Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ordinance 025-16
RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 25-16 Passed AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CROSSROADS AREA PLAN Form No. 30043 WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (the "City's engaged in discussions with Union County, Jerome Township, and the City of Marysville regarding the future development for the area at the crossroads of the US33 Corridor, State Route 161 /Post Road, and Hyland - Croy Road; and WHEREAS, the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group formed with the primary goal of promoting a collaborative effort to achieve the best possible outcomes along the corridor and build trust and cooperation among the jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group engaged in discussions with the intent of creating a common plan for the land use, infrastructure, and economic development of the crossroads area; and WHEREAS, the discussions of the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group resulted in the City, Union County, Jerome Township, and the City of Marysville engaging further through the Logan -Union Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (the "1�UC "); and WHEREAS, the various jurisdictions, through the LUC, commissioned and funded a study called the Crossroads Area Plan prepared by Planning NEXT; and WHEREAS, the Crossroads Area Plan takes into account land use recommendations, policies, and fiscal objectives of Union County, Jerome Township and the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, the Crossroads Area Plan generally is consistent with the policies and recommendations of the City of Dublin Community Plan and the US 33 Corridor Area Plan; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt the final recommendations of the Crossroads Area Plan to inform its future decision - making in the Crossroads Corridor and aid in continued cooperation efforts with Union County, Jerome Township, and the City of Marysville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, Franklin, Delaware and Union Counties, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. City Council hereby endorses and adopts the Crossroads Area Plan and will continue working with the jurisdictions to implement the strategies of the plan. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon the earliest date provided by law. Attest: Clerk of Council 2016. t, Office of the City Manager al IJII�i Phone: 61.4- 410a440ay Pak 614-410-449 1090 �'o; Members of Dublin City Council �, �� �rom� Dana L. McDaniel, City Manag /`�� Mateo August 18, 2016 Re: Ord 26 -16 -- Adopting the Crossroads Area Plan Ordinance 26 -16, Adopting the (Dublin.-Jerome) Crossroads Area Plan ( 'the Plan', was brought before City Council for first reading at Council's dune 27, 2016 meeting, The Ordinance was postponed at the July 5, 2016 Council meeting The reason for postponing the Ordinance was to give Council and the public time to review the document and to monitor the status/progress of other jurisdictions" intent to advance the plan to their respective governing bodies, At the regularly scheduled meeting of the NW 33 Corridor Executive Group held on Friday, August 12, 2016, the City of Marysville, Union County and City of Dublin representatives expressed their collective readiness to advance the Plan to each of their respective governing bodies far passage. This was based on their collective agreement that the Plan (in its current form and as previously submitted to Dublin City Council via Ordinance 2616) is in no need of any further changes, unless otherwise determined by their governing bodies during their respective final review/passage process. Indications from Jerome Township have been that their ability to gain consensus with the current Plan may be dife:lcult Alsa, ample time has been allotted for vetting the pion and there is no clear indication from Jerome Township that a final review will be fo�hcaming soon. Marysville Ciiy Council has previously had an introduction of the Plan, and an Ordinance to adapt the Plan will receive two more readings before passage Indications are that Marysviile City Council will adopt the plan in its current form, Union Councy Commissioner Gary Lee informed me that he anticipates passage of the Plan by the Union County Commissioners the week of August ZZ, Z016, Recommendation Given the collaborative effort, pubiic input and recommendations�current farm of the Plan, staff recommends Council conduct the second reading�public hearing of Ordinance 26 -16 and approve Ordinance 2� -16 at its August ZZ, Z016 Cauncil meeting, Council Member Lecklider, Cauncil "s representative to the NW 33 Corridor Executive Group, will provide Council his perspective at the meeting 4 Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway w Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 �i moun Phone; 614-410-4400 # Fax, 614 - 410-4490 To. Members of Dublin City Cou i ,,; From. Dana McDaniel, City Mana �'' Dates June 23, 2016 Initiated Bye Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Planning Director ��� Ordinance X5-16 - Endorsing Dublin- Jerome Crossroads Area Plan Background The City of Dublin, Jerome Township, City of Marysville, and Union County have been collaborating with the Logan, Union, Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (LUC) and consultants Planning NEXT, to build consensus an land use, infrastructure and economic development for an area at the crossroads of Hyland Cray Road, State Route 161/Post Road, and US 33, The area includes approximately 981 acres, of which An or 391 acres are in the City of Dublin, The balance of the land is within Jerome Township, The area has been experiencing signifcant development pressure with several active development proposals within both the Ciry and Township, One specific project that has been approved by Jerome Township during this planning process is the rezoning of Jacquemin Farms which has led to a referendum and will tentatively be voted upon in the November election, Development pressure is likely to continue, if not escalate, with the proposed Route 33J SR 161 interchange improvements, Such new development will more than likely have significant fiscal implications for the various jurisdictions and will impact the quality-of -life of the residents and businesses, Managing the pressure is challenging due to planning and development policies and practices that vary considerably between jurisdictions Collaboration and coordination between various jurisdictions is critical to manage the growth in the area effectively and sustainably, This effort is intended to result in a land use plan along with the supporting infrastructure and economic development policies The Plan will also include development review process recommendations Process The planning process has been completed and a final draft has been prepared by Planning NEXT, The process was led by LUC Regional Planning Commission and included active participation of the NW 33 Innovation Corridor Group, which was the primary advisory committee far this process, This process included stakeholder meetings that were designed to be one -on -one conversations of objectives far the area. These stakeholder meetings included meeting with public ofFcials, members of the business community, the Dublin City schools and the general public to discuss objectives and goals far the area, There were two public workshops that were conducted specifically to get feedback from the general public about their concerns and objectives for the area One of the warkshaps was held in Jerome Township and the other within the Ciry of Dublin, Bath warkshaps were well attended, exceeding mare than seventy attendees, and both meetings included residents from bath Jerome Township and the City of Dublin, Input from the meetings expressed concern for existing traffic issues in the corridor, the need for increased collaboration amongst the communities, and the importance of high quality development standards for the area, Memo re. Ordinance 25 -16 -- Endorsing Dublin- Jerome Crossroads Plan June 23 2Q16 Page 2 of 2 Final Draft Plan Planning NEXT has prepared a final draft of the Crossroads Plan, and the plan takes into account land use recommendations, policies, and fiscal objectives of Union County, Jerome Township and the City of Dublin, The plan contains eight key recommendations for the proposed area, as well as strategies for implementation. The eight recommendations include formalizing a protocol for predevelopment consultation for future development projects; creating a stronger review process; improving transportation infrastructure; creating stronger development standards for the corridor; considering annexation boundaries; conducting a fiscal analysis to ensure all entities improve fiscally from future development; identifying preferred land uses for the area; and continuing work on collaboration in the corridor, These recommendations are primarily concentrating on developing a stronger relationship between the jurisdictions and ensuring that jurisdictions work cohesively in the future. In terms of land use recommendations, the Crossroads Plan generally immolates the policies and recommendations of the City of Dublin Community Plan and the US 33 Corridor Area Plan. The Community Plan contains broader recommendations for the area, whereas the US 33 Corridor Plan is more specific, The Crossroads Plan is more detailed than the US 33 Area Plan and takes into consideration the uses that have developed in the corridor since bath of these plans were adopted, specifically the Ohio University campus. The recommendations include premium and flex office uses directly along US 33 and residential uses east of Hyland Cray Road However, the Final Draft Plan acknowledges that the City of Dublin and Jerome Township do not concur an the future land use for the Jacquemin�Wesner properties, as recently rezoned, This is represented by the hatched area of the diagram reflecting Potential Future Land Uses All the plans recommend flex office, research and development and light industrial uses for the land west of US 33. These uses are supplemented by support services, such as eating and drinking establishments and other daily services, far the employees and residents, The mast significant modification Shawn in the Crossroads Plan is relates to the land west of Industrial Parkway, In the existing area plan, the future land use recommendation for this area is for research flex uses which recommends office, research, laboratory, assembly and light manufacturing, In the Crossroads Plan, this area is recommended for mixed use and support services which promote neighborhood scale office uses, higher density residential uses, and commercial uses that concentrate on walkabiGry, These uses are a mare refined mix that take into account the future needs of the area with emphasis on housing associated with the future workforce of the area, as well as the housing needs of the university. