may table a case, but once tabled, there is a mechanism to get back to the
Commission for a decision. The Taskforce did not favor automatic approvals or automatic
disapprovals for not meeting a timeline. After tabling for 60 days, an applicant can petition for
scheduling. If so, the guarantee is to put it back on the agenda after an additiona130 days.
Creation of Categories A and B (for zonin tg exts). Mr. Gunderman said this issue is how to
determine major and minor text changes. The Taskforce decided to make the choices for new
projects at the time of zoning about what is major vs. minor. The most critical zoning text issues
go into Category A, and changing these would require the full rezoning process. These would
include land use, density and other important characteristics of the project, those factors that
could not be changed in a straight-zoned case without a rehearing. The wording of the Code
notes the factors that are absolutely critical go into Category A at the rezoning stage. He said
everything else falls in Category B, and Category B items could be changed at a final
development plan, as determined by the Commission. This has some of the same points of the
approved recently "minor plan modification", which will continue to apply to older projects.
Mr. Ritchie said Categories A and B were one way to approach the issue of minor revisions, and
the minor plan modification was another. Mr. Gunderman said Category A is for new projects.
It keeps the less important characteristics separate from essential ones.
Language for Minor Changes After Planning Commission Action. Mr. Gunderman said this is
an administrative detail not included in the existing Code. He said when building plans are
submitted, there are always a few things that are different. They include materials being
unavailable, an unanticipated utility easement, minor shifting of the building, etc. In most cases,
they are not worth taking back to the Commission for a revised plan, and the Planning Director
signs off on them. The Taskforce included signage, the replacement of a sign face, in this
category. The Taskforce does not believe that should warrant Commission approval.
Mr. Saneholtz said the sign could not change shape, but could it change colors. Mr. Gunderman
agreed, but said the color combination must still match the text. As members of the Taskforce,
'" Mr. Ritchie did not remember a lot of conversation on signage, and Mr. Gerber said that seemed
to be the consensus of the Taskforce.
Mr. Gunderman did not know what the "worst case" would be. Mr. Ritchie confirmed that a sign
permit would be required, and that the new sign must meet Code and the text. If this measure
does not work, it can be revised later. Mr. Gunderman agreed with both statements.
Default Language. Mr. Gunderman said this is not clearly detailed in the existing code. There is
a default to the regular zoning code provision, unless they specifically noted in the text. This
permits them to be changed as well.
Appeal Process. Mr. Gunderman said this was the Taskforce's toughest issue. As drafted, when
the Commission takes action on the final development plan, it is final-with no appeal to
Council. Cases such as preliminary plats and rezonings will go to Council for a decision, as
usual. For final development plans, the appeal would be through the courts. The Taskforce did
not reach full agreement, but the majority rejected an appeal mechanism to Council.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 14
Mr. Gerber did not recollect it this way. He believes the City will continue to get the very best
product from the applicant by following the system for final development plans existing now,
which means going to court. He noted that Council will ultimately decide what should be in the
Code, but in its many years of doing business, there have only been a few lawsuits. Developers
will be more cooperative at the front end, if there is really only one approval process.
Mr. Banchefsky noted the few cases that are filed are generally settled before they go to court.
He said Council is always fully informed about such cases and decides on negotiations.
Mr. Zimmerman said he thought it was a better product without an appeal to Council. He said if
he were a developer, he would appeal to Council. The Commission becomes a waste of time.
Mr. Banchefsky said this is a Council decision. Mr. Gerber agreed and said this was a great
taskforce, always trying to balance consistency, the needs of the City, and the applicants.
Change in Standards. The Taskforce was concerned about a project taking so long that some of
the City's basic standards might have changed. These could include architectural appearance,
stormwater requirements, tree preservation, etc. The question is whether the current standards or
those in place when the project was first approved should apply. The Taskforce agreed the City
should try to get the new standard implemented. However, fairness requires this to be
determined case by case. It may be difficult for a developer to switch to the new standard in the
middle of the project. The proposed Code suggests using the new standard if it is not an undue
hardship. Each case will require legal review. He said it was largely a health and safety issue.
Mr. Gerber said the Taskforce did not define "undue hardship", but it was discussed. Mr.
Banchefsky said "undue hardship" and vesting of rights need to be considered.
Mr. Gerber said requiring a wider bikepath is not big deal until it eliminates some lots.
Expiration Issues. Mr. Gunderman said if an approved project goes cold, the land might revert
automatically to its previous zoning after some period. The Taskforce decided against automatic
reversion. This should involve discretion, and the proposed Code language is that the City "may
rezone" after some period. City Council, of course, has that power already, but this puts the
developer on notice regarding expected timeframes. It is open-ended for the City. The
timeframes were different for different situations, and they can be extended for cause.
Ms. Boring had been concerned about this, and she appreciated the Taskforce looking at it. She
asked why there was so much leeway between the preliminary and final development plans. Mr.
