Loading...
48-06 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES Da ton Leal Blank. [nc. Form No. 300x3 48-06 Passed • Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 4.2 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MARTIN ROAD, FROM R-4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (STANDLEY LAW OFFICES - 6300 RIVERSIDE DRIVE -CASE NO 06-OS1Z). NOW, THEREF RE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of ~1 Q-U~~'~h~tY 2006. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. De Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 CITY OF DUBLIN_ ~ ~ ~ O To: Members of City Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ~ 1~~~`~' Date: August 16, 2006 Initiated By: Frank A. Ciarochi, Interim Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 48-06 (Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive - Case No. 06-051 Z) Summary: Rezoning application 06-051 Z is for 4.2 acres, located at the northeast intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. This application requests a change in zoning from R- 4, Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows fora 12,800 square-foot office building and associated site improvements, including 40 parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning on July 6, 2006 with three conditions, which can be found in the attached Record of Action. All conditions have since been addressed by the applicant. The Planning and Zoning Commission also voted to approve the final development plan and the Corridor Development District application. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier- Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. The public hearing (second reading) on the requested zoning change is scheduled for September 5, 2006. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 48-06 following the second reading/public hearing on September 5, 2006. CC CC CC PUD CC U CC R-4 PUD R-2 R-4 R-2 R-2 PUD ~ R-4 R-4 N . R-2 R-2 PUD ~1 S~~~~ R-~ ~ ~ R-2 R-2 PUD R-2 iv R-1 ~ R-2 I Martin-Road ~e t PUD PUD o PUD PUD U ~achaN R-1 PUD PUD PUD PUD ~ PUD R-4 R-1 PUD ~Palatas;Place COLUMBUS 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD N City of Dublin Rezoning/Final Development Plan/ A Land Use and Corridor Development District Feet Long Range Planning Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive 0 150 300 tL ~19 R~~~r~~N~ ~~QUC~T~a~ erode Section 153.234] ~1 ~ ~ _ : Ot~DINA~ICE NUMBER ~ . land Use and f+ Pis ~ 1 ! i 1 A P~ long Range Plonning !i ~ i 1 li V LJ 1'! Ls 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ti7 ~ ~ le t11J' N G, .~.~ry,~~ ,:r,.. ~.,;.:s~~,t:,,t CITY CC3UNC1~ t~E~R1NG) a e =pr' p i d-Gift+717 ~f:eb S'e: rr.. l..r ~ni;n.: n.:.; NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the Rezoning process prior to submitting a formal application. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ;±mount P,e~e,~:ed. Application No: PAZ Datels) ?8Z Action: " ~/`~IG1 1 - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ j Receipt "10: l~1iS Fee iVo: Date P2cehled: deceived Sy: I ~+I ----,I ~ r, ,r~ el 51U8 c,~ I _ _ _ - v ~,-i w_ar:.a_ 1f'4_,IJCt ~I<?rl: - N, -3 (i;irClG} irl Cl i?eai ~3i IP.ferSe ,;iOlt i~ar°_Si 1^,i~lga!a;.pfl ^ni LJ I, ~t_E,iS~. r~Ef~%C T~F C'f~F ~P{'li~i~71~N: i ~ i?'3;i~r#:~'?~: : sect _ i 6300 Riverside Drive EI i ~ 273-008325 4.2± Residential Office ~UN 1 $ 20~ R-4 PUD 0~'~~~~~N + 4 2 LAND USE ~ - - _ L®NG RANGE PtA~tNIN , i1i. r ~ZC}Nl; le, STAT~P41EId?: Please attacr? additional sheets if necessary. ,a!e 0 ei ~ r'. _4^, i't° pf~3pCS°~ °Onit1.~ ot;7 ~a:. ~~Opf`lenf relal2S t0 '•.he exisiing and potential future land {_~se character o to ..liCln~t'i: i~ This property is currently zoned R-4, Suburban Residential District, for one to ? eight family dwelling structures. The proposed development consists of an I.~ two-story office structure of approximately 12,000 square feet, and allows for 'j expansion up to 12,800 square feet. This property is in a particularly transitia~nal area. Across Riverside Drive is a significant office development, and across ~ Martin Road is a substantial condominium and single-family development. In close] proximity to the north are additional commercial developments and a potential 'i commercial retail center. This proposal represents a compatible, low-impact use~~ on a site where many residential proposals have been unsuccessful. !,E ~ ' ~ _i _ _ i State bra try he~~~ the proposed zor:ir:g and .iavelopmert relates to the Dur_lir Dammuniry Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning ij ;j meets tha rireria for Planned Districts [S°Ci~~~n 153 07218)[' ;j The adopted Future Land Use Map recommends residential uses at a density range o~j 2 to 5 units per acre. The potential therefore exists for the development of approximately 20 residential units on this property. As referenced, multiple proposals for residential development have been unsuccessfully proposed. This proposal meets the unique challenges faced by a developer of this property and provides a low-impact development that is compatible with developments located 'E in the proximate area. The current Land Use Plan update contemplates Commercial Office use of this tract in accordance with this proposal. I. i !i ~.i , _ _ ~r~. ;a; IL~i i ~ ~ ..-~1 c ~ ;-+F- , I~ . ~t.i ~~.!~t:. + ~..'l.iP.l.~~ ' 1'ii Tti~ ! i~.~, r T',v_._~~%E ~;9CNTHS~ YES X7 NU i i i r;~ tir .i. '~~3 i_,i~ i; 1 .T ,•°5 ~ ~ ~t Sro- c . '_-'~sf u,~s ~ _fl - )l f 1. 1; V. F%tE~SE St1BtNIT THE F{3tL0`~liiVG FGR iN)TiAL STAFF REVIE1N: Please submit large (24x30) and small (11~c17) sets of plans. Staff may later request plans that incorpcraie review comments. Fourteen (1d) addit?onai copies of rep/iced submittals are required for the Planning and ?on`ng Commission hearing__ ii _ rf`rO 2j ORIGINAL SIGNED AND ~ IGTAPIZcD APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (t3) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization; if necessar, _ FOtit~---TEEN (id) COPIES OF A LEGAL DES%,P.lPTION OF THE PROPERTY u~ ~t~ OURTEEN (td) TAX PARCEL ID Pr1 APS ~ iicating pr7pe~'./ ~,vners and parcel n: mbars nor ail p~r~eis ~n;ithin 500 feet of the site. 'tEN {?Oj SCALED, SITEiSTAKtNG PLANS SHOWING: - n t-forth arr,~rl and bar scale !_oeaUon, size and dimen~rc,~s of al! existing ant p~oeosed conditions and struci,.~res isigniiicant natural features, landscaping ~[(iiCtUreS. 3ddlf10ns dr'Cd a C s ~:8y5 mar Ing) Proecsed ! ices IP.egio a! transportation /_.~r., 1.~ cities. ember of i:!eiEnya. bui~dinghm!t types, square footaga_s, pocking: open ! space, =tc- i. + ~!Ze of Inc sit in ages ~ctua iEe i!. ,;I I;. pert; fines ~...oa.~... ~ir.,_ _~r r~ 'gig c era+; ~y,amar:3 ui: _r +nformaron related+..o±he sifB c;dsting and proposed ping district boundaries. j i. Use of land and location or` structures or. adjacent p,~operties - (F APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: H !I a. Grading ?Ian. ~ n. Landscaping Plan. I ;-fighting Plan. !i d. UtiLty and/or Stormwater Pian _ Ti-ee SUNeV. Tree Precor`-J3ti0n ~n,j Tree. Paii~r~mant PianS. i - IF APt'LICABLE, TEN {10i COPIES OF SCALED, .ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS' <^!iih -rop:~sed colors and materials noted. Ij IF APPLICABLE, FOUR (d) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING: !.I _..CatiOrl Oi 31gnS a^d i~r. 'yl:a ji '~rOU'~ g. , , .-..du~:`/,i- I ~sgn dimensions, irr,Ii,irrg lotto ,i~~s and _nr~ s. ;!stars..-_ r"om . ,r_,d~. ;opy layout and ._r. ~ ,yl?~ .ont>) o ~!~rary°. i. ^.,tateriais ar~.d ~.3~~ua~. -~-et t, be ~ r err ^a•r,~~. total a,>a <,t s;gn face . ?r-i~idirtp rr ii`Ej _ I `rpe pi iiti.(rSYnailOn. i su; ,p..,:u.~r.~un~; fn. ,u,*a mac.:a:.iurer Hama and r:umber. `~t:~?Ef?iAi_%COLOR SARgPLE: , :i., ~ ' V -.~Ufi-llt7 IJ L/UJ Lf S7e I''d ...iS'J r'.oBS ~i- Yr tOrla ~r ~tS It r -F`~S~t y. i h.,~, +t h ~.t :i .~rif' a b _r - 'Prvrv...~ Or peg )i ~~~r: J. ~ ~-ri1'( iiL. i~ rAVi844 1_!at 81l neic;huJring p=Op rY; n ; - ~ ,,r.y r; `~r ~ ,t a, , _ ....r.~ i~ ccuies ~f fists are encoucageu. " tat; t.g[ ~ r : ~,u ~ - t, , ~F; ,,S CIT'(;~TATErZIP CC`irJE Please see attached list _ ~ ~ i - ! r: i' { _ _ _ - „j i _ _ 'I i.. fii ~-i-.t.~}1 Sii ~~1 ~?1t 'r{ C»t r r ~ ~'l~rr t f},i t..~i f2 2~2I'[9(I ? ~ r_{, r:i~.: S t a}i_~i fil~f~. -?1~° ~iJ - . ~ r , ~ _ Jr_..~2~d~h ~~~5 CO 1 i.. ~l.`;+_t~ ,r d'lG f~G;~[ 3 ~t1..2 Jf r .:f Ji,...i~ ~7?_ ,{i C. -r.' .t!is ( C 1'a l}'le't ~d . 1 11., ,i~ ~ IS i t I.:}y. J? ; r ! ~ F Ili ) ) iAl I J:p i'} t _ N ~8 J' ~ o-, Applicant• , Joseph.& Diane Cartolano _ _ Four_Fves LLC 6300 Riverside Drive 2101 Sherborne Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 - _ _ _ 614-792-5555 Fax: 614-792-5536 !X. REPftESENI AT1VE(S~ OF ONl~IER: Please corroiete if app!icabl_. Attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. _ ~ _ :ar,t .,r ,,,iec, ~:esigr~r. ~~or.;ractor e_ tc ; .Glen A. Dugger_ / Smith & Hale (attorneys) a, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725 ~ ~i.a ~,de; Columbus, OH 43215 rax: ' t~.: 614-221-4255 614-221-4409 - na"'=' '-:na ~r±ec `''ai`r"': gdugger@smithandhale.com `./r., ~r 'R-7 :-`t~ / ) , i {~r~bGN ~ :r .his 8pG'.~Cat10n? Glen Dugger t - - - - - X. Al7THORiZATION FOR O4YNER'S AGENTiREPf2ESENTATlVE(S): Please complete if applicable. This section musi be notarized. r- I Please see attached authorization _ iheowner.nerebyautnarize ~ ~ to act as my representatives} it all ,I ~ goer a r' atrnng .o t e processing and approval of this application including modirying the project. I agree to be bound by al! representations an j ' ~ agt _eme mad by the d._s'grated reoresertat pie. - ~ - - p----------- t ~ ~.;aiare ~f ::u~r.n~ ~u~e .rear. Date: ! ~I I ----_..--_.______r - ' - _ aN, it.Ai~, P~. °7>?av~s ~ n~~.~.rd a~:u:.c,ta:i~ea _ Aaron L. Underhill, attorney _r:eo r?~, }ra,1.h:;medrr_~~t~t~i~~:~ nav ~,:3r ,~i>>s:.~,~e - ,..f ra r i t~ri d C ~W.-r ,~ti.,~ a - t _ i -;:'7~ ~ :,~pil., ! f i,~ ~-On 9 CIS :ING'!~~^,dtl0'l, ~te3~,. ti.CS dn_i ~,!}Cri~ li^tip a' .,:-nCila gtlif - ~i h r _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - i__ .r,._., (J//n~/(yy ~4,Y_ 1 ~ V n } `1 , ~ ` - tom. t ~ ` f 1 =7 ~ , - - _ ~ r _ - • JOSEPH W. TESTA _ FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR e MAP ID: asp DATE: 2/23/06 _ ~ - - t t1 s i ' ' PAR oN~~ _ o ~ ~ „o C\ ' rrims,flARKING _ _ -~J G uvisss. ~ ` ~ - uveevyac sear uc.'~ _ rK~arvE mocE OeeeeE CO.,oo ~ _ _ / s ~ k ~ _ PARK~~ o _ PARK[NG'~- Zn O0S159 a~. _ \ 06/ 9/Z~e M _ _ IiFY1Mw fY p~ , ~ J i - i~ 27l LOilY-_ _ _ ~ 1~-~ . u m00t]66 » _ WfEBE G vIKlER ne - _ -1 .nog = ^'an .yg F' - - _ - ,o...