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council endorse the Crossroads Area Plan and continue working with the jurisdictions to implement the strategies of the plan Timing of this endorsement may be subject to the progress of the other jurisdictions' approval of the same plan Staff will keep Council apprised of their progress. AREA PLAN Jerome Township City of Dublin "unique economic engine for the region" SUMMARY REPORT May 13, 2016 Acknowledgments Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group Eric Phillips, Convener Economic Development Director, Union County and Marysville Mike Andrako Public Service Director, Marysville Brad Bodenmlller Planner, LUC Keith Conroy Trustee, MIIlcreek Township Joe Craft Trustee, Jerome Township Terry Emery Director of Administration, Marysville Chad Flowers Planner, Marysville Donna Goss Director of Development, Dublin Dave Gulden Executive Director, LUC Paul Hammersmith City Engineer, Dublin PhllHonsey Zoning Inspector, MIIlcreek Township Jeremy Hoyt City Engineer, Marysville Tim Lecklider City Council Member, Dublin Gary Lee County Commissioner, Union County Dana McDaniel City Manager, Dublin BIII Narducci Engineering Manager, Union County Eric Richter County Administrator, Union County Gary Smith Planning Administrator, Jerome Township Jeff Stanch County Engineer, Union County Funders Jerome Township City of Dublin City of Marysville Union County Project Management Logan, Union, Champaign Regional Planning Commission (LUC) www. lucplanning.com With support from Planning NEXT CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 2. PROCESS 3. RESEARCH 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Crossroads Area Plan 2 5 8 22 2 Crossroads Area Plan Chapter 1 OVERVIEW In mid -2015, the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group initiated an effort to create a common plan for land use, infrastructure, and economic development for the area at the crossroads of US 33, State Route 161 / Post Road and Hyland -Croy Road. The multijurisdictional effort brought together Jerome Township, the City of Dublin, the City of Marysville, and Union County with the guidance of the Logan, Union, Champaign Regional Planning Commission (LUC). This is a complex setting with a history of both cooperation and conflict. The Crossroads Plan, as it was named, is an attempt to move the communities forward in a positive way. The plan established desired outcomes for the area, proposed actions to achieve those outcomes, and articulated the logic for continuing to work together. The Northwest 33 Group Over the past two -plus years, the Northwest 33 Corridor Innovation Group discussed various development issues with the primary goal of promoting a collaborative effort to achieve the best possible development outcomes along the corridor. Each jurisdiction is responsible for various services in the area - Jerome Township (Roads and Land Use), Dublin (Roads, Land Use, Water and Sewer), Marysville (Water and Sewer), Union County (Roads). Each entity has a vested interest in the development of the 33 corridor. The Northwest 33 Group believes that all these parties must work together more productively to promote better planned development along the corridor. Land use decisions should not happen without consideration of infrastructure improvements and infrastructure improvements should take land use into consideration. This plan represents a concerted effort to build trust and cooperation among the jurisdictions. The Planning Area The planning area encompasses approximately 987 acres within the jurisdictions of Jerome Township and the City of Dublin. The area has been experiencing significant development activity which is straining existing infrastructure (roads and utilities) and relationships. That development pressure is challenging to manage due to planning and development policies and practices that vary substantially between the two jurisdictions as well as the multitude of other groups with interest in the area. In the immediate vicinity, there are three counties, two cities, three townships, three utility providers, three school districts, and two regional planning agencies. Beyond those public entities, there are real estate developers with active rezoning applications, dozens of businesses and institutions, hundreds of property owners, and thousands of residents that have different interests in how this area develops. Why This Plan is Important The Crossroads Plan is a unique multijurisdictional effort. There have been past plans and studies for the area, but never before have the many entities attempted to create a shared vision and plan. This plan has the potential to impact: Ease of travelingto and through the area... Traffic congestion and safety are addressed by moving forward on planned transportation projects. Development decisions... The outcomes of development proposals and the process through which decisions are made are more predictable. Fiscal health (revenues and costs)... The way in which the area develops has real cost implications on the communities both near- and long -term. Image and identity of the Us 33 corridor... The appearance of the place can support its identity as an area with unique economic value. Legend North 1'0 �' ° °° Jerome Township. North of Post Rd / 161 City of Dublin. South of Post Rd/ 161 -- Planning Area. 987 acres 7 J f. PQ dq UNION COUNTY MADICOni m: "I 1. L..,. i..unr v: C.:IJunya '. I'ula:il Lllllllll Map Area h Irk III Upper npnl<Ilnn `''l Columbus Map 1. Study Area ' Memorial OnYe I° Id ' 1 o e Crossroads Area Plan 3 GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK ...... r ` 1 Park Mill Drive qS I 1. 1 1 111 r 6 Post Road Perimeter Drive I r ' DUBLIN i� METHODIST HOSPITAL q US 33 a 4 Crossroads Area Plan How to Use This Plan This plan is intended to inform public and private decision - making in the planning area. Ideally the recommendations will be incorporated by each entity into land use planning, zoning and infrastructure investments. This plan should be monitored and progress reported to the general public, elected and appointed officials. Key Recommendations The recommendations of the plan are organized bye ight major items. They are simply summarized below and described with more detail in Chapter 4. 1. Formalize a protocol for pre- development consultation This needs to include thoughtfully addressing infrastructure issues prior to accepting applications. 2. Create a stronger, coordinated development review process Key entities need to be aligned in the process, timing and communication of active development applications in the planning area. 3. Improve transportation infrastructure This needs to address capacity, safety and funding. 4. Create strong physical development standards For all development, but especially in proximity of the interchange and along US 33, SR 161 and Hyland -Croy. S. Explore an Annexation boundary. This will reduce uncertainty about the provision of utilities and may be part of a broader collaborative economic development agreement. 6. Conduct fiscal analysis All jurisdictions desire to strengthen their financial situation. Infrastructure investments are needed to address existing and anticipated development. Initial outlays and return on these investments needs to be more equitable. 7. Identify preferred land uses This will acknowledge existing plans, existing zoning, known trends and best practices. 8. Continue the work The entities should continue to nurture mutual trust by maintaining open dialogue and monitoring this plan's progress. Crossroads Area Plan 5 Chapter 2 PROCESS The planning process began in August of 2015 and involved a review of past plans, analysis of existing conditions, meetings with area stakeholders, and workshops with the general public. Principles: Our Values in Collaborating The planning process was guided by five principles developed by the US 33 Innovations Corridor Group. 1 We are focused on creating a shared vision of land use and development for the area. Analysis 2 We agree that development in this corridor has considerable impact on each community (e.g. fiscal, image, community facilities, services). The effort involved an analysis of existing conditions in the area in terms of land use, infrastructure, zoning, and development capacity. It also involved a thorough review of existing plans and studies for the area and an assessment of the similarities and differences in the adopted policies and development approval practices among the jurisdictions. 