Gunderman responded that the private sector members made a good case about obtaining
financing, getting the plan in place, and business cycles. They thought this was reasonable.
Ms. Boring did not see how this was tied to financing, and she would like it changed. Mr.
Gerber encouraged her to do it now. Ms. Boring said there ought to be the expectation to wrap
things after some period. This has too much leeway between preliminary and final reviews.
Mr. Gerber said it was written that the City may rezone if the construction does not begin within
three years of approving the preliminary, or if the work stops for some reason.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 15
Ms. Boring read from the proposed Code. She thought final development plans should come in
shortly after the preliminary.
Mr. Gunderman said the PUD now requires filing the final development plan within 280 days of
getting the preliminary approval; other districts have other limits. Mr. Gerber said the Taskforce
wanted a uniform timeframe. It was the commercial developers who requested more time.
Mr. Messineo appreciated the need to have adequate time to line up financing, etc., but three
years following preliminary approval seemed excessive.
~~. Ms. Boring said the first thing the Commission reviews on a development plan is whether it
matches the preliminary. Three years is too long to leave things hanging. With the turnover of
people involved, the timeframe should be shorter.
Mr. Banchefsky remembered the discussion and it was needed for commercial developers.
Mr. Gerber said getting from the preliminary to the final plan may take study, money, and
marketing. This gives a little flexibility. Mr. Gerber said there were three different timelines:
the lapse between preliminary and final development plans, the construction, or nothing happens.
Mr. Messineo noted that a partially constructed project could stop for years, and that would be
bad. Mr. Zimmerman said there could be 20-year projects.
Ms. Boring said perhaps a different timeframe for different zones made sense. Mr. Gerber asked
for other suggestions. Ms. Boring liked the 280-day limit in the Code. While she believed the
Taskforce had covered all of the issues related to this. She would like the expiration issue for
each district referred back to the Taskforce for consideration.
Mr. Saneholtz said using three years appears to give the builders and developers more power.
Ms. Clarke recalled that there was some discussion of the length of national economic cycles.
Ms. Boring said when things get stretched out, it also puts the City at a disadvantage. She was
concerned about things changing over time.
Mr. Messineo read from the Taskforce minutes of May 21, page 5: Mr. Houk said in the case
where developers are moving along, the project should not have the rules change in the middle.
If a developer is filing a development plan for a phase every three years, he should be safe.
Mr. Ritchie read from the June 11 minutes on Page 4: Consensus of the members was to use a
timeline of four years for a discontinued project.
Mr. Gerber said he had suggested allowing three years for residential development and five years
for commercial. After discussion, four years was the compromise.
There was general agreement on the timelines for commercial. Ms. Boring felt residential should
be shorter, specifically it seemed too long between the preliminary and final plans. Mr. Messineo
said continuity might be lost on the Commission also.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 16
Ms. Boring used the example of a traditional subdivision. After several years, the municipality
might have decided to pursue ruralism. We may not like the final situation. This seems too long
for residential projects.
Mr. Gerber recalled the staff was satisfied with athree-year period. Mr. Messineo added that an
extension could be requested. Mr. Gunderman agreed.
Ms. Clarke noted the timeframe for the Cardinal Health South Campus was unknown at the time
of zoning, and is still unknown. If Dublin's future municipal building were taken through the
rezoning process, the building would not be built any faster. That site was purchased two years
~.. age, and the building is not targeted unti12008. She did not know if a shorter time for residential
was advisable. If the construction lags a bit, that should not be a problem. No one undertakes a
final development plan unless construction is assured. It is too expensive.
Mr. Gerber said delays can also happen in residential properties.
Ms. Boring suggested that it remain as proposed, and then it will be monitored.
Role of the BZA. Mr. Gunderson said most appeals will come to the Commission. Issues that
occur to a single residence will go to BZA. There is a relatively consistent track in the straight
zoning districts to the BZA. Potezltially, an individual homeowner could request a reduction in
setback, even though it is written in the Planned District text. The BZA can hear these cases.
Model homes, regardless of the district, must go to the BZA.
Elimination of Council introduction. Mr. Gunderman said the elimination of the City Council
first reading is not in the planned district section of the Code. He said Section 153.234 will be
changed to eliminate the City Council first reading of a rezoning ordinance prior to the Planning
Commission consideration. He said the first reading is not a meaningful review, being too early
in the process. Most projects, especially the planned district proposals, change a lot between first
introduction and final product. Some are not recognizable at the end. On occasion, the first
reading fouls up the timing for getting items on the Commission agenda.
%` Items such as final and preliminary plats do not go the City Council for introduction, and this
will make the processes more consistent. One Taskforce member wanted the community to have
the early notice that is afforded by publishing the ordinance titles for the first readings of
rezoning cases. No notices are sent for the first readings. Since a notice in the newspaper seems
to be valuable, the staff suggested publishing a notice about all new applications received each
month. This is now published under the heading of "It's Developing in Dublin" in one of the
local papers.