~ Y QCs ua~ xo 1 _ ',,~y', 7 a'42Nt Fhg n n Wee,a ~ _ _ ~a P moni>i mo - ~RK~...eE= i . i _ .s a 9 ~~i ~ rXE v I _ 1 u ' i v2gL \ t t _ ' ~ cv q~ nuF I na ~O ..oaW { ~ ~ ~ - . I i I I ~ - `w` I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ II ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ro o~~ _ - _ - ! ' - - r Scale = 200 ,u ~ Disclaimer I ~ Grid ~I I North This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, suI-vet' plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information sources should be consulted for vertfication of the information contained on this map. The l county and the mapping companies assume na legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map_ j Please notify the Franklin County CJIS Division of any discrepancies_ Real Estate i G]S Department y~r~ mHPAHY 2?a0 Bast Main Street Bezteq, DIlio 43209-aB?? (814) 238677 Telefas 235-4659 EXHIBIT "A" June B, 1994 (Revised 12/25/97) 4.230 Acre Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, Part of Lot 11, Quaxtcr Township 3, Tocmahip 2, gauge 19, United states Military Lands, Deing all of the tract conveyed to David H_ bhowe and Lisa S. Bhay as shown of record official Record Volume 25701 5-12, Recorder's office, Franklin County, Ohio, and being more particularly described as followsc Beginning at a set P.K_ nail at the intersection of the centerline of U_S. Route 33 {Riverside Drive - 60 feet wide} erith the south line of said Lot 11; Thence along the centerline of U_B. Route 33 and along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a =adios of 1,910.08 feet, delta angle of 07 degrees 52 mututes 32 seconds, a chord beating and distance of North OS degrees 56 ainutes 45 seconds West, 262.74 feet to a found railroad spike at a point of tangency (said point shown as station 251 + 12.07 on Ohio Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plans, 5_H_ 48, Sec. o {PT), sheet 4 of 4); Thence, continuing along said centerline, North 12 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds West, 93.09 feet to a set P.R_ nail at the southt~est corner of the Glenn and Carol Sasaki o.9b7 Acre tract (Official Record Volume 9596 H-08, said Recorder's Office); Thence, along the south line of said 0.967 Acre tract and the south line of the F. Walter and Margaret M_ Wiebe 0.679 Acre tract (Official Record Volume 8087 I-15 said Recorder's office), South 89 degrees 11 minutes 22 seconds East, 550.25 feet to a Found iron pipe at the southeast corner of said 0.879 Acre tract and in the West line of Lot 2 of Colony Estates, a6 seine is nutabered and delineated upon the recorded plat thereof, of record in Plat Book 38, Page 16, ReCOrdar's Office, (passing a Found solid iron pin at 38.93 feet, and found icon pipes at 277.4 feet and 530_32 feet, respectively); CONT]ND$D... Ptt4Q ? s.23C Acres Thence, along part of the west Zinn of said Lot 2, and the West line of the Gabie and Patsy S_ McCoy 1.118 Acze tract (Official Record Volu~ae 12362 A-O1, said Recorder's office), South of degrees to minutes 30 6aconds West, 373.26 feet to a set iron pipe in the south line of said Lot 11 at the southwest corner of said 1.118 Acre tract (passing a found iron pipe at 323.57 Peet); Thence, along the south line of Said Lot 11, parallel with and 15.00 feet 6outherly of (as measured at right angles to) the centerline oP Martin Road (6o feat wide), North 86 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds West, 482.00 feet to the place of beginning coITTAII~NG s.23o ~r $@t subject however to all legal highways, easements, leas©s and rostzictions oP records, and of records in the respective utility offices_ The formgoinq description was prepared from an actual field survey made by Tiyers Surveying Company, Inc_ 1n April 199x. Iron ping set are 30^ x 1" O.D. With orange plastic caps inscribed ^P.S_ 6579^_ Basis of beatings is the centerline of U_S_ Route 33 held as North 12 degrees. 53 ainutes 00 seconds West a6 per Ohio Aepartment of Transportation Plans, S.H. aB, Sec_ o (PT) Sheet 4 of 4_ MYERS 3IIRVEYIN COMPANY, INC. Albert J_ MY rs .S. X6574 -~ZA ~~Fp rmE/inns ( 4 o a o j~ 5 ~~Q ~1[,BEF7T ' ~ J. - ~S o I a ' ~ss;Q-~rEw~~ G(, G~ ~NAI Sv ~a~3~ ~s 3 Z ces«~v~, ~e~~~ John G~de. P.E. P.S. F~mCamty Engiree~ Dale-~'~ r G/ Z/ ~ liar-O1-06 14:27 f=rom-S±andley Late Group LtP 614T9Z5536 T-401 P 02/02 F-81T OWNER AUTHORIZATION We, Joseph and Diane Cartolano, the owners of real property known as Franklin County Parcel Identificarion Number 273-008325 which is generally Located northeast of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road (the ~`Prop~Y'~)> hereby gants to attorney Glen A_ Dogger of the law firm of Smith & Hale and the attorneys employed with that firm (the "Agents") permission and authority to act as the Owner's representative in all matters pertaininb to the rezoning of and development plan approval process for said Property m accordance with all requirements of the City of Dublin, Ohio or any other applicable authority- I agee to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the Agents in this regard. Po.4 oseph lano art Diane Cartotano (By Diane Cartolano as his Power of Attorney) State of Ohio County of Franklin SS~~-- aoo~ The foregoinginstrurneni was°af JQ°e h Cartolanoras histPower of Attorney- by Diane.tctjano on behalf p I otP r s y ~ - ~ ~ UICKIE A. 0`AL.ESl1NDR0 t/~t.c~,~.~ ~ .c ao~-~ ~ _ I NotaryPub~c,Stabeofi0fuo Notary Public j Nty eotrvniss{on expires ,Itme 15, 2009 sr ~~o~ ~J~~~ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ s~ day of ~-e~. ~ by Diane Cartolano_ r r - ~-v(~t _ Notary Public ~ ~ ~`t VICKIE A. D'AIESANDR4 i _ _ ~ Notary Public, State of flhla My eornmission expires drme 15, 2009 ~.l oF.4~-f standley_auch_ 2;31/06 Y y ~~Ij J y ~m ~ ~#~i ~ aa3z,>a~ n C%i ~ I 1 I 1 1 I I z `-~Yt'7o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,x z W ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ N Q ? O~SZ ~ n ~ ~ g day 4 =i t~jt F mil[ o00 0_00 0 00®0~ o e®o ®_o®©®®®®®®® m®® LL- ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I r f ~ ~SILG I ~ r\ ~ % ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ,o h _ \ f ' I 1 ~ J ry r + ° _ ~ f~~~ ~ ~ / 1~ ~ i ~ - ~ ~ fl~ aQ ~ ` ~ ~ I ~ ~ . r~~r - ~ ~ ~ - ~ - :a ~ e ~ - _ ~ _ t ~ _ ~-ti--~--~ - - 1 ~ ~ o~~~ ~ H ~ ~ / t ~ , ~ ~ / ~ \ ~ R,O WW1- - . f" ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - 'rte-- ~ - _ . _ ~g ~ ~ ~ 0444(~4yyyy~a~ ~~Loa~j( N~ V~ ~ 4 ~~g W in m a - _ _ ~ ~ t~ 8 ~ ~ ~ - ~ C ~ 4 ° p ~ ~ tq a W ~ o ~ - 3 - - ~ ~ ~ fn ~ ~ FO ~ N s ,9'~~ O-.S - I I I - I - ~ 1 I - I r V gg gg ~ ~ ~ ~ O e~ l a _ ~ i9 0 ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ c .s ~ ~ ~ ~ oC ~~1 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~i~~ N < l.1 J - I I I - I - I 1 • I - ~7 1 • i p " ~ P • r ~ 1 ~~ix 1 7J~ } ^ j_. Z Yc3Q - _ . . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ , e. .r ~ ~ m a a ~ra~ l I I A, ~ ~ ~ u tmyz ~ _ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~1 ~ ~ F 7 1 ~ p ~ .a ~ A `s ~ 6 ~0= 0= N 7 N ppp ~ ` a ~ ~ ~ r; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ < A ~ b i Io 4• " ~ - i ~ _ 1 - I = I I I 1 I ~ I I ~ I Y a . j CJ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 r ~ ~ u ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t < ~ t J - I I 1 - I - 1 I ~ I - I < ~ _ ;S/ o ^ 4 Ht l T ..I` ~ p n .A' ;m, __.v~ i; xrw ,a r} ti ~ ~ _ ',.i ~ ,y i~ i i ~~i: i' ie - ~ ~ ~ ~d` _ ~ - ~ a'S~ i ' ~ . ~ - ~ I ~ 6s a 'i , ~~I ~ „ ~ tj. D ? ~ i -.1 " D < P m 3~ ~ fit ~ N W ~ ~ ~ - . . ,z." d _ ~ ~ Y. + A .,.y.r LIB ~ ~ ~ I I r ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ I & J I II _ I I I II C II I~ 0 - - i li _ n d I r . , , ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i~ ~ II ~ i i - ~ II d ~ ~ n N ~ ~ ~ ~ ;,I~ . 1, "I II`~ b - I 11 - 1 ~ 'lG _ I 14 . L-- '_F?------ 1 - I = I ° I 1 1 I ~ 1 I < ~ I ~ ~E pi I~ I<; i a a ~ ~ c~ ' N ~ _ BM r19~ i~ - I \ ' ~ I ~ i ~ ~ / _ \ 1-- ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ a~ p~ ~ d.5 y F; _ 1~ _ R$ ~ ~ - _ - - _ _ ~ _ _ \ ~ y I S I , j i i ' ~ \lJJ t - •J ~ ~ ~ a ~ - l ~ ~ i l ~ I R I _ -ltl _ 1 ~ II ' ~ i i ? T T J~ I~ ~ ~ ` _ S _ I _ ~ - JJ _ ~ _ ~ R~ ~ __i ~ ,wr ~y' " ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ gg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WJ i ~a 8s ~ _ ~ - _ ~ - ~ ~I ~ ~ 1. ~ _ ~.1 d 8 - Si r ~ f. ~ ~ ~ !Oi ~ ® ry~Fj .!--1-~~~~ ~gg i i f 111 F ~ b 6 ~ 0 I r' I I ' ~a i ~ ~ v~~ ~ Ana ,bb 1 ~ ~ - - II ti _ ~ O J ~ - C N ' I it 6' N ~ J C i W O _ ~ ~ ~ z a c~ ~ ~ ,~s~a ~r~~X~~~~~s~m n ea o ~°~~@A ~ ~ ~ ~a$ ~C.°E. ~ s~ 3~ ~ 1 4~ya a~~~~~ /qtq~ ~ ~ ~ ~,;X~fX tFt~~~~ A 666666 ~ ~ C ~I ~ g , ~ ~ ~ ` R P ~ ~ w ~ d++ N I ~ 3 R ~I ~ ~ ~ G f ~ 3 A C1 00 v^iC~yti ~ ~ H~ $ IF ~ ~ ~ 0 sit ~~tEf ~:g~[g g o ~ ~IZ~ a filtj i,3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~9 t I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g 33 yy a3 (~f ~ L Q 1~ # ~ N Id N 000 4 GG~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ a ~ ~R ooa ~I 111 ~ ~ 4 ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ I - ~ ~ , y~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ # w, a I ^3 \ a I ~ : ~ , . ,,d a ~ g ~I A d d ~6 p gg Pa gg 9 I 9 A g A m '.F A ~ ! b 8 g } ] && ~ , 6 A~ ~ i ~ ~ 4 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ a ~ - - ~ ; ~3 'i ~ g ~ ~ ~ a ~ g~ i I r r;~ a P ~ 1 S~ gdq [ 4 ~~~j -n Ik~if 7 ~ j ~ Fy m ~ `n [ ~ ~ t.l• ----'~r in I ~ , r. ~ ~ -7 a ' n i @ u $ s li a N I - II b it I ?o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " 3 JI I i a a i ' _ ~ . , , ® b~-- t ~ ~ f~ ~i N ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ J ~ d Q ~ ~ ~ ' CI~I ~ i ~ ~ C ~ ~I, ~ II, q ~ ~ ICI {5{ ..•~'f. f.. r l I~~ ~ _ l ° ~ ~ ~ ZZ m ~ S g'Z b r a g< <<~. APPLICANT ATTORNEY ROPERTY OWNER Glen A. Dugger ~seph and Diane Cartolano Four Fives, LLC Smith & Hale Riverside Dr. 2101 Sherborne Lane 37 W_ Broad St_ lin, Ohio 43017 Powell, OH 43065 Columbus, OH 43215 >URROUNDING PROPERTY 'W HERS Joseph A_ & Diane M. Cartolano Patrick W- Hitesman Bonnie S. & Allen H. Freck 6300 Riverside Dr_ 6350 Riverside Dr. 3379 Martin Rd. Dublin, Oh 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Michele Dennis Walter Wiebe, TR Kandi Gold 3410 Martin Rd_ 6310 Riverside Dr_ 26 Reynolds St. Attleboro, MA 02703 Dublin, OH 43107 Dublin, OH 43017 James Wood Donn & Gayle Griffith Dorothy Herbert 6465 Martin Place 6421 Martin Place 6449 Martin Place Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 iblin, OH 43017 City of Columbus GSP Dunsinane LLC Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police Ann Kelly 5050 Kingsley Dr_ 6277 Riverside Dr. 109 N. Front St_ LL Cincinnati, OH 4263 Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43215-9000 Mina M. Dioun Quarry Place Investment Co Hillsdale Development LLC 6241 Riverside Dr. 497 County Rd. 30A 41 N_ High St. New Alban , OH 43054 Dublin, Oh 43017-5068 Jeromesville, OH 44840 y H. R_ Ransom, Inc. Robert Cudeck & Trisha Beuhrin~ James & Donna Shockey =1395 Zachar Ct_ 4397 Zachary Ct. 5688 Strathmore Ln_ y publin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Robert & Deena Long Richard H_ Harste Williarra Duemmel TR, et at 4403 Zachary Ct. 11818 97'r' Ln C426 4401 Zachary Ct_ Dublin, OH 4311,7 Dublin, CH 43-107 u; r~ti ar,~t ul A 9Rt134 ~arl & Barbara Hart R Herbert & Peggy M Scott Charles Jones 1409 Zachary Ct. 4413 Zachary Ct_ 4417 Zachary Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43107 Dublin, OH 43017 Edward Paganelti & Sandra tacavetta Dale & Debra Voitus Dorothy L Frink, TR 4~ ~_9 Zachary Ct_ 442! Zachary Ct. 4422 Zachary Ct_ I blin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 William Foster John & Margaret Stolar James Grover & Light Dee 4418 Zachary Ct_ 4414 Zachary Ct. 4420 Zachary Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Debra Schomer iVlacilyn A_ Tucker 4408 Zachary Ct. 4400 Zachary Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 F: docs\s&hlabels\2006~Standley.lbl (2/26!06) ssg PROPOSED TEXT RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MARTIN ROAD OFFICES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) August 2, 2006 I. Introduction The subject site consists of approximately 4.2 acres located northeast of and adjacent to the intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. The property features substantial topography and currently includes asingle-family home and a detached barn. This Planned Development will serve to remove the home and permit the construction of aloes-density office building and associated improvements. II. Permitted and Conditional Uses A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the PUD: 1. The permitted uses outlined in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, as that provision