3 We seek to be more aligned on the type and quality of growth, infrastructure investments, and the associated impacts. Stakeholder Input 4 We commit to looking forward and building upon the spirit of cooperation desired by all. Dozens of individual and small group meetings and interviews were conducted with stakeholders to better understand their needs, hopes, and concerns. The stakeholder groups included elected officials, developers, large property owners, business groups, local, regional, and state planning officials, and school districts, among others. Public Input 5 We accept there is no perfect plan, and that faith in the process and compromise on the outcomes will be required by all parties. Input from the general public involved two hands - on planning workshops (October) to gather ideas and understand the hopes and concerns of area residents. Later, an open house tested preliminary recommendations of the plan. A strong publicity and outreach effort was made to spread the word about the opportunities to participate. Crossroads Area Plan Public Workshops Two public workshops were held early in the process at locations in the city and township. Both meetings had the same format. Workshop format. The workshops began with a brief presentation of the area plan's intent, significance, and process principles. Representatives from the Mid -Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) then shared the work of Insight2050, which depicts regional trends and possible alternative regional growth scenarios based on policy choices that communities in the region could make. The remainder of the presentation shared key findings of conditions and trends in the study area including existing land uses, utility service areas, public school districts and more. Following the presentation, participants worked on two activities, one individual, and one with a small group. During the individual activity, participants reviewed draft goals (statements of the intended outcomes) for the plan, rated how strongly they support those goals, and provided written comments. The comments were an opportunity for participants to share specific hopes or concerns for the area. Building on the area goals participants worked in small groups with a map to identify and discuss issues and opportunities within the planning area. A moderator was assigned to each table to facilitate the discussion and record the group's thoughts in writing. The conversations were structured into three parts; hopes, concerns and other ideas. Participants were encouraged to mark on the maps and provide the planning team with any information or ideas which would be helpful. Who we heard from. Over 140 participants attended the two workshops, with representation from residents of both Jerome Township and Dublin at each workshop. There were a total of 17 small group discussions and 250 specific comments collected. See the next section of this report "Findings" for a summary of the input from these workshops. Public Open House An Open House event was held in December 2015, to share the plan's direction and to test potential land use and strategic recommendations with the public. The open house involved an overview presentation to provide context, the draft recommendations, and instructions to participants. The presentation identified specific differences between the proposed land use map and the current adopted policies. Participants then could view a series of display boards at their own pace. The display boards contained information about the plan's findings, its recommendations and proposed future land use map. Staff and members of the planning team answered questions and spoke one -on -one with participants. Participants were asked to evaluate the recommendations and provide written comments. For the land use map, areas where there were differences from adopted policies were specifically tested. Following the open house, the presentation material was posted on LUC's website and additional comments were collected electronically. PUBLICITY AND OUTREACH To encourage public participation, the following publicity and outreach activities were undertaken: News releases and articles placed in: City of Dublin website (front page) Columbus Business First Columbus Dispatch Dublin City Schools Dublin eNews Local TV and radio stations Marysville Journal- Tribune Plain City Advocate This Week News Posts on social media channels including Facebook and Twitter targeting specific audiences Direct email invitations to civic and neighborhood groups in Jerome Township and the City of Dublin, business leaders along Industrial Parkway, and personal connections of the Northwest 33 Innovation Group, Jerome Township Trustees, City of Dublin Council, staff, and Planning and Zoning Commission. Jerome Township wants to be a good neighbor. This planning effort is an important step in creating better alignment on growth, infrastructure investments and quality of life." Joe Craft, Jerome Township Trustee "This is an opportunity for the neighboring jurisdictions to maximize the potential that exists to plan for high quality development that will stand the test of time. We look forward to working collaboratively with our neighbors in an effort to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for all of us." Tim Lecklider, Dublin City Council 8 Crossroads Area Plan Chapter 3 RESEARCH The following is a summary of key findings from analysis, review of current plans, stakeholders, and the general public. Existing Land Use and Development The 987 -acre study area includes mostly undeveloped land in the US 33 and Post Road (SR 161) corridors within the jurisdictions of either the City of Dublin or Jerome Township. Today, the land is mostly used for agriculture, rural residential or is vacant. There are several small light industrial uses located both in Dublin and Jerome, a satellite campus for Ohio University within Dublin that plans to expand, and two large developing sites fronting on SR 161. One of those sites is a regional -scale commercial development in Jerome Township called Dublin Green that will include a Costco store. The other is a large data warehouse for Amazon subsidiary Vadata Inc. within the City of Dublin. Adjacent land uses shown on the map include developed single family neighborhoods to the east of the study area and Glacier Ridge Metro Park to the northeast. South of the study area is mostly open space or undeveloped land with the exception of the Fishel Drive Industrial Park in unincorporated Washington Township. The commercial land south of the study area indicated on the map is Sports Ohio, a private recreation and sports facility in a park -like setting. Map 2. Existing Land Use Utility Service Areas Urban development is dependent on access to sewer and water utilities. There are three sewer and water providers in the area, Columbus, Dublin, and Marysville. Most of the area north of Post Road and west of Hyland -Croy Road is considered Marysville's exclusive service area per their agreement with Union County. Beyond Marysville's service area is a "Negotiated Service Area" defined between Columbus and Dublin. Negotiated Service Area defines where the specific municipality to provide service has not been determined. Each utility provider has different fees and requirements for utility service. Receiving utility service from Dublin School Districts In this area, there are three school districts, Dublin City, Jonathan Alder (Plain City), and Hilliard City that could be impacted by future development. The potential impact on Hilliard City Schools is minimal since that district has jurisdiction on one parcel within the study area, which is not likely to have future residential development. Dublin City Schools, which has over 15,000 students, could experience a more significant or Columbus requires annexation into one of these municipalities. Existing agreements stipulate that neither Columbus nor Dublin will annex lands within the Negotiated Service Area without mutual agreement of both representing City Councils. Marysville, however, has taken on several County systems along US 33 outside of its municipal expansion area, and offers utility service to township locations without annexation. The ability to obtain utility service without annexation to a municipality has enabled large projects such as Dublin Green to develop within Jerome Township. impact. Residential development would likely bring additional students into a district that some say is experiencing growing pains. Property taxes benefit the district, but the best fiscal impact is from non - residential development. Jonathan Alder Schools, which has approximately 2,300 students, could also be impacted by development. Fiscally, Jonathan Alder benefits from property tax as well as an income tax levied on residents who live in the district's boundaries. Crossroads Area Plan P Map 3. Utility Service Areas Map 4. School Districts 10 Crossroads Area Plan Land Use Policy: Jerome Township Jerome Township's 2008 Comprehensive Plan is the Township's adopted policy for future land use within its jurisdiction. An update to that plan had begun but was paused at the outset of this area plan effort. The current plan indicates mainly non - residential uses closest to US 33, and low density residential to the far east and west of the planning area. The future land use category that covers the greatest geographic area (approximately half of the study area) is also one that is Mixed Use Office / Retail to feature: "a mix of commercial uses and sometimes higher density residential uses. They are typically associated with a higher density mix of office and smaller commercial uses that support the office uses including restaurants and convenience retail..." While high density residential is not defined in this context, elsewhere in the plan, high density residential is described as up to six dwelling units per acre. It could be easily inferred by the phrase "sometimes higher density re that residential would be a secondary use and relatively limited in a Mixed Use Office/ Retail area. West of US 33, the Township's plan includes not only Mixed Use Office/ Retail, but Regional Retail, Office/ Research/ Medical, and Single Family Residential. eUNION COUNTY oFRANKLIN COUNTY a z 0 V 2 O O PLANNINGAREA 0 0.5 1 MILE Map S. Jerome Township Adopted Land Use Policy Land Use Policy: Dublin Like most cities, the City of Dublin has an adopted future land use policy for areas beyond its current municipal boundaries. The future land use policy identifies the city's expectation for how land outside the city should develop in the event that a property owner would like to annex their land into the city. Dublin's small area plans for the US 33 Corridor (North of SR 161), the Northwest Area (along Hyland- Croy), and the West Innovation District (south of SR 161) contain the detailed land use policies for the study area. Those plans recommend primarily office (with a research or institutional emphasis), flex office, and light assembly uses in the