Mr. Zimmerman said the green signs placed at sites for a pending hearing are valuable.
Ms. Boring thanked the Commissioner members on the Taskforce for spending their time on this.
Mr. Gunderman said staff had been fine-tuning the Code language. He said he would like to
bring it back to the Commission if they are in agreement on the general content.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 17
Discussion of cate ogLries• The Commissioners agreed they wanted to approve the ordinance so
far. Mr. Gerber asked if they all liked the Category A and B section. Mr. Ritchie said it also
incorporates the Minor Plan Modification that was recently adopted.
Ms. Clarke said she expected developers will want to put as little information in Category A, the
unchangeable elements, as possible, and the Commission will want as much as possible there.
She expected long discussions on this for most cases. Over time, the Commission will probably
win this point, and Category B will have nothing listed in it.
Mr. Gerber said he thought it took more staff time. Mr. Gunderman said it should not require
extra staff time, but he agreed that the tendency over time would be to put more items in
Category A.
Ms. Clarke said she had no problem with the Commission making the call about any potential
changes at the final development plan. If there is no Category A or B, then the fmal development
plan has to be consistent with the intent and commitments of the preliminary development plan.
Mr. Gunderman said Category A and B would apply to new projects. In that sense, the language
is already in there to deal with old projects. Ms. Clarke said the adopted minor modification plan
would be in the Code under Definitions.
Mr. Gerber did not see the utility in creating Categories A and B.
Mr. Gunderman said the Commission will decide what goes into Category A or B. Mr. Gerber
said staff will make its own recommendations prior to that, just as it does now. There was
additional discussion on this procedure versus the current process.
Ms. Boring said everything should start in Category A, and the Commission can remove items it
deems appropriate after an applicant makes a request. There was more discussion on this.
Ms. Clarke said now, there are multiple districts and multiple ways to deal with this. Everything
in a PCD is Category A and requires Council action for any change. PUDs have flexibility, and
the Commission can approve variations at the final development plan.
Ms. Clarke said the Commissioner always tries to assure that an applicant will actually deliver on
the promises and pretty pictures from the rezoning at some future point. One never knows what
things will bubble up in the future for modification-a material is no longer available, or that
attached garages are needed rather than a parking lot, or the building needs an underground
garage, telecommunications, or added security, etc. She believes the Commission will be very,
very cautious. Placing items in Category A puts the developer in the position of having to ask
formally, through the Commission and Council, for changes. This makes changes less likely.
The rezoning is the promise phase, and the Commission will try to make it binding.
Mr. Messineo said he did not understand how the things get in Category A and. B. Mr.
Banchefsky asked if there was not an economic factor, should things be somewhat flexible. Ms.
Boring said she was uncomfortable with this.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 18
Mr. Gerber requested the Taskforce slide with examples of Category A and B, but it was not
available.
Mr. Gunderman said the fundamental things should be in Category A, such as land use and
density. He did not think anyone would expect to change those arbitrarily at the final
development plan stage. They are expected to go back to Council for rezoning. He said staff
would never recommend those types of things for Category B. Everything else is category B.
Mr. Gerber asked about signage. Ms. Clarke said signage is a maybe. In the case of the
Perimeter Center retail site, it was an essential factor in the coordinated architectural package for
that site. In other cases, the signage would not be a critical issue. She explained the zoning
history for Perimeter Center and how it had initially been zoned for an upscale enclosed mall.
Mr. Gerber recalled that when the Bob Summeral Tires requested more signage, it had to use the
rezoning process. signage was a Category A issue there. He asked, if this Code provision does
not work, how long it would take to change it. Ms. Clarke said Code changes generally are very,
very slow. Mr. Gerber said one case might not be enough to warrant a change.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if Category B items need to be specified. Mr. Gunderman said generally
yes, but if an item were not listed in Category A, one would default to B in administering it. Mr.
Saneholtz suggested approaching it from the other direction. He thought the text should contain
all Category B items for flexibility later. They would draw attention, be discussed and then be
moved up to A if there is agreement. Mr. Gerber agreed.
Ms. Clarke said the current PCD uses something similar to putting everything in Category A.
All text or modifications require the full rezoning process, and that part of the process was
widely acknowledged as "not working." Ms. Boring believed that the recent minor plan
modification makes Category A and B unnecessary.
Mr. Gerber asked if Category B was just an expansion of the definition for minor modifications.
Mr. Banchefsky agreed.
Ms. Boring said if they rely on the minor modification, the Commission does not waste time on
every text discussing Categories A and B. The goal was to simplify the Code.
Mr. Gerber said the categories seem to create more work for developers, staff, the Commission,
and Council.
Mr. Messineo said the minor plan modification is something that the applicant actually applies
for and identifies as a modification. Mr. Gunderman responded that the final development plan
is actually submitted, having characteristics different than the original. Ms. Clarke said it is not
a separate application, although it could be, and anyone reading the text can see the discrepancy.