exists at the time that the preliminary development plan for this PUD is approved, provided, however, that the following uses contained in that section shall not be permitted: Hospitals Elementary and secondary schools Colleges, universities, professional schools, junior colleges and normal schools Libraries Museums and art galleries Religious organizations 2. The existing barn found on the northeastern portion of the site may be used for storage purposes only, subject to all applicable provisions of the fire and building codes. B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be allowed as conditional uses in the PUD, subject to the procedures for approval of such conditional uses found in Section 153.236: Research, development, and testing laboratories Vocational schools School and educational services not elsewhere classified Non-profit educational and scientific research agencies Ei ~ ~ . cAUG Ol4 2006 a v k n a'k III. Density The maximum aggregate density for permitted and conditional uses in this development shall not exceed twelve thousand eight hundred (12,800) square feet, exclusive of porch and terrace areas. The initial development of the property shall consist of approximately twelve thousand (12,000) square feet of building area, with the additional square footage being meant to accommodate future expansion of the facility. The square footage of the existing barn on the property shall be excluded from the maximum allowable density. IV. Setback and Height Requirements A. Unless otherwise set forth in this text or approved as a part of the final development plan, all setback, encroachment, and height requirements shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B. Required minimum setbacks shall be as follows: 1. Along Riverside Drive, there shall be a minimum scenic corridor setback of two hundred (200) feet from the existing right-of-way, provided, however, that pavement shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of ninety (90) feet into this setback, as shown on the development plan. 2. Along Martin Road, the minimum building setback shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of a final development plan for the property. Pavement may encroach into this setback per the City of Dublin Zoning Code. 3. Along all other perimeter property lines, there shall be a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet and a minimum pavement setback of fifteen (15) feet, provided that (a) the existing barn in the northeast corner of the site and (b) the existing access drive servicing the property to the north of the site shall be permitted to encroach within these setbacks. 4. The maximum height of buildings in this development shall be thirty-five (35) feet, as measured per the City of Dublin Zoning Code. Architectural features may exceed this limit in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code. V. Parking and Loading A. Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the final development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. B. The development shall provide for forty (40) total parking spaces designed to serve the anticipated use of the building as a law office. Prior to changing the primary use of the building at a future date in manner that the planning staff deems to warrant a modification of the number of parking spaces provided on the site, then the owner and/or the user of the building shall allow the Planning Commission to review the adequacy of the parking for the proposed use. 2 VI. Circulation A. The existing right-of-way along Riverside Drive is currently ninety (90) feet. Following approval of the final development plan for this development and prior to the issuance of a building permit for the office building, the applicant shall dedicate an additional thirty (30) feet of right-of-way along this roadway to the city, as determined by the City Engineer. B. The right-of-way along Martin Road shall remain at sixty (60) feet. C. One curb cut shall be permitted on Martin Road that will provide full access to and from the development site and shall be located as shown on the development plan. D. The owner(s) of the site shall continue to provide a twenty (20) foot wide easement (as shown on the final development plan) for the sole benefit of Franklin County Parcel Number 273-008366, located north of and adjacent to the development site at 3410 Martin Road, for purposes of providing that parcel with vehicular access to Martin Road. In the event that the benefited parcel redevelops for office or other uses compatible with office uses at some future date, then the owner(s) of property in this PUD shall permit a private driveway connection from the easement area to the drive that is to service the office building from Martin Road. At such time as this improvement is made, any pavement located to the south of the new driveway and found in the existing easement shall be removed and access to Martin Road from the existing easement shall cease. E. All internal circulation shall occur via private drives to be maintained by the property owner(s) or its assigns or designees. Private drives shall be constructed using asphalt and shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet in width. F. The developer shall provide for a public bikepath on the site via a twenty (20) foot easement that shall generally begin on the southeast corner of the property (as close to the right-of-way as possible) and end within approximately twenty-five (25) feet of the northwest property line. The developer shall work and consult with the planning staff in finalizing all details for the bikepath, including field verification of its location. VII. Screening A. A wooden perimeter fence that is between forty-two (42) and forty-eight (48) inches in height shall be provided along the eastern boundary of the site to screen the uses in this PUD from adjacent residential uses, as shown on the preliminary and final development plans. B. All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a wall or screen in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls or screens shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. C. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened per Code from public view with materials harmonious to the nearest building on the site. 3 VIII. Landscaping Landscaping in the PUD shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, except that deviations from the Code shall be permitted where staff determines that vehicular use area screening requirements can be met in locations other than immediately around the perimeter of parking areas or driveways. IX. Lighting A. All exterior site and building lighting shall comply with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines with the specific exception that the minimum required minimum of 0.5 footcandles of light measured at grade may be reduced to 0.25 foot candles. Other minor deviations from the lighting guidelines may be approved in order to maintain the residential character of the surrounding area, subject to planning staff approval. B. Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. C. All parking lot and driveway lighting located in the northern one-half of the development shall be extinguished no later than 1.0:00 p.m. each evening. The remaining parking lot and driveway lighting shall be permitted without time restriction in and near the southernmost parking area near the front of the office building extending southward along the entry drive from Martin Road. X. Architecture A. Architecture in the PUD shall be of a high quality and shall be residential in style. All building materials shall be the same or similar to the colors shown on the architectural palette included with the development plan. B. The permitted building materials in the development shall be stone, manufactured stone, stone veneer, wood, board and batten siding, composite materials, cement board, vinyl siding (for trim only), and EIFS (for trim only), or any combination thereof. The permitted roofing materials shall be dimensional asphalt shingles, standing seam metal, and slate. C. Buildings shall utilize four-sided architecture and building materials shall be consistent on all sides of a building. D. The existing barn found in the northeast corner of the site shall be reasonably maintained to ensure a neat and orderly appearance. This barn may be removed from the property should it be deemed by the owner to be structurally infirm or should it require unreasonable maintenance or repair at some time in the future. XI. Signage A. Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. 4 B. A signage plan for the development shall be submitted for review as a part of the preliminary and final development plans. signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. Standley Law Riverside text(4) (alu) (8/2/06) 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY b, 200b CITY OF DUBLIN_ land Use and long Range Plaaning Shier-Rings Road The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: I i, Ohio 43016-1136 I.._.,~:614-410-4600 5• Rezoning/Final Development Plan/Corridor Development District - Ob- fax: 614-410-4147 OS1Z/FDP/CDD - Standley Law Offices - b300 Riverside Drive Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Location: 4.2 acres Iocated at the northeast intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. Existing Zoning: R-4, Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 4.2 acres to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.234, review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Section 153.053(E) and a Corridor Development District application under the provisions of Section 153.115. Proposed Use: A 12,000-square-foot office building for a law office. Applicant: Four Fives, LLC, 2101 Sherborne Lane, Powell, Ohio 43065; represented by Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614)410-4675/Email: chusak@dublin.oh.us. MOTION l: To approve this Rezoning application because the proposal implements the environmental goals of the Dublin Community Plan; and the proposal is consistent with preferred land uses for the site and produces less traffic overall than projected in the Community Plan, with the following three conditions: 1) That the text be revised to require that the necessary right-of--way on Riverside Drive, as determined by the City Engineer, be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) That an exhibit be provided showing the future cross-access for the property to the north; and 3) That the text be revised to exclude the language that requires the bikepath not be installed until the City connects it to a larger bikepath system. * Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: This Rezoning application was approved. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JI1LY 6, 2006 5. Rezoning/Final Development Plan/Corridor Development District - Ob- OS1Z/FDP/CDD - Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive (Continued) MOTION 2: To approve this Final Development Plan application because the proposal meets the preliminary development plan, the proposed site layout has been designed to preserve a substantial number of trees, and the quality of the architecture provides an attractive gateway along Riverside Drive, with the following nine conditions: 1) That the applicant continue working with staff in finalizing the details of the bike path, including field verification of the location and the provision of an easement; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to fulfill Landscape Code requirements where necessary; 3) That the design of all private drives, parking areas, and drive approaches meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 4) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 5) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; and 6) That the site's stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 7) That all final architectural details be approved by staff prior to filing for building permits; 8) That all lights be located so as to not interfere with existing vegetation; and 9) That a tree replacement fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, if necessary. *Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: This Final Development Plan application was approved. MOTION 3: To approve this Corridor Development District application because the proposal is in keeping with the existing character of this area and provide a harmonious use that will be a substantial benefit to surrounding uses. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: This Comdor Development District application was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, Planner -Page2of2- STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Range Planning C990 Shier-Rings Road ilin, Ohio 4301b-123b ne:bl4-410-4b00 Fox:bl4-410-4141 Web Site: wxnv.dublin.oh-us 5. Rezoning/Final Development Plan/Corridor Development District - 06- OS1Z/FDP/CDD - Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive Location: 4.2 acres located at the northeast intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. Existing Zoning: R-4, Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 4.2 acres to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.234, review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Section 153.053(E) and a Corridor Development District application under the provisions of Section 153.115. Proposed Use: A 12,000-square-foot office building for a law office. Applicant: Four Fives, LLC, 2101 Sherborne Lane, Powell, Ohio 43065; represented by Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614)410-4675/Email:chusak@dublin.oh.us. UPDATE: On June 8, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard an application for review and approval of a rezoning to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District and a Corridor Development District application for this site. The Commissioners discussed the reduced need for parking for this tenant as well as the applicability of the property perimeter screening requirements for this wooded site. The Commission suggested the applicant to revise the application to a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to allow for increased flexibility in the development of the site and to include the final development plan as part of the revised application as a majority of the required detail was already established. The case was tabled at the request of the applicant. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 2 of 12 BACKGROUND: Case Summary: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a proposed 12,000-sgaure-foot office building. The site consists 4.2 acres located at the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. This application is also a request for final development plan approval of all site modifications, including the demolition of the existing residential structure and driveway and the construction of the office building with parking and associated site improvements. In addition, the site is located within the CDD, Corridor Development District, which also requires Planning Commission review and approval. Staff believes the proposed office use is a compatible, low-impact use for this site and recommends approval of the rezoning request, the final development plan, and the Corridor Development District review request with conditions. Case Procedure for Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan): The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be returned to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Review Criteria for Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan): In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 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 the 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; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 3 of 12 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 aze 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 plan's contribution 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 azeas; 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; 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 phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure aze consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. Ob-OS 1 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 4 of 12 Case Procedure for Final Development Plan: The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approvesJdenies). The general intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed refinement of the total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The final development plan includes all of the final details of the proposed development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission may approve as submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and terminate the process. If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. Such action will be considered a new application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the event that updated city- wide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that such updated standards would not cause undue hardship. Review Criteria for Final Development Plan: In accordance with Section 153.055(B) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a final development plan: 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; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 5 of 12 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; and 10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Case Procedure for Corridor Development District: The Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for reviewing all site plans, exterior construction, and building additions and modification within the Corridor Development District overlay under the provisions of Section 153.115. The Planning Commission is to make a recommendation, within 30 days, on the application to ensure: 1) That existing and anticipated corridor land uses and traffic improvements will be developed in a manner that protects the health and safety of residents of the City; 2) That existing and anticipated corridor land uses and traffic improvements maintain the image of the City as a quality community; and 3) That development maintains traffic flow and accessibility so as to encourage compatible land uses and to protect property values, requiring special emphasis on traffic planning and frontage treatment. If the application is disapproved, the Commission should state its reasons for doing so. A disapproval or approval with modifications may be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Section 153.235. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. Review Criteria for Corridor Development District: In accordance with Section 153.115, the Code sets out the following criteria for approval of the Corridor Development District request: 1) That proposed uses are permitted as so specified by the zoning in force for the subject land; 2) That the proposed development is in accord with the SawmilUl61 Quadrant Plan and other appropriate plans for the area; 3) That the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing andlor proposed land use character and the physical development potential of the area; and 4) The proposed development meets or exceeds the development standards set forth in Section 153.115(D) of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. CONSIDERATIONS: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 6 of 12 Site Characteristics: Site Description. This 4.2-acre, rectangular site has 450 feet of frontage on the north side of Martin Road and 320 feet of frontage on the east side of Riverside Drive. The site has significant topographical features with 22 feet of grade change from east to west and substantial tree stands, particularly in the western portion. • Existing Conditions. There is an existing 1,984-square-foot, single-story residence with a detached garage and detached barn. The current access drive for this property is located on Martin Road, approximately 65 feet east of Riverside Drive. Chain link fencing exists to the north of this drive, around the existing residence as well as near the eastern property line. The plans indicate that the current access drive and all chain link fence will be removed as part of this development proposal. This site provides access for a residential parcel to the north through a drive along the eastern property line. Zoning. This site and parcels to the north are zoned R-4, Suburban Residential District for one- to eight-family dwelling structures. The Colony Estates subdivision to the east is zoned R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District, and the River Highlands subdivision to the south is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the west, across Riverside Drive is the Quarry Place office park also zoned PUD. No history of a formal rezoning ordinance for sites annexed between 1961 and 1972, including this site was previously established and on the advice of Dublin's Law Director, Ordinance #94-03 was introduced to City Council on August 18, 2003 to establish Dublin zoning. This site and surrounding properties were included in an area-wide establishment of Dublin Zoning in 2004. Community Plan Issues: • Land Use. The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan recommends high- density residential (2.0 to 5.0 du/ac) on this parcel. The applicant is proposing a high-quality, low-intensity office use for this site. While the proposed development does not conform to the recommended land use in the Community Plan, residential proposals may be unsuccessful on this challenging site and could result in a more intense use of the site. Staff believes this use to be appropriate for this site based on anticipated traffic generation levels and the lesser traffic impact of office versus high-density residential use. Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan within the Community Plan indicates the projected right-of--way width of Riverside Drive to be 120 feet and 60 feet for Martin Road. The plans and the development text indicate 90 feet of existing right- of-way for Riverside Drive and 60 feet of existing right-of--way for Martin Road. Staff has requested that the additional 30 feet total of right-of--way required on Riverside Drive be dedicated to the City of Dublin via a plat or general warranty deed prior to issuance of building permits. The text should be revised to adhere to this timeline. • Scenic Roadways. Riverside Drive is designated as a scenic roadway in the Community Plan. The desired setback for development along scenic roadways is approximately 200 feet as measured from the future right-of--way. The proposal indicates that, at a maximum, parking will encroach 90 feet into the desired 200- foot setback. Martin Road is also designated a scenic roadway, however staff is not Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-OS 1Z/FDP/CDD -Page 7 of 12 aware of any developments that adhere to a 200-foot setback along this roadway. Staff believes that strict adherence to the required setback is not essential along this road and that more focused attention should be paid toward preserving trees and utilizing topography to hide pavement. Due to these factors, staff believes the proposal meets the intent of the Scenic Roadway recommendations. • Bikeway Plan. The Bikeway Plan within the Community Plan shows a planned bikepath along the east side of Riverside Drive and the north side of Martin Road. Staff has visited the site and found two stone retaining walls close to the edge of pavement along Riverside Drive. Due to the existing walls, topographic conditions and vegetation of this site, fulfilling the bikepath requirement will be challenging. The applicant has worked with staff to identify an alternative location for this path through the site and the proposed development text requires the applicant to provide a public bikepath. Site Layout: • General Layout. This proposal includes a 12,000-square-foot, 2%z-story office building centrally located on the site. The foundation of the existing building will be incorporated into the layout of the new office building. The applicants have designed the layout of the building and parking to account for existing site conditions. The current access to the site off Martin Road will be removed and a new access point will be constructed. This private access drive will provide access to the site via a loop drive. Parking is located in two main lots, to the front and the rear of the building with the remainder dispersed along the access drive. The plans show a proposed bikepath winding through the site from the southeast property line through the scenic setback toward the northwest corner of the site. • Parking Layout. The parking provided for the office building has been compartmentalized into several `pods' of parking, based on tenant needs and to preserve existing trees. Parking intended for visitors is located around the front of the building on the eastern portion of the site. Parking for 18 vehicles is located at the rear of the building in the northwest portion of the site. The applicant has stated that this parking area is intended to be more heavily used by employees who will have access to the rear of the building. This western parking lot encroaches into the scenic setback; however, staff believes that this area will not be visible from either Martin Road or Riverside Drive. Access Considerations/Traffic Management: Traffic Study. A modified traffic study has been submitted for this site as part of this application. Staff is working with the applicant to finalize the report. The applicant is not responsible for any traffic improvements. However, the applicant is required to include provisions for across-access drive for the property to the north should it redevelop to eliminate the curb cut along the eastern property line. The text includes language providing for this cross-access and staff requests that an exhibit be included that shows the future cross access. As long as the property to the north remains asingle-family home, the existing drive can remain. Public/Private Streets. The plans show the proposed curb cut off Martin Road aligning with Zachary Court as required by staff. Pavement within the private Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-OS 1 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 8 of 12 streets and parking areas should meet the City Engineer's requirements for strength and durability. The driveway approaches within the right-of--way will meet the City standards. Turning movements of waste hauling and emergency vehicles must be accounted for in designing curves and turning radii. Private drives and drive aisles in parking lots should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. Development Text Standards: Proposed Uses. The development text permits all uses outlined in the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District portion of the Zoning Code, which include administrative and business uses, professional and medical offices. Exceptions listed in the text are institutional uses such as hospitals, educational uses, libraries, museums and art galleries and religious organizations. Conditional uses include research and development, vocational schools, school and education services and non-profit and scientific research agencies not elsewhere classified. The text provides for the existing barn to be used as storage subject to all applicable building and fire codes. Height Requirements. The development text states that the building height shall not exceed 35 feet as measured per the Code. The architectural elevations illustrate compliance with this standard. • Setbacks. The text requires a 15-foot pavement setback and a 20-foot building setback from all side and rear property lines with a provision that the existing barn in the northeast corner of the site and the existing drive for the property to the north can encroach into these setbacks. The proposed office building is set back 210 feet from Riverside Drive and 120 feet from Martin Road adhering to the text. All newly constructed pavement areas will meet the required 15-foot side and rear yard setbacks. Bikepath. The text states that the bikepath will start at the southeast corner of the property and will end within approximately 25 feet of the northwest property line. Staff is confident that the proposed location will be adequate for a public bikepath and recommends that the applicant continue working with staff in finalizing the details of the bikepath, including field verification of the location. The path will not be required to be installed up to the northwest property line at this time as the terrain in this area would require a bridge. The text also states that the construction of the path shall not be required until the City demonstrates plans to connect this path to a larger bikepath system in the area. Staff believes that this bikepath is an integral starting point of a future bikepath system in this area and requires that this language be removed from the text and that the path be provided concurrent with the construction of the office building. • Parking. The parking requirement for this development has been calculated based on the 12,000 square feet of office use proposed. The applicant contends that the maximum need for parking is 40 spaces and the text includes this requirement for the anticipated use of a law office. The text also includes a provision for review of the parking needs if the use changes in the future. Property Perimeter Requirements. Code requires a property perimeter buffer in the form of a 100 percent opaque, six-foot high continuous screen (planting, hedge, fence, or earth mound) with a deciduous tree planted every forty feet of lineal Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-OS 1 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 9 of 12 boundary along the eastern and northern property lines due to the neighboring residentially zoned land. Existing trees can be counted provided they are located on the property and are in good condition. The text states that a wooden fence between 42 and 48 inches in height will be provided along the east property line. The applicant has contacted the property owner to the north and has reached an agreement that no screening in the form of a fence shall be required. Staff believes that due to the heavy existing vegetation and the residential character of the proposed development the proposed reduced screening is appropriate. • Vehicular Use Areas. Code requires a 3 %-foot high, 100 percent opaque screen, and one deciduous tree every forty feet adjacent to all vehicular use areas, including driveways. The proposed development text provides for a deviation from this Landscape Code requirement in that staff can determine that this requirement can be fulfilled in areas other than immediately adjacent to the pavement. Staff believes that existing vegetation along the eastern and northern boundaries will act as adequate screening. Staff further believes that screening requirements along Martin Road and Riverside Drive will have to be reassessed during construction to identify visible areas. Staff expects that these areas will be adequately screened from public right-of--way due to existing vegetation. The applicant is required to continue to work to fulfill Landscape Code requirements where necessary. • Signage. Code permits two ground or wall signs for this site and the development text requires adherence to the Sign Code. This application includes one identification sign to be placed in a center median at the entry drive into the site. Retaining walls will also be installed at either side of the entry. The proposed sign face is a 10.4-square-foot stucco panel recessed on a 35-square-foot stone panel to match the retaining walls. Staff requests that the applicant demonstrate that the sign and retaining walls meet the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles. • Lighting. The development text states that site and building lighting will comply with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines with the exception that the minimum required foot candle measured at grade be reduced by half to maintain the residential character of the area. Additionally, the text requires lighting in the northern portion of the site to be extinguished by 10 p.m. The plans propose antique street lamps on 12- and 18-foot poles for this site and staff recommends that all lamps be located sensitive to existing trees. Architecture: • Design. The text requires high-quality, residential-scale architecture and the proposed elevation incorporates traditional colonial details and has the appearance of a large main building with aone-story attached addition. The design includes atwo- and-a-half-story building with varied rooflines with louver details and four-sided architecture. The foundation of the main portion of the building is clad in stone. Each elevation has substantial fenestration with a variety of details including muffins, transom, lintels and shutters. The building has a large front porch with columns and a balcony with balustrades above the front entrance. Additional design features include a large terrace on the west elevation and additional balconies on the south and west elevation. A large stone chimney is included on the east elevation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 10 of 12 Materials. Permitted materials include stone, manufactured stone, wood, board and batten siding, cement board and vinyl and EIFS for trim only. Roofing materials permitted include dimensional asphalt shingles, standing seam metal, and slate. The proposed elevations include stone and horizontal siding for the main portion of the building. Board and batten siding will be utilized for the small addition. Dimensional asphalt shingles and standing seam will be the roofing material and aluminum-clad windows will be installed. The plans indicate material options that adhere to the text requirements. Proposed colors are generally muted beiges and grays. Staff recommends that all final details be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to filing for building permits. Tree Preservation/Landscaping: Tree Preservation. Code requires that location, size, species, condition and critical root zone of existing protected trees impacted by construction activity are identified. Protected trees are defined as those greater than six inches in diameter, and protected trees in good or fair condition that are removed will need to be replaced on aninch-for-inch basis. Existing trees were inspected and measured and the total for tree replacements is 210 inches. The landscape plans do not include locations for replacement plantings and staff requests that the applicant work with staff to identify locations for replacement