area. On the northwest side of SR 161, the plans support smaller scale office, commercial services, and higher density residential uses (Mixed Use Tech and Research Support Services). A mix of lower density residential uses are recommended for the areas east of Hyland - Croy Road to transition to existing single family residential neighborhoods. The city's plan is based on an understanding of fiscal benefits of preferred land uses and the significance of US 33 access, visibility and image. Crossroads Area Plan 11 . Rural Res. Transition (Conservation Dev.) PLANNING AREA 0 0.5 1 MILE Map 6. Dublin Adopted Land Use Policy 12 Crossroads Area Plan Developable Land and Active Development Proposals Within the 987 -acre area, 117 acres are right -of -way and 317 acres are developed parcels. That leaves approximately 553 acres (about half of the area) as undeveloped, but potentially developable. Within the developable area, the future land use policies between Jerome Township and the City of Dublin are consistent on 52 acres. On 233 acres, the land use policies are somewhat consistent — depending on the interpretation of the mix of uses permitted by those policies. On the remaining 268 acres of developable land, the policies between Jerome Township and the City of Dublin are inconsistent — for example one jurisdiction's policy allows residential uses in an area while the other would allow non - residential uses. There are also three sites, covering 152 acres, where there are dynamic development interests. Two of these sites, on the eastern side of Hyland -Croy Road, have applications previously submitted to the City of Dublin (these parcels have yet to be annexed). The site west of Hyland -Croy had an active rezoning application with Jerome Township during this process. That application was approved, but is now subject to a referendum vote in November 2016. The development applications and annexation requests on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road did not advance during this planning process. 870 acres in parcels Excludes existing and future.M. A. right-of-way c. E ac.) 317 acres developed Existing developed land rR °ad or approved projects 553 acres undeveloped butdevelopable 123 ac south of Post Rd. r 430 ac north of Post Rd. 't 152 acres active dN proposals i. �P. UNION COUNTY a FRANKLIN COUNTY I SRf61%PosCRoad �(,...ir 1 a ^� a' F hJID... A T o ado V Ib o eq- o DARREE FIEL DS PARK 2 � and 7 {. PLANNING AREA A { �4.. 1F: l Map 7. Developable land and active proposals Nt 44 � GLACIER�GE�' �` METFI`�O PARK r 0 0.5 1MILE _�`� _ifs• fR .da— 1 ��—�; �v�id� Dynamic Context ()Means Property An approximately 52 -acre site on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road that is proposed for 75 single family homes within the City of Dublin. The concept plan is generally consistent with the recommendations of both Dublin's and Jerome Township's future land use plans. Dublin has paused review of this and all other proposals within the Crossroads study area during the planning process. ()Gorden Property An approximately 45 -acre site on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road that is proposed for a mix of residential development within the City of Dublin and targeted to both "empty nesters" and senior citizens. It would include 125 single family detached units, 128 multi - family units that have a single family scale and appearance, and a 250 -bed senior living facility. The concept plan is generally consistent with Dublin's future land use recommendations but is not consistent with Jerome Township's future land use plan (which recommends "mixed use office /retail "). Dublin has paused review of this and all other proposals within the Crossroads study area during the planning process. QJacquennin Property An approximately 60 -acre site on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road has been approved (December 2015) for a mix of residential development and a small retail component within Jerome Township. It would include 300 multi - family units, a 250 -bed senior living facility, and 171,000 square feet of retail along Hyland -Croy Road that would house the Jacquemin Farm market. The amount of residential within the plan is greater than that implied by the Township's future land use plan. Dublin's future land use plan would support flex office on the site, but not residential. Both communities' adopted plans are more consistent with each other within this area than they are with the approved development plan. A referendum petition with over 300 signatures was submitted in January 2016. The rezoning is expected to be decided by Township voters in 2016. Crossroads Area Plan 13 Tax Structures and Legislative Framework Each jurisdiction in the planning area has a different fiscal structure and ability to guide development, which are rooted in Ohio law. Fiscal. Local government entities (city, township, and county) in Ohio have very different tax structures and therefore the types of land uses that provide a fiscal benefit vary. Cities in Ohio receive most of their revenue from income taxes on jobs in their jurisdiction. They benefit most from land uses that have a concentration of high paying jobs (office, industrial, and research and development). Cities receive minimal property taxes from residential development. Townships receive most of their revenue from property taxes and are less concerned with employment (they cannot collect income tax unless located in a JEDD - See page 25). Uses that generate higher property values (such as industrial and research and development) are fiscally beneficial to both cities and townships. School districts receive revenue from property taxes, while counties benefit from both sales taxes and property tax. Commercial uses have consistently higher property values over the long term compared to residential uses. Development. Ohio law also influences the power that different types of local government can or cannot exert over development. Cities, through their own charters, have the most power to guide development. They have a broad ability to regulate the quality of development as they see fit and also the process by which development applications are reviewed and decided upon (provided those rules do not conflict with State law). Townships must adhere to the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) for their procedures. They are also somewhat limited in what they can regulate - such as agricultural uses and aesthetics. 14 Crossroads Area Plan Infrastructure Investments COMPLETED The adjacent table and map Project Approx. Costs Year Potential Funding Sources on the following page identify 1 Hyland -Croy Road & Glacier Ridge Blvd Roundabout $1,100,000 2006 D, Pd 10% the transportation and utility 2 Right -of -way acquisition and design for US 33/ SP, 161/ Post Rd Interchange $16,000,000 2007 D infrastructure investments recently 3 Liggett Road Realignment $2,800,000 2008 D completed and planned in the area. 4 Right -of -way for SR 161 & Industrial Pkwy $4,400,000 2009 D These investments do not include 5 SP, 161 & Industrial Pkwy Roundabout with Industrial Pkwy Improvements $6,600,000 2009 D 75 %, F, S the $71.5 million 1 -270 / U$ 33 6 Industrial Pkwy improvements north of the roundabout $3,800,000 2009 F 70 %, S 10 %, U 20% interchange improvement' currently 7 Hyland -Croy Road between the Brock Rd Roundabout and Ravenhill Pkwy $4,200,000 2012 -2015 Pd (under U) under construction. 8 Hyland -Croy Road & Brand Road /Mitchell- Dewitt Road Roundabout $3,700,000 2013 D, Pd (TIF) 9 Hyland -Croy Road resurfacing $230,000 2013 U 10 SP, 161 & Elterman Road Roundabout $2,400,000 2015 D, Pd (TIF) 'Of the $715 Million, ODOT Is contributing 11 Design for Hyland -Croy Road & McKltrick Road Roundabout $200,000 2015 D approximately 50 %, MORK Is contributing 35 %, Dublin Is contributing approximately 15/. 12 Hyland -Croy Road turn lanes (10) $1,700,000 various Pd 13 Waterline Extension from Fladt Rd to SP, 161 (Industrial Pkwy) $1,400,000 1999 U Funding Sources Legend 14 Sanitary Sewer extension from Marysville to Memorial Dr (Industrial Pkwy) $2,700,000 1997 U D City of Dublin 15 US 33 Sanitary Sewer Extension (for properties east of US 33) $307,800 2012 M 50 %, JT 25 %, Pd 25% M City of Marysville JT Jerome Township 16 Dublin Green - WW Pump Station $534,000 2015 M, Pd U Union County 17 COIL Sewer Phase l $330,000 2010 D F Federal 18 COIL Sewer Phase 2 $360,000 2011 D S State of Ohio Pd Private developer 19 Crosby Court Business Park $2,650,000 2015 D (TIF) 20 Darree Water Tank $4,530,000 2008 D 21 Floodplain Fill Project $493,970 2013 D, Pd 22 Water Line Extension $948,000 2008 D 23 University Boulevard Extension $812,000 2014 D (TI F) Investments to Date $62,195,770 PLANNED Project Est. Costs Year Potential Funding Sources 24 Pump Station #2 Replacement $2,000,000 Future M 25 US 33 / SR 161 / Post Rd Interchange construction $24,000,000 Future (TIF) 26 Hyland -Croy Rd widening /boulevard $28,000,000 Future (TIF) 27 Hyland -Croy Rd & McKltrick Rd Roundabout $1,300,000 Future D, Pd 15% 28 SR 161 & Cosgray Rd $4,200,000 Future Pd, D, U, and others 29 University Blvd extension $2,100,000 Future (TIF) 30 Elterman Road realignment $3,000,000 Future (TIF) 31 Sanitary Sewer Extension CBP Lot 1 $150,000 Future D, Pd Future Projects $64,750,000 Crossroads Area Plan 15 0 500 - i i i : 27 Legend North 1'0 I 24 GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK •••••• Planning Area Completed Transportation Project eoo Planned Transportation Project Completed Utility Project \ t oo Planned Utility Project -. `. a iM', PzA Mill Drive .._ n �. O ' � l -p.'