It would also be noted in the staff report.
Mr. Messineo understood the Commission was to vote on whether something constituted a minor
plan modification or not. Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Messineo did not see how the Commission
would vote on something that was not identified.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes -August 28, 2003
Page 19
Ms. Clarke said a final development plan is filed, that does not totally conform to the text, the
staff would inform the developer to go back through the system because the issue is not a minor
plan modification. The developer may want to ask the Commission directly about whether the
discrepancy is "minor." With use, she believes the lines of demarcation will become clearer.
Mr. Gunderman agreed there is more work at the beginning, but it will ease the consideration of
final development plans and making that later judgment call. Ms. Boring said it causes more
work for every application, even those where no later judgment call will be needed. She
preferred using the minor plan modification without any categories.
~, Mr. Gerber said reading over the minor modification definition, a lot of items in Category B
would fall under that definition. He said the Taskforce did not thoroughly talk about the
categories. Mr. Ritchie said the Taskforce talked about it conceptually, but not with specifics.
Ms. Boring and Mr. Messineo felt the category method would bog down the system. Mr. Gerber
did not think signage would be placed in Category B. There was general dissatisfaction with
how Categories A and B would operate. There was consensus to rely on the minor plan
modification, omit the categories from the draft, and monitor the situation over time.
Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this code amendment in concept, with the elimination of
Category A and B, because developing a new ordinance for planned districts is a City Council
goal, and it will better define and clarify planned districts administrative procedures, streamline
the public review process and make the regulations easier for everyone to understand. He noted
the final product will be scheduled for the next administration meeting. Ms. Boring seconded the
motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Zimmerman,
yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved in concept 6-0.)
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Res ectfully submitted,
,~ ~ j~,~ ,
`Libby ley ~ /
Administrative Assistant
Planning Division
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 19
4. Administrative Requests -Code Amendment - 03-013ADM -Planned District
Request: Review and recommendation of Code amendment to create new planned
district regulations.
Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald
Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.
Staff Contact: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Director.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2003, City Council Resolution #01-03 authorized a review of specific sections in the
Zoning Code that included the Planned Development Districts. As part of these efforts to revised
the Code, City Council also authorized the creation of a Development Code Revision Task
Force. Members appointed were: Marilee Chinnici-Zuercher, Chair; Tim Lecklider, Vice-Chair;
John Reiner, City Council representative; Richard Gerber and Richard Ritchie, Planning and
Zoning Commission representatives; Samuel Lillard and William Mullett, members at-large;
Mark Gialluca, commercial development; Steve Capliner, residential development; and James
Houk, Chamber of Commerce.
The Development Code Revision Task Force met every three weeks from February 2003 through
June 2003. The Task Force reviewed the Planned District portions of the Zoning Code and
recommended revisions that would completely replace the existing regulations. The final report
of the Task Force was presented to City Council on June 23, 2003. Ordinance #75-03,
containing those final recommendations, was then forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for a review and recommendation.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Current City Code for Planned Districts:
The current Code includes eight planned districts. Each district has its own procedures
and submission requirements. These sections are:
153.051: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District
153.052: PHR, Planned High Density Residential District (not used)
153.053: PSC, Planned Shopping Center District (not used)
153.054: PHS, Planned Highway Service District (not used)
153.055: PIP, Planned Industrial Park District
153.056: PUD, Planned Unit Development District
153.057: POLR, Planned Office, Laboratory and Research District (not used)
153.058: PCD, Planned Commerce District
• The existing Code has varying procedures for each district, making administration and an
understanding of the development process quite difficult. The Task Force recommended
that review procedures for planned districts should be uniform, determining that this
substantial change should apply to current projects, as well as for any projects approved
in the future. The Task Force also recommended the elimination of four districts that are
not utilized.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 20
The proposed Code describes the overall intent and sets procedures and submission
requirements for new and existing projects. The proposed Code is organized as follows:
153.050: Purpose and Application
153.051: Status of Previously Approved PD Districts
153.052: Establishment of New PD Districts
153.053: Procedures
153.054: Submission Requirements
153.055: Plan Approval Criteria
153.056: Definitions
Titles for each section of the proposed Code more clearly state the purpose of each
section. Major changes within the proposed Code address procedures, submission
requirements, and the approval criteria for proposed plans.
How the Proposed Code Works:
The revised procedures do not differ significantly from the city's current review process
for PUD cases. Basic steps for the proposed Code are essentially the same and include
the following:
1) Concept Plan submission;
2) Rezoning submission, including a Preliminary Development Plan and Zoning Text;
3) Preliminary Plat submission if the proposed project is a subdivision and not part of a
Preliminary Development Plan; and
4) Final Development Plan and Final Plat submission.