trees or that the fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Additionally, the plans must be updated to include trees disturbed by the construction of the bikepath. Tree fencing locations need to be revised to accommodate utility improvements and other construction activities and tree fencing must be shown on all civil drawings. Tree Waiver. The applicant has expressed an interest in applying for a replacement tree fee waiver from City Council. In order to be considered for a tree waiver, the site must meet all other Code and text standards. Also, the developer must utilize proper methods to save trees in the layout of the plan and must minimize impacts from site grading and utility installation. Staff is generally supportive of a tree waiver as the locations for replacement trees on this site are limited and expects a tree waiver request to be included when the rezoning application is heard by City Council. Interior landscaping. Code requires interior landscaping equal to five percent of the vehicular use area. There shall also be a minimum of one tree for every 5,000 square feet of ground coverage of structures and vehicular use areas within the interior landscaped area. The proposed development adheres to this section of Code. • Street Trees. Staff has determined that the existing conditions of this site do not make it practical to require street trees. The existing vegetation and tree rows are particularly dense around the perimeter of the site and staff believes that if the trees along the frontages will remain relatively undisturbed, additional trees may not be warranted. The applicant will be required to install additional street trees should staff determine they are necessary in the future through the landscape inspection process. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 11 of 12 Utilities and Stormwater Management: • Water Supply. An eight-inch waterline is located on the north side of Martin Road to provide water service to the site. • Sanitary Sewer Service. There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer on the south side of Martin Road that the applicant will need to tap into for service. No open cutting of the existing public roadway will be allowed to access the existing public infrastructure without permission from the City Engineer. Stormwater Management. The proposed development should meet the requirements of the Stormwater Regulations. The utility plan shows an underground large- diameter pipe system with two outlets that release into vegetated swales. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Rezoning): Staff believes that while the proposed development does not conform to the recommended land use, the proposed office use is appropriate for this site considering the anticipated traffic generation levels and the lesser traffic impact of this office versus the current zoning classification of high-density residential use. In addition, the existing vegetation and topography would be significantly impacted by developments according to the current zoning and staff believes that this proposal successfully preserves the natural character of this site. Staff further believes that this property is in a transitional area within the City and that the proposed low-impact office development addresses the development challenges of this site. The proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area and staff recommends approval of this rezoning with three conditions. Conditions: 1) That the text be revised to require that the necessary right-of--way on Riverside Drive, as determined by the City Engineer, be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) That an exhibit be provided showing the future cross-access for the property to the north; and 3) That the text be revised to exclude the language that requires the bikepath not be installed until the City connects it to a larger bikepath system. Bases: 1) The proposal implements the environmental goals of the Dublin Community Plan. 2) The proposal is consistent with preferred land uses for the site and produces less traffic overall than projected in the Community Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Final Development Plan): This stage represents the final step in the approval process of a planned district development. The applicant has worked with staff to discuss and refine the site plans, architecture, and landscaping for this site. Staff believes that the site design and the high- quality architecture will offer an attractive use to this area of the City. Staff recommends approval of this Final Development Plan with ten conditions: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2006 Case No. 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD -Page 12 of 12 Conditions: 1) That the applicant continue working with staff in finalizing the details of the bikepath, including field verification of the location and the provision of an easement; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to fulfill Landscape Code requirements where necessary; 3) That the design of all private drives, parking areas, and drive approaches meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 4) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 5) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; and 6) That the site's stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 7) That all final architectural details be approved by staff prior to filing for building permits; 8) That all lights be located so as to not interfere with existing vegetation; and 9) That a tree replacement fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, if necessary. Bases: 1) The proposal meets the preliminary development plan. 2) The proposed site layout has been designed to preserve a substantial number of trees. 3) The quality of the architecture provides an attractive gateway along Riverside Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (Corridor Development District): The major purpose of the Corridor Development District (CDD), as denoted in Section 153.115(A) of the Dublin Zoning Code, is to provide overlay requirements to ensure anticipated land uses and traffic improvements will be developed in a manner that will both protect the health and safety of residents and ensure a quality image for the City. This proposed development takes existing conditions and vegetation into account, while ensuring that the land use is compatible and the access is appropriate, and preserves the character of this area, which will continue the image of the City of Dublin as ahigh-quality community at this location. Staff recommends approval of this CDD application. Bases: 1) The proposal is in keeping with the existing character of this area. 2) The proposed development will be adequately served and provide a harmonious use that will provide substantial benefit to surrounding uses. 3) The proposed development will meet ongoing planning efforts for the City of Dublin, and will blend with surrounding land uses and promote orderly development of the surrounding area. PROPOSED SITE PLAN .t ~ , j P sa+'cea i'w~f¢T C i ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 1 . om... _ / ~ / ~ ~ / . ~ ~i rte/ - i i, ~/J//' ~j / it - - ] i z - f~ ~ _ - - . - ' ~ ! / / ~v i - 4 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ v _ , - ' . : _ - i _ _ - - _ u Sae Na. a,.,, N a 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD Rezoning/Final Development Plan/ Corridor Development District Standley Law Offices ~Znn Rivercirle l~ri~~e PROPOSED ELEVATIONS . ~.~J - _ f~2 - - a Q - - - - - ~ ® ' ~ a..~«. ~.I ~ JI-' i _ r ~r~b~/4 .o...~. - _ - ~ - ~f12 fm C'..°. - ...gym ~d _ j , ~ 4. _ i~ Rezoning/Final Development Plan/ _ Corridor Development District ~~~~;e'e°'°' Standley Law Offices ~~nn il:_.___._: Tl..:.... PROPOSED SIGNAGE - - is ,~~i, ~_^r~,'-' ii _ L__.~,, A ~ =J".ST'tY,~ 3iQt` iY4.L5 in yi = F ~ - ~ Law Group - ~T7i0007 u~ J' ~l f . ~ ti= i~ ° / I i r -r I'~~ / r _ ~ TM-~~:~.8 ' f. ~ ey. ! 1..`T'•~~ :O ~ "~'~L`.: r'~f'L'~2' TO F.y~~ ~F 51`Y/l. 06-OS1Z/FDP/CDD Rezoning/Final Development Plan/ Corridor Development District Standley Law Offices („M Ric~PrcirlP Tlrive Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 6, 2006 Page 8 of 10 5. Rezoning/Final Development Plan/Corridor Development District 06- 051Z/FDP/CDD - Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive Mr. Gerber noted this case consists of three different applications, a rezoning, a final development plan, and a Corridor Development District review. He swore in those who intended to testify on this case. Mr. Saneholtz stated he had a question relating to the development text, referring to page two where a possible future addition of 800 square feet is indicated. He asked if the applicant had something in mind to put there. Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, said that the proposed office building is 12,000 square feet and the text is trying to give a little latitude by adding 800 square feet with this approval. Mr. Saneholtz said that was fine, he was just curious if there was something unique that they should anticipate coming forth. Mr. Dugger said it is an arbitrary number, that if they needed to add a closet or something they could do that. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Dugger if he agrees with the three conditions of the rezoning. Mr. Dugger said he did. Mr. Gerber asked if he agreed to the nine conditions as they relate to the final development plan and Mr. Dugger said he did. Mr. Gerber asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to the application. [There was no response.] Motion #1: Mr. Gerber moved for approval of the Rezoning because this proposal implements the environmental goals of the Dublin Community Plan, is consistent with preferred land uses for the site and produces less traffic overall than projected in the Community Plan, with the three conditions: 1) That the text be revised to require that the necessary right-of--way on Riverside Drive, as determined by the City Engineer, be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) That an exhibit be provided showing the future cross-access for the property to the north; and 3) That the text be revised to exclude the language that requires the bikepath not be installed until the City connects it to a larger bikepath system. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman; yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Motion #2: Mr. Gerber moved for approval of the Final Development Plan because this proposal meets the preliminary development plan, the proposed site layout has been designed to preserve a substantial number of trees and the quality of the architecture provides an attractive gateway along Riverside Drive, with the nine conditions: 1) That the applicant continue working with staff in finalizing the details of the bikepath, including field verification of the location and the provision of an easement; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 6, 2006 ~~F`J' Page 9 of 10 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to fulfill Landscape Code requirements where necessary; 3) That the design of all private drives, parking areas, and drive approaches meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 4) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 5) That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; and 6) That the site's stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 7) That all final architectural details be approved by staff prior to filing for building permits; 8) That all lights be located so as to not interfere with existing vegetation; and 9) That a tree replacement fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, if necessary. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz; yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Motion #3: Mr. Gerber moved for approval of the Corridor Development District because this proposal is in keeping with the existing character of this area, provide a harmonious use that will provide substantial benefit to surrounding uses and will meet ongoing planning efforts for the City of Dublin. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 8, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and ~--gig Range Planning 0 Shier-Rings Road lin, Ohio 4301b-1236 Phone: 614-410-4600 Fax: b14-410-4741 Web Site: www.duhlin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 6. Rezoning/Corridor Development District 06-OS1Z/CDD - Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive Location: 4.2 acres located at the northeast intersection of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. Existing Zoning: R-4, Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 4.2 acres to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, under the provisions of Section 153.234 and a Corridor Development District application under the provisions of Section 153.115. Proposed Use: A 12,000-square-foot office building for a law office. Applicant: Four Fives, LLC, 2101 Sherborne Lane, Powell, Ohio 43065; represented by Glen A. Dugger, Smith and Hale, 37 West $road Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/Email: chusak@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To table these Rezoning/Corridor Development District applications in order for this case to be rezoned to a PUD, Planned Unit Development, with a text addressing perimeter fencing requirements, parking, lighting and the bike path. * Glen A. Dugger, Smith & Hale, agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 7 - 0. RESULT: These Rezoning/Corridor Development District applications were tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak Planner 06-051 Z/FDP/CDD Rezoning/Final Development Plan/ Corridor Development District Standley Law Offices 6300 Riverside Drive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 14 OF 21 Mr. Gerber Mr. Rex both said at was something t y could work on w' the applicant with case the future. Mr. er said they have d this issue lately it is time to take it hea n. He asked Mr. idotti if he agreed a tabling at this p ' t. Mr. Ghidotti sa' yes Mr. Gerber mov for tabling of this al Development P to allow the appli t time to incorporate az 'tectural changes uggested by the PI 'ng and Zoning C fission. Mr. Zimm an seconded the tion. Vote o the motion: Mr. S eholtz, yes; Ms. J es, yes; Mr. McC ,yes; Mr. Fishm yes• r. Walter, yes; Mr immerman, yes; .Gerber, yes. (Tab 7-0.) Mr. Gerber called r afive-minute bre 6. Rezoning/Corridor Development District 06-OS1Z/CDD - Standley Law Offices - 6300 Riverside Drive (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify on this case. Ms. Husak presented the application and showed slides of the site and the proposed plans. She noted 48 pazking spaces are required by Code, but that applicant contends that 40 spaces aze what will be needed. She added that a bikepath is required and the topography is challenging, but the applicant is working with staff on a meandering path through the site. She said staff recommends approval with the following conditions, including amended Condition 3. 1. That the necessary right-of--way on Riverside Drive, as determined by the City Engineer, be dedicated to the City via a general warranty deed; 2. That the applicant continue working with staff in finalizing the details of the bikepath, including field verification of the location and provide an easement for the maintenance of the path; 3. That the applicant provide a cross access drive for the property to the north should it redevelop with a compatible use; 4. That the design of all private drives, parking areas, and drive approaches meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; 5. That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at the proposed access point; 6. That all utility connections and/or extensions meet or exceed the requirements and standards of the Engineering Division; and 7. That the site's stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8. That all final architectural details be approved by staff prior to filing for building permits; 9. That all lights be located sensitive to existing trees and that the site comply with the Exterior Lighting Guidelines; 10. That the applicant work with staff to revise the landscape plans to reflect comments in this staff report; and 11. That a tree replacement fee be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, if necessazy. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 15 OF 21 Mr. Glen Dugger, Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, said they agree with the conditions. Pat Hitesman, 6350 Riverside Drive, said it was a nice plan and he supported it, but there was a connectivity issue to the north. He asked if Mr. Wiebe's driveway would be closed off for redevelopment. Mr. Gerber asked staff if that was covered by a condition. Ms. Husak replied that Condition 3 in the staff report states if it redevelops as anything other than residential, access through this site needs to be provided. Mr. Walter congratulated the applicant for a well thought out proposal which supports the topography. He stated he had several issues, one being the bikepath, and the other the need to have a privacy screen fence on the north and east sides. He questioned the height of the fence. Ms. Husak indicated it was to screen a residential use from anon-residential use, and the Landscape Code requires a continuous, six-foot high planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound. Mr. Walter asked if Engineering is planning on maintaining or moving the speed hump on Martin Road. Kristin Yorko, Assistant Civil Engineer, stated that Engineering staff will not adjust anything at this point. Mr. Walter stated he is very much in support of the rural character of Dublin, and one of our few hallmark items are barns, and he applauded the applicant for planning to maintain it. He asked what their planned use for it is. Mr. Dugger said nothing is planned at this point. Mr. Walter asked if it falls into disuse, would it be removed. Mr. Dugger stated it is not a habitable structure, and they could perhaps use it for a garage or for storage. He said they are trying to preserve it as it goes well with the architecture of the building. Mr. Walter asked if the stone wall on Martin Road is going to be eliminated. Mr. Dugger said yes, the wall runs west, stops, and picks up going north. Mr. Walter asked if they have any intention of filling in the break. Mr. Dugger said it cannot be done because of the topography. Mr. Walter was concerned that the parking area extending into the scenic setback may be visible in winter time. Ms. Husak said that there is a 22-foot drop and it was highly unlikely that it would be visible. Mr. Dugger stated the site has an enormous amount of vegetation, and a fairly significant grade change, but he would defer to staff as to whether any additional landscaping is necessary. Mr. Walter said he thought they could see the house, and they have the building oriented north/south, but if they would go east/west they could get better access and preserve many more of the natural characteristics. Mr. Dugger said the idea was to make it look like a historical structure and the building is being located in the pad of the existing house. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 16 OF 21 Mr. Gerber asked about the traffic they foresee, and expected that patent law attorneys would not generate much traffic. Mr. Dugger agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said there is no assurance there will always be patent attorneys there. He stated this is a wonderful use of the site and asked staff if a bike path is planned for south of this site. Ms. Husak said the bike path is required on the north side only, and does not connect to any others right now, but it is starting somewhere. Ms. Jones said she will support the rezoning, and believed they should talk more about the 40 parking spaces and the bikepath rerouting. Mr. Gerber reiterated that a straight zoning is proposed and typically variances must go to BZA. He asked the applicant what they would like to do. Mr. Dugger said he would like this Commission to recommend approval of the parking variance to the BZA. He said they will make the application and ask the Commission to express their support for it. Mr. McCash asked why they did not file a rezoning to a PUD. Mr. Dugger said it was timing. He indicated Mr. Gunderman had suggested the PUD zoning, but they did not know about the 40/48 parking space problem at that time. Mr. McCash said now you have to go to the BZA and other issues will come up with a heavily wooded site, as the Landscape Code is not written for that. He added there is the fence issue, and we would hate to see a fence as the screen. Ms. Dutey-Readier stated the Code for perimeter buffering does require asix-foot buffer in this particular circumstance. She explained that situations are limited where straight zoned office and commercial districts are adjacent to straight zoned residential districts. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Dugger had any objection to changing the fence. Mr. Dugger said he had no objection to lowering the height of the fence. Mr. McCash asked if they want the fence. Mr. Dugger replied it was done to meet Code, and one of the challenges they had was that the drive is their east boundary. Mr. McCash was concerned that this drive, while adequate for asingle-family house, may not be adequate if the site redevelops. Mr. Dugger indicated their current legal obligation is to Mr. Wiebe only. He said they have access to Riverside Drive as does Mr. Wiebe, who is landlocked. He indicated they have no problem with the condition as it is drafted. Mr. McCash asked that they adjust the easement access language to indicate that it just be for Mr. Wiebe. Mr. Dugger said they agree. Mr. McCash said the problem with the landscaping is that there is existing vegetation, and the Landscape Code deals with non-wooded sites. He suggested that if the neighbors on the east side did not care, the applicant could get a variance. Mr. Walter indicated that the plans show a continuous fence, without a break, for the access drive. Mr. Dugger noted that the drawing is wrong. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 17 OF Z1 Mr. McCash suggested that the applicant may be better served by a Planned District rezoning with a development text addressing all these things discussed tonight; i.e., pazking, fencing, rather than go back to BZA and delay them further. Mr. Dugger said he will be happy to just attach a text to this application that addresses all of these issues. Mr. Gunderman said if they go to a planned district, they may be able to use the plan as a preliminazy plan, and to write a text and take it on to City Council. He added that Code permits a combination of a preliminary and final development plan. Mr. McCash agreed and said that becomes a question as to whether or not we approve it tonight, or take a look at that development text. He said he does not know where the timing issues are, that is why the other option is to approve it as an SO zoning tonight, but the applicant must turn azound immediately and file to change it to a PUD. Mr. Dugger said if you want to approve it tonight with a condition that we convert it to Planned District, with a recommendation to Council to consider both the plans, the preliminazy and the final concurrently, then that is something that might work. Mr. McCash said they could approve the SO tonight, with a condition that they convert it to a PUD. Mr. Gerber said he did not think they could do it that way. He wanted to know procedurally what the next step would be, if the Commissioners approve this case this evening. Ms. Dutey-Readier replied that it would go to Council for the rezoning of this SO. Mr. Dugger thought it would probably be easier for him to convert the application to the Planned District. Mr. Walter stated that the Commissioners cannot approve it with 40 spaces, saying they have to approve it with the 48 spaces. Mr. McCash said that on a straight zone they are just approving the rezoning. Mr. Gerber agreed, and said all this other stuff we aze taking about is in the Code, and we cannot change that. Mr. McCash said with the architecture of the building, after we vote to approve the SO the applicant could change the architecture on it, but he would have to come back to us with a CDD application. Mr. Gunderman agreed that he would have to come back for the CDD, and that is why all the conditions are on the CDD. Mr. Walter asked for clarification that if we approve it, we just approve the rezoning, then it comes back with the final development plan that will show either 40 or 48 parking spaces. Mr. Gerber said no, Code requires 48 spaces, and asix-foot fence. Mr. Walter said he understood that Code requires 48 spaces; but he wanted to know if the BZA process happens after final development plan approval. Mr. McCash said that if the case comes back as a PUD, only 40 spaces would be shown, which is a deviation from Code; but, with a Planned District you have that flexibility. He added that if the site was a straight zoning, the applicant has to go to the BZA. Mr. Walter asked when he would go to the BZA in the process; if it was after final, or prior to final. Mr. McCash said after a rezoning to a straight zone there is no final development plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 18 OF 21 Mr. Dugger said he would prefer to do what Mr. McCash suggested earlier, to approve the zoning with a condition that we convert this to a PUD, and that we attach a text which varies down the parking and the fence, and go to Council. He said that way the applicant will not have to go to BZA. Mr. Fishman stated he had concerns about the barn and maintenance of the barn if it goes to the PUD. He said he would like to require maintenance of the barn along with the property. Mr. Dugger said they will do reasonable maintenance, but sometimes with these old barns you cannot do maintenance unless you replace them. He said they would work with staff. Mr. Fishman asked if the bikepath could be made useable now, because it might be 20 years before it is connected. Mr. Gunderman stated staff is most comfortable with the condition the way it is written. He said by the time this item gets to Council, we may have some refinements to it. Mr. Fishman asked if they could hook the bike path to the road. Mr. Gunderman said there is no particular issue at the Martin Road end because the terrain is relatively flat, but we really need to have a more satisfactory solution at the Riverside Drive end. He added they need an expectation of continuing that path in a reasonable period of time, and they still need some investigation on that. Ms. Dutey-Readier asked to clarify the condition about the rezoning. Mr. Gerber said he had the impression this subject has confused everyone. He said the condition we are talking about now is that we approve this case, adding condition 12 stating that the applicant, posthaste, file an application for a PUD. Ms. Dutey-Readier said they had concerns about that because the condition can only be added to the CDD portion of this application. She believes that it would be better if the applicant came back with a PUD application, if that is what the Commission suggested. She said their recommendation to Council is going to be that they approve the SO, because that is the rezoning portion that goes to Council, and the CDD does not go to Council. Mr. Gerber said that was why he was asking procedurally if this is the best way. Ms. Dutey-Readier said she understood and explained that if the applicant wants to go to a PUD, then a revised application would be cleaner. She stated if the applicant comes back with a new application for a PUD, then the preliminary and final development plans can be considered the same night. Mr. Gerber said timing-wise, he did not want to hold the applicant up. Mr. McCash said this is rezoning and is a legislative issue, so the Commission can add conditions if the applicant agrees. Ms. Dutey-Readier said that is not the opinion of the Law Director. She said this issue came up recently for another case and it is the Law Director's position that any time a property is zoned to a straight district, no conditions can be attached to it. She said practically speaking there is no notice to future property owners for this case. Mr. McCash said they have 11 conditions. Ms. Dutey-Readier responded that those conditions are attached to the Corridor Development District portion of this application, which is a separate review and does not go to Council. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 19 OF 21 Mr. Gerber reiterated to Ms. Dutey-Readler that what she is recommending is a tabling, in essence, with instruction to the applicant to come back with a PUD application, if that is the pleasure of the Commission. He said otherwise, we have before us an application to rezone and it is a yes or no vote. Ms. Dutey-Readler agreed. Mr. McCash did not agree and thought it could be made a condition of the CDD that the applicant rezone to a PUD. Ms. Dutey-Readler said they have discussed that, the problem is the Commission's recommendation to City Council has to be only on the zoning portion. She continued that the Commission has to give Council direction tonight of what the recommendation is. She said it is her understanding that the discussion tonight centered around a condition that states that when this case comes up to Council it is going to either be a rezoning to SO, or PUD, and technically you do not have the capacity to give a recommendation on the PUD because you are not reviewing a PUD application tonight. Mr. McCash agreed, and said his recommendation is that the applicant go ahead to Council with a rezoning to SO, based on the condition on the CDD that he rezone into a PUD. Ms. Dutey-Readler reiterated that the suggestion is the applicant go to Council with an SO, and no discussion will be made at Council on the PUD application, so he gets approval on the SO only. Mr. McCash agreed. Ms. Dutey-Readler explained that the applicant would have to go to Council twice if he came back with a whole new PUD application. Mr. Gerber said he understands that the choices are either table this case and have the applicant do the PUD rezoning; or alternatively, vote the case as it is before them tonight. Mr. Walter said if we are more comfortable with a PUD, and it makes it cleaner, with apologies to the applicant, I do not know why we have to set precedent trying to accommodate his schedule. Mr. Dugger responded that they may not have a development if they do not accommodate some form of the schedule. Mr. Walter said that certainly would be his choice. Mr. McCash said if we table it this evening for two or three weeks to the next hearing, you could do the development text, we could re-advertise it as a PUD, and then address it all at one time. Ms. Duty-Readler agreed. Mr. Dugger said yes, that he was okay with that, as long as he did not have to start over with the application process. Mr. Dugger it was fine if they could take this application and hear it July 6th. Mr. McCash said we are having enough discussion tonight that if he did that particular component it may actually be a consent agenda item, because we have already seen this stuff. Mr. Fishman asked if he is going to put in the text the 40 parking spaces ,versus 48; the low fence, and all that other stuff. Mr. Gerber and Mr. Dugger agreed. Mr. Dugger asked for clarification, since he will have to draft this document. He said he would like some consensus for the drafting as we are talking about a 48-inch fence, 40 parking spaces, and asked is there anything else from a variance standpoint that we need to address in the text. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 20 OF 21 Ms. Husak suggested that the uses be defined. Mr. Walter said he would just break out the fence across the bike path. He said they have not talked about the sign, and he hates to bring it up, but if they are doing this now, does anybody have any issues with the signage. [No issues were raised.] Mr. Gerber said it is a great project, he just does not want them to get snagged and delayed. Mr. McCash said because they are trying to imitate a house and that fits in better than a large office complex, if he came back after talking to the surrounding property owners and said he was not going to do a perimeter landscape screening component, whether a fence, etc., he personally would not have a problem with that. Mr. Dugger noted the only reason they put the fence there was the perimeter Code requirement. Mr. Gerber agreed that the Code required it, but he did not believe they need it. Mr. Dugger agreed. Mr. Gerber said procedurally this is a cleaner way, and maybe this comes back as consent. Mr. Dugger said they will submit everything and work with staff to get on the agenda as fast as they can. Mr. McCash said the only other thing is Condition 9, which says all lights be located sensitive to existing trees and that the site comply with the exterior lighting guidelines. Mr. Gerber stated he has to anyway, even in the PUD. Mr. McCash stated our guidelines are not ordinances. Mr. Gerber said he understands, but typically they have been. Mr. McCash said when you start dealing with the lighting guidelines and lighting these things, it is usually lit 24/7. He said he would like it to be a lot more sensitive to not needing all of that lighting because it is adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Dugger said there was some discussion internally as to whether full compliance with that was a good idea. He said he would talk with his client, but there is a substantial likelihood they will say run the lights until 10:00 p.m., or maybe we will turn them off at some particulaz time. He added that they may light one parking lot light by the door, and not light two others. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Dugger if he agrees with this for tabling purposes. Mr. Dugger said when they stazted this process, quite candidly he did have a problem with putting together the PUD application, because of an uncertainty about how broad the support for this would be. He added that now that we know we are all there, and down to a couple of issues, he does not have a problem with converting it and bringing it back before the Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Gerber moved to table these Rezoning/Corridor Development District applications in order for this case to be rezoned to a PUD, Planned Unit Development, with a text addressing perimeter fencing requirements, pazking, lighting and the bike path. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2006 -PAGE 21 OF 21 Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lois Willard Clerical Specialist