� MemmmfOnw 1 Q wo a ti a n t 25 J .r 05 UNION COUNTY MA DISON COUNTY ' �. .r. � 28 ��• � Pos[pga� SR 1'61 /Post Road � � ao ' a 29 M1J _ Perimeter Drive Drive DUBLIN ' - METHODIST HOSPITAL US 33 °`y o z Map 8. Infrastructure Investments 16 Crossroads Area Plan Economic strengths The northwest corridor of US 33 between Dublin, Marysville, and East Liberty continues to grow as a significant economic engine for the local area, region and state. A concentration of major corporations. It is along this corridor where Honda of America, Inc. and many automotive suppliers and advanced manufacturers have grown to form one of the largest manufacturing concentrations in the Columbus region, if not the state. Other major corporations include Nestle Product Technology Center, The Scotts Miracle -Gro Co., Continental, Parker Hannifin Hydraulics, Select Sires, and the Transportation Research Center (TRC). These corporations are complemented by many smaller companies in the area. Identity as an Innovation Corridor. Union County has worked to brand the area as the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor to recognize and leverage the area's economic value. Related to that idea, an effort is underway to earn designation as an Advanced Manufacturing Corridor. This federal designation would reinforce the Innovation Corridor brand and make certain federal grant funding available to area entities. Also, The Ohio State University is leading an effort with public and private partners called the Ohio Smart Mobility Initiative (OSMI) to designate this section of US 33 as a Smart Mobility Corridor. That concept would bring national recognition for the research and testing of driverless vehicle technology. These efforts underscore the area's significance and momentum as a regional economic engine. Decisions regarding land use and infrastructure along the corridor should reinforce its identity and seek to leverage these initiatives. Fiber Collaborative underway. Union County, the City of Marysville, and the City of Dublin are currently working to provide fiber optic infrastructure along the corridor from Dublin's Metro Data Center to TRC. Fiber is necessary to support the OSMI and will potentially benefit all businesses along the corridor. Demographics, Market Opportunities, and Implications for Land Use In alignment with national trends, the Central Ohio region will see significant demographic changes in the coming decades. These changes impact local market opportunities and should be considered in local land use policy choices. According to MORPC's Insight2050, nearly 80 percent of the region's growth in the last two decades (1990 to 2010) was among 35 to 64 year olds. But, over the next two decades, this same group will account for only 31 percent of growth. Aging baby boomers will make up nearly 45 percent of growth and those under 35 will account for more than 25 percent. Households with children will account for less than 20 percent of growth. These significant shifts have implications for the kinds of places that people will prefer to live and work. Recent studies by the National Association of Realtors, Urban Land Institute, and other organizations are pointing towards increasing preferences for walkable, complete communities where daily needs are close to homes and jobs (often in walkable settings). As the Baby Boomer generation continues into retirement and are replaced by younger workers, businesses too are seeing these preferences. In response, many growing businesses are choosing to locate in environments that integrate places to live, work, play and access daily needs. NW 33 Innovation Corridor 1 • N • •• gro • ate`. k��°b �'ti� • ••V s�� a Marysville*` ""�• �� or • k •pplgletlN Union County Economic Development Strategy (2014) Yet, demographic shifts aren't the only driver of market opportunities. Markets can be created and/ or induced through public policy. For instance, major infrastructure investments (roads, utilities) can make certain types of development feasible where they otherwise would not occur. Also, a critical mass of established conditions such as businesses, institutions, or population can support certain market opportunities (and may diminish other opportunities). Stakeholder Input Dozens of property owners, business owners, elected officials, developers and other stakeholders told us... There is conflict and cooperation —We want to Limited decisions remain for the area —Our be good neighbors and make sound, long -term decisions may only impact a portion of the decisions. developable land area ... but they are significant. Stakeholders recognize the inevitable conflicts inherent in planning within a multijurisdictional context. They acknowledge that there have been conflicts with past actions taken by various parties A significant portion of the land within the study area is considered fixed - with existing development or approved projects underway. The land that is underdeveloped could have major infrastructure and in this area, but there is a general sense of good faith relationship impacts depending on what ultimately and a willingness to work together. There are structural issues —We are faced with different tax rules; Development review processes in each jurisdiction. The different jurisdictions in the area have differing fiscal structures and regulatory authority, which are rooted in state law and are challenging to reconcile. Stakeholders recognize that there will not be a single solution that provides the best outcome for all parties. Each must compromise. There is a sense of urgency —Our needs and concerns (traffic) continue to become more acute. A "way forward" is needed. Traffic is the principal and most urgent concern, but it is driven by land use decisions. The urgency exists in part because some development is approved before the impacts, much less solutions, are fully understood. The urgency is also a result of legitimate concerns of missing opportunity. is built. Take a long -term view but respect short -term needs —We will live with decisions and impacts of current development proposals. While there may be immediate market demands for certain kinds of uses, they do not have to be supported if they do not meet long -term needs, e.g. fiscal benefit, image. STAKEHOLDERS The following stakeholder groups were convened: City of Dublin Council and staff members City of Marysville staff Dublin City Schools staff Industrial Parkway Business Association Jerome Township trustees and zoning commission (individual interviews) Jonathan Alder Schools staff Property owners (Individual interviews with three large land owners) Schottenstein Realty Group Union County commissioners 18 Crossroads Area Plan Public Input Participants at the public workshops shared their hopes and concerns about future development in the area. Those ideas are summarized into eleven themes. Percentages indicate the proportion of ideas within each theme. Development (33 %). Participants expressed concern about the proposed densities of development, types of development and placement of development. They also expressed concern about the effect future development may have on existing property values, and about tax revenue generated compared to the costs of infrastructure improvements. Traffic (22 %). Participants expressed hope that there will be improvements made to expand the capacity of Hyland -Croy Road and Post Road and improve major intersections along these corridors (support for roundabouts was mentioned). They were concerned that traffic will worsen as development continues. Character (11 %). Participants expressed a desire to maintain the rural, scenic character of the area, particularly along Hyland -Croy Road. Several mentioned creating a parkway appearance for the Hyland -Croy corridor similar to Emerald Parkway. Others mentioned providing generous setbacks and preserved open spaces, and the need for consistent design standards (building aesthetics). Governance (7 %). Participants expressed hope for continued cooperation between Jerome Township and the City of Dublin. Miscellaneous (7 %). Participants shared ideas about the need for a branding and image strategy as an economic development tool. Some participants also shared concern about the unusual shape of the study area as it leaves out several entities. Schools (6 %). Participants expressed concern about the impact on schools, particularly Dublin City Schools, with new residential development proposed in the area. Safety (4 %). Related to concerns about traffic, participants were also concerned about safety (primarily along roadways) as population and traffic in the area increases. Safety concerns pertained mainly to Hyland -Croy Road's high traffic volume and rural design. Specific concens mentioned the Hyland -Croy and Post Road intersection, cyclists who use Hyland -Croy road for recreation or access to the Metro Park, and inexperienced student drivers travelling to and from Dublin Jerome High School. Bike /Pedestrians /Parks (5 %). Participants expressed hope for an increase in connection points and safety measures for both bicyclists and pedestrians, particularly along Hyland -Croy Road. Several participants mentioned connecting to Glacier Ridge Metro Park and including more open space with future development. Retail Amenities (2 %). A small number of participants shared concerns about the lack of restaurants and services for residents and employees in the area. However, they generally would prefer that future amenities be located west of US 33. 1� Legend North ST, 500 1000 mmmI ' 0 DevelopmentArea AIntersection Roadway • Add recreation amenities I . Ilk �- Crossroads Area Plan 19 UNION COUNTY 3 MADISON COUNTY ��-- - - - -- -- t ASR 101 /Post Road = Imo, - r Perimeter Drive I`s FishelDrive Id I I DUBLIN I. I J METHODIST OSPITAL H -/ US 33 Z � 6 IU Z Map 9. Summary of Workshop Comments 20 Crossroads Area Plan Needs and Wants Representatives from the four funding organizations all have the following needs: 1. Formalize a protocol for pre - development consultation 2. Create a stronger, coordinated development review process 3. Strengthen financial situation 4. Improve transportation infrastructure (capacity &safety) 5. Strong physical development standards (in proximityof interchange) The diagram below indicates these and other needs. ' "" " " " "' SR 161 /Post Rd Create a stronger, coordinated Strong physical development standards Formalize a protocol for pre - development consultation development review process Strengthen financial situation Improve transportation infrastructure (capacity& safety) (in proximity of interchange n7service transitions design ex Community Plan recommendations fulfilled, east US 33 aTd soutV of Communication on development applications Finanisupport r roa d infrastructure Quality development that and Hyland -Croy, higher Have their concerns rr heard, be treated as ' "" " " " "' SR 161 /Post Rd RECOMMENDATIONS / GOALS These five goals express the intended outcomes of the plan. 1 A high - quality visual setting This area serves as a gateway and sets a tone for the development values of the community. This means the aesthetics of the public realm (roads, streetscape) and built and natural areas will be of a consistent high quality. 