The submission of a preliminary development plan, text, final development plan, and
plats follow the current PUD process. The previous procedures for properties zoned PCD
and PLR have been eliminated from the Code, and they will follow the former "PUD
process" for all practical purposes. To accommodate PLR projects currently in the
construction phase, a partial transition phase is utilized. All PCD, PIP, PLR and old PUD
projects will retain its approved uses, standards, and adopted plans and layouts, but will
follow the review procedures outlined in the revised Code as one process.
While the overall process is similar to a PUD, several items have been added and
amended in the revised code. Some of these additions are clarifications of procedures
that had been used in the past, while others are substantial changes. In general, the new
Code is more explicit and detailed.
Terms used for Planned Districts:
The term Planned Development District, or PD, is used to apply to all Planned Districts:
PCD, PLR, PIP and PUD. It includes projects which previously had been individually
zoned as well as any future projects. The term PUD is required for any new Planned
District that is approved after the adoption of these rules. The designation of PCD, PLR
and PIP will continue to be used on the city zoning map for those existing ones. All
new Planned Districts will be identified as PUD on the map and in the Code.
Concept Plans:
• One area where some changes have been adopted calls for consideration of a concept
plan review. Currently several planned districts have no provision for a concept review
while, under the proposed ordinance, a concept plan must be submitted for every case for
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 21
staff review. Concept Plans will not necessarily require a review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission or City Council. See Section 153.053 (C).
Staff will provide feedback to the applicant regarding the fundamental proposal, and
advise the applicant as to the submission requirements and procedures that will be
necessary for that project. For larger projects or ones that do not conform to the City
Community Plan, the concept plan will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The Commission can provide feedback that is nonbinding. Applicants
may, at their discretion, continue the informal review at the City Council level.
The Task Force believes that this procedure will permit simple projects to move to the
rezoning/preliminary plan/text stage of the process more quickly than has been possible
for some projects in the past. The concept plan review is intended to provide more
complex projects with useful direction prior to undertaking expensive design work.
Timelines:
Each current planned district has had its own timelines. However, timelines have not
been a critical component in the review of projects since the review and response
processes often have exceeded prescribed timelines by mutual consent. This fundamental
ability of the city and applicant to stretch out timelines will remain.
• Under the proposed code, new cases must be placed on a Planning and Zoning
Commission agenda within 90 days after submission of the application unless otherwise
agreed by the applicant. See Section 153.053 (D) (1) 4.
• Once on the agenda, the Planning and Zoning Commission may table such items. The
applicant may petition to have the item placed back on the Planning and Zoning
Commission agenda after it has been tabled for 60 days. This could result in items re-
appearing on the Commission agenda 60-90 days after being tabled by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. See Section 153.053 (D) (2) b. None of the new language provides
any automatic action on the application; there are no automatic approvals or denials. The
process assumes that reviews will not be postponed indefinitely without the agreement of
the applicant.
Minor Modifications to Projects:
The proposed code clarifies and simplifies the process for minor revisions within planned
districts. Lack of flexibility at the development plan stage was an issue articulated to be
addressed in the proposed code. See Section 153.053 (E)(4). The proposed code
language is similar to revisions that have been referred to in the recent past as "Minor
Plan Modifications." In the past, these required City Council approval, whether very
minor or an issue of substance.
The Initial text for new projects is organized in two categories under the proposed Code.
Category A, is a shorter, broadly-based set of requirements defining fundamental uses of
the project, overall density for the project and the most basic design guidelines at critical
locations. Category B reflects most of the detail currently contained in the typical text.
The Planning and Zoning Commission would have the discretion to approve development
plans that are not consistent with the text as described in Category B, provided the
proposals are considered as good as or better than initially defined. This gives the
Planning and Zoning Commission the discretion to force compliance with the exact
language of the text to permit deviations. If granted the refinements would require no
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 22
additional review by the City Council. In Category A, changes require a full rezoning
review and the adoption of a new ordinance.
Minor Modifications (between Final Plan and Permit Stage of Project):
Another topic incorporated into this ordinance is very minor modifications to the final
development plan. This issue typically arises when building permits are being requested.
Staff must judge whether the building plans correctly reflect the final development plans
as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As a practical matter, staff has
always approved certain minor adjustments to the development plans although no
provision covers it in the existing Code. The proposed code contains a section to address
this. See Section 153.053 (G)(1). The Task Force also included language in this section
that clarifies the ability of property owners to change sign faces without additional review
by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposed sign changes need to be
consistent with the original sign approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Default Language:
Unless specifically excepted by the adopted rezoning text language, appropriate sections
of the existing Dublin zoning code will continue to apply. This section is intended to
clarify how projects will be administered when questions arise on topics not specifically
addressed in the text. See Section 153.052 (C). Sections that would otherwise so apply
include: landscaping, residential architectural appearance, parking, floodplain and other
environmental regulations, subdivision regulations, and signs.