2 Efficient traffic system People and traffic move to and through the area in an efficient manner. Ideally, traffic improvements are made concurrent —if not in advance —of development. 3 Fiscally beneficial development The local governments experience net positive economic impact from development that is in balance with other factors. This provides quality community services and facilities. It also means development yields benefit the immediate, impacted area. 4 Strong image/ brand This area is part of a corridor known for its uniqueness in appearance and economic potential, e.g. advancing manufacturing, industrial, and research and development corridor. Areas not immediately fronting US 33, e.g. residential uses, also set a tone for the community's values. 5 Clarity of mutual expectations The policies and deliberations made by individual jurisdictions happen in concert with other potentially effected jurisdictions. This is essential to the self- interest of all entities in the planning area. 22 Crossroads Area Plan Chapter 4 RECOMMENDATIONSEight strategic recommendations support the goals. i. Formalize a Protocol for Pre - Development 2. Create a Stronger, Coordinated Development Review Process Consultation Prior to a potential project beginning the public review and hearing process in either the City of Dublin or Jerome Township, all potentially affected jurisdictions should have an opportunity to learn about the proposal and provide input. The type of feedback may include land use compatibility, design considerations, provision of utilities, and road improvements, among other factors. Both Jerome Township and the City of Dublin allow for informal and/ or conceptual reviews by their respective zoning commissions as an optional step in the development process. These reviews occur before any official action or applications are filed that trigger the zoning amendment process. Dublin also encourages pre - application consultations with planning staff prior to Planning and Zoning Commission review. Pre - development reviews are an opportunity for collaboration from the regional planning commission and neighboring jurisdictions. Both the city and township could encourage informal reviews for proposals in the area before formal applications are filed. The conceptual proposals would be shared with LUC Regional Planning Commission and neighboring jurisdictions with adequate time for interested parties to provide written comments to the review authority. Applicants should be encouraged to give an informal presentation to the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group. STRATEGIES a. Conduct informal reviews prior to accepting formal applications within the area. b. Notify neighboring jurisdictions about likely development applications, share preliminary plans and encourage feedback. c. Encourage prospective applicants to meet with the Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group prior to accepting a formal development application in the area. Related to establishing a better pre - development protocol, key entities need to be aligned in the process, timing and communication of active development applications in the planning area. While the formal development review process in a township is typically shorter and more rigid than a municipality (by state law), there are opportunities for better coordination. Notification of applications is the first step. Currently, when LUC Regional Planning Commission receives a zoning amendment proposal from a township, it is posted online and member jurisdictions receive notifications. A similar procedure could be created for zoning amendment proposals in Dublin to increase communication with neighboring Union County jurisdictions. A decision - making jurisdiction should also inform neighboring entities of the scheduled public hearings and all major public milestones in the decision - making process. Since this process began, the City of Dublin has begun sending Jerome Township announcements and agendas for all public hearings. Traffic impacts are a significant consideration in the development review process. Sound planning and interest in relationship - building suggest that a traffic study should be conducted prior to granting zoning approval to determine expected impacts and how improvements will be funded. Although legally limited, townships can take a wholistic view of development impacts and work with applicants and other affected jurisdictions. This is a common and accepted practice in which developers are accustomed. One local example of coordinated development review are the accords established by the City of Columbus and neighboring jurisdictions. These have been successful in the Rocky Fork Blacklick Accord and the Big Darby Accord planning areas. In each case, formal zoning applications are reviewed by citizen panels representing the participating jurisdictions. Each panel's recommendation is non - binding on the respective jurisdiction, but the process provides an early public and coordinated discussion of a zoning proposal. STRATEGIES a. Standardize an initial sharing of applications; examples being to notify agencies of applications and public hearings. b. Communicate process milestones. c. Complete traffic studies prior to approving rezonings. (see 3a) d. Evaluate opportunities to establish a more formal coordinated development review process. Comparing Current Development Processes The following is a summary of the processes through which development gets approved in both the City of Dublin and Jerome Township. rlp.1412 In Ohio, munlcipa l hies (vi l lages and cities) have the authority to exercise abroad range of powers of local self - governance through their unique charters. Dublin, like most cities, has established regulations and a development process that aims to achieve a balance between review by public officials, Input from residents, and efficiency and predictability for the development community. Annexation (if applicable). If a property Is outside of the City, annexation may be the first step to developing In Dublin. This process can run simultaneously with the development process but no approvals will be granted until the land Is successfully annexed. Annexation alone could take up to six months. Significant projects have also Included Economic Development Agreements for Infrastructure Improvements or cost sharing techniques Pre - applications review (optional). The City encourages developers to meet with planning staff prior to submitting formal rezoning or development application. This generally takes a few meetings depending on how complex and "thought out" a project is The pre-application review generally likes to Involve all divisions so the City understands any obstacles that project Is facing. This Is not required bythe City but Is strongly encouraged and usually Is a good Indicator of how successful a project will be Informal Review (optional). An applicant can have their preliminary plans reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission before site design and architecture Is "finalized' and an application fora formal hearing Is filed. Concept Plan, Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan. Formal application steps that usually happen simultaneously Concept Plans are required for properties over 25 acres. The Rezoning Application determines whether the land use Is consistent with the City's Community Plan and the surrounding area whereas the Preliminary Development Plan focuses on design Issues. These steps can usually be successful In one hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PAC) If the proposed land use Is consistent with the City's future land use recommendations. Prior to the hearing, planning staff will provide a formal recommendation to PAC to approve, deny, or approve with modifications or conditions. The Final Development Plan and Final Plat (if applicable). The final stages of planning review and are meant to ensure that all of the design Issues, Identified during the Preliminary Plan process, have been finalized and all details have been completed. This can also be done within one PAC hearing depending on the complexity of the case. PZG makes a recommendation to City Council, who may grant approval to Final Development Plans, Final Plats and Rezonings. Crossroads Area Plan 23 JEROME TOWNSHIP The power of local- governance for townships Is limited by Ohio law. In Jerome Township, development procedures such as zoning amendments must adhere to Ohio Revised Code (section 519). The following Information that follows generally describes and summarizes the process for a rezoning and subsequent development plan Initiated by application. Pre - application review (optional). An applicant can have their preliminary plans reviewed bythe Zoning Commission Informally priorto beginning the formal zoning process which requires official action to be made within certain time limits. Regional Planning Commission Review. Within five days of the filing of a rezoning application, the application Is transmitted to the regional planning commission for Its recommendation. The regional planning commission (LUC Planning) reviews the proposal and Its conformity to township's adopted future land use plan and recommends to the township zoning commission to approve, deny, or approve with some modification of the proposal. The regional planning commission staff has on average three to five days to provide Its staff report to the Zoning and Subdivision Committee. That Committee meets ten days after receipt of an application and provides a recommendation to the Executive Committee, which meets the same day and Issues the formal recommendation to the Township. Township Zoning Commission Public Hearing and Action. Within 20 -40 days after the application Is filed, the township Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the application. Within thirty days after the Zoning Commission's public hearing, the zoning commission shall recommend to approve, deny, or approve some modification of the proposed amendment and transmit Its recommendation and the regional planning commission's recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Township Trustees Public Hearing and Action. Within thirty days after the Zoning Commission's formal action,the Township Trustees must have a public hearing on the application. Within twenty days after the Trustees public hearing, the Trustees shall adopt, deny, or adopt some modification of the Zoning Commission's recommendation. Final Development Plan (for planned developments only). Once a site has appropriate zoning In place, a development plan must be approved before any building permits can be Issued (set by Township policy, not governed by ORC. The development plan process is meant to ensure that the plan meets the approved zoning requirements. The development plan requires a hearing and recommendation from both the Zoning Commission and Trustees. Each body must act within "a reasonable period of time" following the Initial public hearing. 24 Crossroads Area Plan 3. Improve Transportation Infrastructure Transportation improvements are essential to addressing current capacity and safety needs in the area. These needs will only become more serious as development occurs. Future development projects are required to contribute financially toward the cost of these improvements. The zoning approval process should consider the potential impact on the transportation network, needed infrastructure improvements, and how those improvements should be paid for. One way to ensure that those issues are considered is to require a traffic study to be conducted prior to accepting a formal application. Millcreek Township, Jerome Township's neighbor to the north, requires a traffic study to be submitted as part of any application for rezoning. Jerome Township should amend its development regulations to include a similar requirement, perhaps for projects meeting certain thresholds in size or location. The Township should collaborate with neighboring entities to determine the appropriate requirements. Ideally, transportation improvements are not made in reaction to development, they are planned in anticipation of it. Major improvements such as the proposed new interchange at US 33 and Post Road, can facilitate development opportunities that may not exist today. There are over $60 million in planned transportation improvements within the area. Like many of the recently completed improvements most future projects would be funded by Dublin (with local, state, and federal funds). The jurisdictions should commit to working together to move these planned projects forward. The best way to ensure that happens is to improve the predictability of future development through an agreement on future land use in the area, clarifying utility service boundaries, or establishing an annexation agreement and /or a revenue /cost sharing structure. STRATEGIES a. Require a complete traffic study, accepted by the County or City engineer, to be conducted prior to accepting a formal application (see 2c). b. Formalize expectations that future development projects directly contribute financially toward the cost of transportation infrastructure improvements (see 2c). c. Continue to coordinate on identifying, planning for, and funding transportation improvements in the area. Investments along Hyland -Croy Road proposed by the City of Dublin would improve the capacity and safety while maintaining the scenic value of the corridor. 4. Create Stronger Physical Development Standards The aesthetics of development is critical to strengthening the area's image as a gateway to Union County and Franklin County and as a unique economic engine for the region. The quality of development, including architecture, materials, signs, and site design should be defined for the entire US 33 Corridor from Dublin to East Liberty. Design quality should be greatest in those locations near US 33 and Hyland -Croy Roads, as well as development fronting US 33. The City of Dublin has a history of mandating very high development standards. Unlike a municipality, Jerome Township is somewhat limited in how it can regulate development standards based on state law. However, Planned District (PD) zoning can include more rigorous design standards. PD zoning has been used elsewhere in the Township (such as Jerome Village) and should be encouraged for sites with visibility to US 33. STRATEGIES a. Jointly define the quality of development through design standards in architecture, materials, signage, and site design. b. Utilize PD zoning for township development within the area to exert regulatory control over aesthetic details that are not permissible under conventional township zoning. 5. Explore an Annexation Boundary Many of the challenges in this area and in the relationships between neighboring jurisdictions are a function of unpredictability. A greater level of cooperation, coordination and trust is essential for everyone's self- interest. The fact that there are three overlapping utility service areas creates uncertainty, uncertainty creates tension, and tension creates poor relationships. The entities should agree to the limits of annexation tied to the provision of utilities. In addition, economic development agreements could be prepared (see box below). The intent of these agreements is to promote multi - jurisdictional economic development. An economic development agreement could combine an agreement on annexation with tax revenue sharing. STRATEGIES a. Define the limits of annexation tied to the provision of utilities. b. Develop effective economic development structures that include collaborative strategies. 6. Conduct Fiscal Analysis All jurisdictions desire to strengthen their financial situation through future development in the area. Infrastructure investments are needed to address existing and anticipated development. Initial outlays and return on these investments needs to be more equitable. A fiscal impact study should be conducted to better understand the economic impact of development to all potentially involved jurisdictions in this area. As part of Insight2050, MORK commissioned a fiscal study to assess the potential impact on tax revenue and costs to the region of different types of development. It was based on typical revenue structures and levels of service from a range of cities, counties, and townships in the region. Among many findings, it showed that residential development alone does not pay for itself, whereas office, retail, industrial, and research and development have positive returns on investment. Again, these returns vary based on the type of government structure and level of service provided. A fiscal analysis for the Crossroads Area would be more specific than the Insight2050 study. It would show the revenue, cost, and net impacts for each Consider other collaborative economic development structures Crossroads Area Plan land use type (including: single family residential, multi - family residential, retail, office, and industrial) within each jurisdiction (Dublin, Jerome Township, Marysville, Union County, and potentially Dublin City Schools and Jonathan Alder Schools). It would be a general guide to the anticipated fiscal impacts based on a number of assumptions that would be made about specific land use characteristics. An alternative is to conduct a fiscal impact analysis specific to a development proposal. Such an analysis would be conducted for significant development proposals (of a certain size) and would evaluate the anticipated revenue and cost of that specific proposal to multiple jurisdictions. STRATEGIES a. Conduct a fiscal impact study to better understand the economic impact of development to all potentially involved jurisdictions in the area. b. Use results of the fiscal impact study to update comprehensive plans and to evaluate development proposals. Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) Cooperative Economic Development Agreement Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Afinancing mechanism Ana rrangement where one or more municipal hies and a (CEDA) created by a township, munlcipa l lty or county that directs township agree to work together to develop township land for An agreement between one or more cities and one or more additional tax revenue from the Increased value of a property commercial or Industrial purposes townships that may address tax revenue sharing, provision of improvement Into a designated fund that is used to finance services and infrastructure, and annexation for a period of time the construction of public infrastructure defined within the TIF geography. 