Appeals:
The appeal process was recommended by a simple Task Force majority and is included in
the current draft. It did not receive the general consensus of the Task Force. As drafted,
there is no appeal procedure through City Council, for example. A denial would be
appealed through the court system. This follows the process used for the Planned Unit
Development District. In the proposed draft the only appeal of a final development plan
decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission is through the courts.
• One well-discussed alternative was to permit some type of appeal process to the City
Council. The fundamental debate was the potential for consistent and more numerous
appeals of Commission decisions.
Another point of view was that any issue of potential litigation should be reviewed by the
City Council prior to litigation commencing. In fact, to there have been few appeals to
the courts over final development plans. Thus, it was concluded that change may not be
necessary.
Most highly controversial issues eventually have been worked out between the city and
applicants. When appeals to the courts have taken place, the city and the applicant have
generally reached an accommodation prior to any court action. Optional language
regarding potential appeals to City Council was considered, including permitting City
Council to reject potential appeals, or requiring a certain period of delay before an appeal
could be filed. Opinions varied widely on the Task Force and no consensus could be
reached. Both the Planning Commission and City Council will need to make a
determination on this matter.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 23
Change in Standards:
A topic which has been of occasional concern is projects that develop over a long period
of time. Sometimes these replicate old development practices that have changed since
the project was originally approved. In some circumstances the Task Force felt it would
be appropriate to require the later phase of a project to comply with up to date standards.
A substantial number of potential issues of this type may be explicitly included in the
Preliminary Development Plan, the text and are therefore part of zoning ordinance for
this project. These same issues may have been relied on by the applicants and could have
economic consequences that would make them unfair or worse. The Task Force felt that
language should attempt to address the issues on a case by case basis. See Section
153.053 (E) (S).
The language contained is this section uses the phrase "undue hardship."
Expiration Issues:
Some projects become inactive, but there is not any termination to Planned Development
District approval. See Section 153.053 (D)(6). In order to deal with this possibility, the
Task Force reviewed the possibility of an expiration date for projects that do not develop
after a specified period of time. It was quickly agreed that an automatic rezoning would
not be suitable, even if it were legally possible. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance
states that any project not developed in accordance with the time-lines set may be
rezoned by the city to an appropriate classification. The city would take no action where
it finds that continued approval of the Planned District is useful.
The proposed Code deals with three situations that could permit the city to consider the
rezoning of the property. This could happen if the final development plan is not
submitted within three years from the date of approval of the preliminary development
plan. Also, if construction is not begun within three years of approval or if work is
discontinued for a period of four years a rezoning could be undertaken. Any of these
time lines could be addressed by the text for the project if the applicant that anticipated a
very long time line would be needed for the project.
Role of the BZA:
One topic that has created confusion from time to time has been the role of the Board of
Zoning Appeals in Planned Development Districts. To clarify this function, the proposed
code contains a section defining two roles for the Board. See Section 153.053 (G)(2).
The first and most important role is limited to standards on single family lots for home
owners. The Board of Zoning Appeals will have the ability to deal with any request for a
variance for individual lots. This power permits the Board to review the applications and
grant deviations based upon the approved plans and or text.
The second role for the BZA is related to the development of model homes. The
placement and development of model homes has been handled by the Board of Zoning
Appeals as a special permits. This section would keep the current system in place as it
relates to model homes.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report -August 28, 2003
Page 24
Elimination of City Council 1St readings prior to Planning and Zoning Commission:
• The Task Force has made one additional recommendation that is outside of the Planned
Development District regulation. It deals with the rezoning application process and
Section 153.234. All future rezoning matters will be taken directly to the Planning and
Zoning Commission after the application has been filed. Currently once a rezoning is
filed, it goes to City Council for a first reading and referral to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The Council was legally compelled to refer all application, it could take no
other action. This step seems unnecessary since some applicants change dramatically
after this first reading, and others are withdrawn. The first and second (public hearing)
readings at City Council are proposed to follow the Planning Commission action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Task Force took action on the proposed Planned Development District regulations in June.
The staff has been technically reviewing the draft since that time and has made several
clarifications, etc to the code to the code. None are intended to change the meanings as proposed
by the Task Force. Staff recommends approval of Sections 153.050- 153.056 after full
discussion by the Commission.
Bases:
1) The development of a new ordinance for planned districts is a major goal adopted by City
Council.
2) The proposed Code will better define and clarify administrative procedures for planned
districts, as well as to improve the ability of the general public to understand the planned
district process.
3) The proposed Code revisions will streamline and enhance the overall public review process
for planned districts.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ _ _ __ _ __ Dublin City_Council ______ _ _ Meeting
oA.,oN ~E~A~ a~ANK ~N~ FoAM ~o o„a
June 23, 2003 Page 7
'' Held 20
Mr. Lecklider asked for clarificatio the comments in the cover memo regarding a ~i,
"mostly favorable experience" the contractor.