25 26 Crossroads Area Plan 7. Identify Preferred Land Uses The City of Dublin and Jerome Township each have adopted future land use plans for the area. Where both jurisdictions have the right to prepare plans, there is considerable alignment, but there are also conflicts. The most significant conflicts between the two policies are the west end of the planning area in which the Township recommends single family residential and Dublin recommends research assembly. Additionally, recent development decisions by the Township Trustees would produce development that is inconsistent with current public policy of both the Township and Dublin. Both Dublin and Jerome Township, among the other neighboring entities, deserve to experience a positive return on their investments and be able to predict with reasonable certainty, the future land use patterns in the area. To achieve that outcome, the entities should align their future land use policies, which will require compromise from both Dublin and the Township. This plan's recommended land use concept is based on retaining the commonalities between each entity's current policy, achieving a balance of give and take in areas of conflict, following current best practices, and taking a long -term view of the area's potential. Of the 870 acres within the planning area, the recommended land use identifies 60 acres where there remains significant disagreement between the two jurisdictions on the preferred future land use. STRATEGIES a. Update comprehensive plans to align future land use policies within the area between Jerome Township and the City of Dublin. b. Consider common land use terminology among the jurisdictions. Jerome Township's Current Policy Inc, n� ` -!tAm e K e ■ Regional Retail Single Family Residential (2 du /ac) ■ Mixed Use Office/ Retail Conservation Development Office/ Research/ (Residential) Medical Flex Office/ Light Industry NOTES Site is zoned forcommercial (retail. Rezoning was granted subsequent to the adoption of the Township's 2008 Comprehensive Plan. ©Rezoning for residential and commercial development approved by Township Trustees In December 2015. Zoning referendum expected In 2016. See page 13. Dublin's Current Policy Premium Office / Research Support Research Services Flex Office /Research Mixed Residential & Development (3 du /ac) Research Assembly Single Family (Flex) Residential (2 du /ac) Mixed Use Tech Rural Res. Transition (Conservation Dev.) Potential Future Land Use Regional Retail —A mix of commercial uses Including large format retail that serves more 43ac 1� regional market beyond the Immediate area x Premium Office / Research — High or highly office and institutional uses appropriate for visible r 230ac locations near the U.S. 33 interchange. Multi -story buildings with higher quality architecture and i� building materials. f Flex Office — Hybdd offlcethat provides for o a combination of office, research, laboratory, ru 175ac assembly and clean manufacturing spaces.. " 1•" - - -- -- t __ - Manufacturing and warehousing would be i �� secondary activities within a prominent office It I component. 1 It � ■ Light Industrial /R &D Assembly —IT yb rid office �, eY , �* sA 140ac and Industrial. Larger warehousing and assembly space. Office space secondaryto industrial and NOTES assembly uses. This potential alternative land use concept is mostly aligned with the Mixed Use/ Support Services — Neighborhood- current adopted land use policies of both Jerome Township and the 75ac scale office, higher density housing, and locally- City of Dublin . Highlights of the differences and recommendations are serving commercial uses configured In a walkable described below. pattern. These areas are Intended to provide amenities to help make nearby office and Industrial West edge ofthe planning area, north ofSR161 areas more competitive. The Township's plan Indicates single family residential (2du /ac). TheClty's plan Indicates a combination of office, research and Mixed Use Tech. The alternative suggests residential In this area, but set back significantly from SR 161 as that corridor offers Important office and research opportunities. Residential uses are needed In the vicinity of the study area, given current and anticipated job growth. East edge, between US 33 and Hyland -Croy A recent zoning approval for approximately 60 acres bythe Township Is not fully consistent with either of the plans. A referendum petition has been filed for this area and the alternative concept does not include recommendation forthe land use The balance of this area Is designated as Premium Office /Research and Flex Office to maximize the US 33 frontage and justify the significant Infrastructure Investment needed In the area In addition to the office oriented use, careful consideration should be given to Introducing locally - supporting retail. This should be seen as an amenityto make the office uses more attractive. Mixed Residential— Residential development with a mix of housing types, primarily multi-family with 78ac single - family neighborhood appearance and scale. Gross density averages 3 -5 units per acre Given the proximltyto SR 161, consideration should be given to moving the residential In the far west of the planning area further north than shown. Suburban Residential — Single - family residential neighborhoods averaging 2 dwelling units per acre. 14ac Conservation Residential — Single- family 46ac residential development clustered Ina pattern Intended to preserve open space. Gross density averages one dwelling unit per acre OpenSpace — Natural areas and parks. Sac Dublin and Jerome Township not In agreement on current, pending, or future land use at this time 64ac Crossroads Area Plan 8. Continue the Work Adopting the previous recommendations is important, but it is only the beginning. The best possible future for the area and that of all the entities involved depends on sustaining the cooperative effort begun during this planning process. The entities should continue to nurture mutual trust by maintaining open dialogue and to monitor this plan's progress. The Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group should be the primary stewards of this plan and help to facilitate positive dialogue, share issues, and encourage implementation of the recommendations. There are several ways to continue this work, such as preparing an annual report of the plan's progress, and conducting joint work sessions between the planning commissions of Jerome Township and the City of Dublin. If joint sessions were to be conducted, LUC could serve as the convener for a program that includes change to Ohio land use law and best practices for planning and development. On an annual basis, joint legislative bodies should convene to share development progress and opportunities of mutual interest. STRATEGIES a. Monitor the plan's progress (Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group should be the primary stewards of this plan). b. Prepare an annual report of the plan's progress. c. Conduct annual joint work sessions between the planning commissions of Jerome Township and City of Dublin. d. Conduct bi- annual (at minimum) joint legislative meetings. rs 28 Crossroads Area Plan Summary of Strategies The following table summarizes the strategies and action items for each recommendation. The table is organized by strategy and indicates the desirable timeframe and responsible party for completion. The timeframes are defined as: > Short -term: within one year > Mid -term: 2 -4 years > Long -term: 5 -7 years The lead departments and agencies responsible for each action item are: CD City of Dublin CG Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group CM City of Marysville JT Jerome Township LUC Logan, Union, Champaign Regional Planning Commission MT Millcreek Township UC Union County Strategy Timeframe Responsibility 1. FORMALIZE A PROTOCOL FOR PRE - DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION (See page 22) Action a Conduct informal reviews priorto accepting formal Short -term, CG, CD, JT, applications within the area Ongoing LUC Action b Notify neighboring jurisdictions about likely Short -term, CD, CM, development applications, share preliminary plans and Ongoing JT, UC, encourage feedback. LUC Action c Encourage prospective applicants to meet with the Short -term, All Northwest 33 Innovation Corridor Group prior to Ongoing accepting a formal development application In the area 2. CREATE A STRONGER, COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS (See page 22) Action a Standardize an Initial sharing of applications, examples Short -term CD, CM, being to notify agencies of applications and public JT, UC, hearings. LUC Action b Communicate process milestones. Short -term, CD, CM, Ongoing JT, UC Action Complete traffic studies prior to approving rezonings. Short -term, CE), CM, (see 3a) Ongoing JT, UC Action d Evaluate opportunities to establish a more formal Short -term CD, CM, coordinated development review process. JT, UC 3. IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE (See page 24) Action a Require complete traffic study, accepted bythe Short -term, CD, CM, County or City engineer, to be conducted prior to Ongoing JT' UC accepting a formal application (see 2c). Action Formalize expectations that future development Short -term CE), CM, projects directly contribute financially toward the cost JT' UC of transportation infrastructure improvements (see 2c). Action c Continue to coordinate on Identifying, planning for, and Ongoing All funding transportation Improvements in the area . Crossroads Area Plan 29 Strategy Timeframe Responsibility Strategy Timeframe Responsibility 7. IDENTIFY PREFERRED LAND USES 4. CREATE STRONGER PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (See page 26) (See page 24) Action a Update comprehensive plans to align future land use Short -term CD, JT, UC Actiona Define the quality of development through design Short -term CD, JT, policies within the area between Jerome Township and standards In architecture, materials, slgnage, and site CM, MT the City of Dublin . design all along the US 33 Corridor Action Consider common land use terminology among the Short -term All Action Utilize PD zoning for township development within the Ongoing JT jurisdictions . area to exert regulatory control over aesthetic details that are not permissible under conventional township zoning. 8. CONTINUE THE WORK (See page 27) S. EXPLORE AN ANNEXATION BOUNDARY Action Monitorthe plan's progress (Northwest 33 Innovation Ongoing CG (See page 25) Corridor Group should the primary stewards of this plan). Action a Define the limits of annexation tied to the provision of Short -term CD, CM, utilities. JT, UC Action b Prepare an annual report of the plan's progress. Ongoing CG Action b Develop effective economic development structures Mid -term CD, CM, Actlonc Conduct of Ongoing CG that include collaborative strategies. JT, UC planning commissions of Jerome Township and City of commijsions Jerome Township d Dublin. 6. CONDUCT FISCAL ANALYSIS (See page 25) Action Conduct a fiscal Impact study to better understand Short -term CD, CM, the economic Impact of development to all potentially JT, MT, UC Involved jurisdictions In the area Action b Use results of the fiscal Impact study to update Mid -term CD, CM, comprehensive plans and to evaluate development JT, MT, UC proposals. Action d Conduct bi- annual (at minimum) joint legislative Ongoing CG meetings.