Mr. Hammersmith stated there were some concerns regarding the contr s past
performance, in parti r with Emerald Parkway Phase 7. The discussi ave been
very positive. Co ete General has committed in a letter to a com n date with this
project ands a adjustments to how the project is managed. concerns related to
closing o rojects, not with the quality of the work.
. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there was any cons' ation of including penalties in the
contract if it is not completed by the date estab' ed.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the con does not include such a clause. is
reviewing future contract documents, ever, with the Legal Department i gard to
penalties aside from liquidated d ges and incentives for early comp n of a project.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher d to dispense with the public hear' and to treat this as
emergency legislati
Ms. Salay seco the motion.
Vote on th ion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reine s; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash,
yes; M innici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay,
V n the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, ye ~ .Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes;
s. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; ecklider, yes.
CODE AMENDMENTS - DEVELOPMENT
Ordinance 75-03
Amending the Dublin Codified Ordinances, Sections 153.050 through 153.058 -
Planned District Regulations, and Section 153.234 -Procedure Regulations.
Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance.
I Ms. Brautigam stated that prior to referral to Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr.
Gunderman would present a report regarding the recommendations included in the
ordinance.
Mr. Gunderman noted that three Council Members, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Lecklider
and Mr. Reiner served on the Task Force, together with two members of Planning &
Zoning Commission, representatives of the commercial and residential development
community, and two citizen at large representatives. The group held seven meetings, at
three-week intervals, and worked together very effectively. He proceeded with a
PowerPoint presentation.
1. For Planned Districts, there are currently four districts that are utilized -PLR,
PIP, PCD, and PUD. An additional four districts currently exist in the Code, but
are not used. Presently, each district has a different set of procedures,
although some are similar. It is very confusing to everyone involved. The
Planned Districts regulations provide the framework for how the process will be
completed -they are not design regulations, simply process related.
2. A major policy discussion involved how many districts to include in the new
Code, which of the current districts should be included, and what process
should be used in the new district, and what steps will be included in the
process.
3. The ordinance as drafted retains the designation for the four districts currently
in use in the City. The remaining four of current districts are dropped from the
Code. They are no longer referred to in the Code. The goal is to have one
process to be used in all the zones. The four current districts are used only for
zonings in existence at this time. No new districts would use those old
designations.
4. The new revised ordinance includes a purpose and application section, a
status section for previously approved PD districts, establishment of new
planned districts, procedures which apply to all districts, submission
requirements, criteria for plan approval, definitions, and procedure for
amendments.
5. The new code permits all previously approved planned projects to continue
with unchanged expectations. The fundamental items that were in their
approved text remain. The new code requires all projects, both new and old,
to follow the same procedures.
6. A procedure is utilized that is similar to the current PUD zone. The process
involves a preliminary plan, text, final development plan, and platting as
needed. A plan review and plat can be combined. These must be approved
before any building improvements can be taken up by the City.
Minutes_ of~
He
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
_.___Dub_I_in_City Council____ ______ _ ___Meeting
FOAM No ,o~aa
June 23, 2003
Page 8
7. The concept plan process is currently required in the PUD zone, but not in
some of the others. The proposed Code requires a concept plan in one
process, but for smaller projects which comply with the Community Plan, there.
is no requirement for concept plan review beyond the staff. If the applicant
desires, however, they can request a concept plan review with P&Z and
Council.
8. There is no minimum size for the new zone.
9. Regarding minor changes after the final plan has been approved, these are
defined in the Code. It requires a report by the Planning Director to the
Commission.
.10. Timeline for processing applications generated a lengthy discussion. For new
' applications, once deemed complete and everything is submitted, they are
required to be scheduled with the P&Z Commission within 90 days unless the
applicant agrees to a time extension. Presently, virtually all applications
request a time extension due to issues to be resolved in the submittal. There
is no language in the current code addressing this, but this is the practice in
place. It does specify in the Code that the applicant is required to agree to
such an extension; if not, the application will be heard within 90 days.
11. The Code provides P&Z the ability to table an application if there is a need for
additional information. There is also a provision fora 60-day rehearing -this
avoids a situation where an application is tabled indefinitely.
12. A major change in the code is that in the fext submitted with a rezoning, there
will be two categories. The first will include critical elements such as density,
central uses, etc. Once approved, anything in this category to be changed
would require a rezoning process. In the second category of less critical items,
P&Z would have the discretion to substitute things that achieve the same
standard. If the Commission finds that the proposal meets the standards
I' defined in the text as well or better, they can approve it. This addresses the
concern about the fact that minor changes currently trigger the need for a
rezoning process.
13. The most difficult issue the Task Force dealt with was the appeal process.
There was not consensus on this issue. Theo tion currently included in the
p
t in the current PUD rocess - if P&Z disc roves
draft code is the same as tha p pp
the final development plan, the only means of appeal is to the courts. The
additional options that were considered were appeal to City Council. An
offshoot of that is an appeal to City Council where Council would have the
discretion of hearing an appeal. There was no clear consensus.
14. Another issue discussed was the role of potential consultants that the City
might utilize. This would involve City staff retaining consultants to review a
unique aspect of a project. The concept of having architectural consultants to
review on a regular basis was an option not recommended.
15. Conditional uses. The Task Force recommends retaining these in the Code.
16. Expiration of zoning. An expiration is built into the Code for a project that
does not progress after preliminary approvals, or in cases where construction
does not begin after final development plan approval. The City has the ability
to rezone the property in these cases, if it desires to do so. An automatic
reversion of the rezoning to the previous rezoning was rejected by the Task
Force.
Mayor McCash expressed concern about a project where only one segment is built and
not the remainder. How could the City rezone part of a parcel?
Mr. Gunderman responded that a portion of a parcel could be rezoned. These types of
issues are why the language as drafted is "may" rezone instead of "shall" rezone.
The applicant is also encouraged to include in the text at the outset if there is a long-term
timeframe for completion of the project.
17. Unless specified otherwise in the text, there is an automatic default to the
regular Code provisions.
18. Language was proposed for requiring that developments meet the improved
City standards where practical. It is difficult to demand in uniform language in
the Code that a project, once initiated, will be able to meet the new standard.
In cases where it is determined there would be no undue hardship and where
the issue is not dealt with in the Code, the applicant is expected to meet those
new standards in the later phases of the project. This becomes an issue for
projects that are completed over a long period of time, during which the City's
standards may change. In planned districts, the text may control and there is a
limit to the City's discretion once an application is approved.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minu[es_of_ ___--_ _____-_Dublin_City_Council___ __ _ _._ 1Vteeting_
DAr 0 EG L ELAN NC.. FOAM NO 0 aB _ __ ---_ --- - - ----- -
June 23, 2003 Page 9 ~'
I'I Held 20
i
Mayor McCash commented that it might be preferable to keep the text ~n the planned j
districts more general in nature referring to the zoning code provisions. The zoning code i'
provisions would then control this. If the bikepath standards would change, the applicant
the other hand the
de re uirements. On
eet the current Co
wired to m
would be req q
were involved inane otiation ma not want the standards changed at a
residents who g Y
I ter date. There is no erfect solution.
a
p
t the first readin of all chan es to
last item in the recommendations is tha g 9
19. The
the zoning code does not take place until after the Planning & Zoning '
Commission action takes place. There was a lot of discussion about the public ~~lii
'I, notice provided for a rezoning item. To address this issue, the packet includes li,
a sample of information that is published in the paper and included on the web
'~I site that consists of all items to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The ~~'
Code language would provide that first and second readings at Council would
I;~, be held after the Commission's review.
He noted that the Task Force is scheduled to reconvene in the fall to review subdivision
regulations.
~~
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Gunderman did a great job with the Task Force and ~i,
with preparation. There was a good dialogue throughout the meetings, and everyone
III maintained an open mind and positive attitude.
Mayor McCash asked if the Charter requires referral of a zoning matter to the Planning
Commission. II
Mr. Gunderman stated that Mr. Banchefsky had indicated that the document as drafted !'
does not conflict with the Charter.
I
Mr. Smith concurred.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recommended that this ordinance be referred to Planning & Zoning
Commission for review. She suggested that Council set a timeline for return of a
recommendation to City Council
Mrs. Boring suggested that the timeline be set in consideration of the heavy workload of
the Commission at the present time.
Mayor McCash noted that the Task Force would begin review of subdivision regulations in
the fall.
Mr. Gunderman stated that work could proceed on that portion prior to the P&Z
recommendation on the first portion.
Mayor McCash suggested October or November.
Following brief discussion about the caseload with Mr. Saneholtz, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr.
Gunderman, it was the consensus of Council to set the timeframe for receipt of a
recommendation by November 1.
Mr. Reiner pointed out that two P&Z members have served on the Task Force and should
be able to guide the Commission in this matter.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to refer this Ordinance to Planning & Zoning Commission,
with the request for a recommendation by November 1, 2003.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring,
yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes.
Ordinance 76-03
Amending the Dublin Co d Ordinances, Section 153.002 - Definitio o Define
Minor Plan Modificati
Ms. Salay introduc e ordinance.
Ms. Brautigam ed that this ordinance attempts to define " r plan modifications,"
and is bas pon the Council and Planning Commissio ' iscussion at their joint
meeti .Staff has drafted this ordinance and sugg it be referred to Planning &
Z g Commission. This legislation would am the current Code and is not tied to t
previous Ordinance 75-03 referred to the mission.
Ms. Salay moved referral to Planning oning Commission.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motio
Vote on the motion: Mr. Rei ,yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Z er, yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; Mayor McC ,yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes.
INTRODUCTI PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTION
I AGREEM
~'I Reso on 30-03
~I