The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 012-17Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 12 -17 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Form No. 30043 Passed , 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.67 ACRES AT THE 14ORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SUMMIT VIEW ROAD AND SAWMILL ROAD, FROM R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT. (CASE 16 -100Z) NOW, T REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance there within. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon the earliest date permitted by Law. i assed this day of l��f'' , 20 1- V. o �layor - Pr idi /Offic6/ TTEST: Clerk of Council J C itv of Dublin it Office of thW Cifty Manager 5200 Emerald Parkwayo Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone.: 614-410-4400 * Fax: 614-410-4490 FT7 To: Members of Dublin City Council Fromi.: Dana L. McDaniel, City Mana Initiated By:, Vince A. Papsidero, FAICP,, Planning Director Logan M. Stang, Planner I Daten, February 23, 2011 Re: Ordinance 12-17 — Rezoning approximately 0.67 Acres at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Summit View Road and Sawmill Road, from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (Case 16-10OZ) This is a request by the property owner for review and approval of a standard district rezoning from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District for a 0.67 acre site. fif ;111pin Upon the initial interest of developing the subject site, Engineering conducted a preliminary review of the access options. Staff identified a total of three options to provide vehicular access to the subject site. The following descriptions outline the three options shown in Exhibit B: Memo re. Ord. 12 -17 Summit View Property — Rezoning February 23, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Option 1 — The property owner creates a cross access easement over the existing driveway at 3838 Summit View Road to create a common access point from the current curb -cut. The driveway would be constructed to commercial driveway standards for any portion intended for use by the subject site. The connection point from the residential property to the subject site could occur at any point along the west property line so long as driveway setbacks of 10 feet are maintained. Option 2 — The property owner can create a new access point to Summit View Road directly on the subject site near the western edge to ensure ample distance from the intersection. The existing residential drive would have to be relocated to the west side of the residential property to make this option viable. The new access would likely operate as a right -in, right -out during peak traffic hours and would be subject to the 10 -foot driveway setback. Option 3 — The property owner coordinates with the City of Columbus for access on Sawmill Road based on their requirements and recommendations. There is a potential conflict with the residential property to the north and the access could likely operate as a right - in, right -out. Onsite Sewage Treatment & Public Utility Extensions At the introduction hearing of this ordinance, there was a discrepancy as to the timing and location of sanitary line extensions to this area of the City. Exhibit C is our diagrams outlining the future sanitary line extensions with construction for Area 1A, location of the subject site, programmed for design in 2024 and construction in 2025. Should the property owner want to access public utilities prior to 2025 then he would be responsible for constructing the sanitary line per this plan at his expense. Based on the concern raised by Council members at the first reading, staff is recommending a condition be added to the approval of this ordinance requiring the property owner to connect to public utilities upon availability based on the completion of the sewer extension and at such time forfeit the use of any onsite treatment systems. Council also requested additional documentation regarding requirements for onsite treatment systems for commercial properties. Exhibit D contains the Onsite Treatment System Guidance Document provided by the Ohio EPA. The Ohio EPA is tasked with regulating commercial onsite treatment systems and the document provides reference material for designing and constructing such a system. The property owner would be required to meet the conditions outlined in this document and would have to work with the Ohio EPA on the feasibility of an onsite treatment system. Staff Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 12 -17 at the second reading /public hearing on February 27, 2017 with the following condition: 1) That any development on this site shall connect to public utilities at the earliest available time based on the completion of the sewer extension and at such time shall forfeit the use of any onsite treatment system. — Property Line O Right -of -way Dedication -- Building Setbacks Parking Setbacks - Buildable Area (8,568 sq. ft; 0 Parking Area (13,185 sq. ft.) . * -. 1� ". k' feet min, 1 ;w I 1 �I I EI I Inj .1 "I I I 1 I I I 1 SUMMIT _ I ,j. O J _J a 0 30 60 Feet - wooipen, nc. fl0 fib \Y Option 3 *Subject to City of Columbus coordination and a roval. O tion 1 ti Option 2 *Subject to relocation of;.,; existing residential drive at 41L. 4� 3838 Summit View Road. , 0 30 60 I'L L7Y1'►,TV,x� Feet VAL -r AlLll/WU00 0 woolpent Inc. fiA. Water /Sewer Extension Study Area 1 A Sewer Only 8/18/2015 N ici of Dublin W +E 1 inch = 198 feet ENGINEERING FYS Legend G Ex. San. Manholes LL Ex. San. Lift Stations -- Ex. San. Mains + Ex. FH ® Ex. Valve Ex. WM G Ex. Stm. Structures - - -- Ex. Stm. Mains Prop. San. Manholes Prop. Lift Stations Prop. San. Mains 0 Prop. FH ® Prop. Valve Prop. WM �iiki S.nX 11, .0 �-f Water /Sewer Extension Study Legend c Ex. San. Manholes Prop. San. Manholes Area 1 B M; Ex. San. Lift Stations Prop. Lift Stations Sewer Only - Ex. San. Mains Prop. San. Mains 8/18/2015 ¢ Ex. FH 0 Prop. FH _ _... _.. _ _ 0 Ex. Valve ® Prop. Valve N - Ex. WM Prop. WM city of Dublin W +E 1 inch = 275 feet G Ex. Stm. Structures ENGINEERING ��FYYYS - - - - - -- Ex. Stm. Mains s s F 0 I lC � Water /Sewer Extension Study Area 1 C Sewer Only 8/18/2015 NA Icityof Dublin W+E 1 inch = 275 feet ENGINEERING s Legend C Ex. San. Manholes Ex. San. Lift Stations Ex. San. Mains Ex. FH ■ Ex. Valve Ex. WM C Ex. Stm. Structures Ex. Stm. Mains 1 Prop. San. Manholes Prop. Lift Stations Prop. San. Mains 0 Prop. FH a Prop. Valve Prop. WM 74. - J+i •S Iiwa, t ry �W111111111111111 Water/Sewer Extension Study Legend Area 1 D Ex. San. Manholes Prop. San. Manholes F-- Ex. San. Lift Stations --Ps Prop. Lift Stations Sewer Only Ex. San. Mains Prop. San. Mains 8/18/2015 Ex. FH 0 Prop. FH --- --- -- Ex. Valve m Prop. Valve N Ex. WM Prop. WM city of Dublin W+E 1 inch= 210 feet 0 Ex. Stm. Structures ENGINEERING S - Ex. Stm. Mains Permit to Install Guidance Interim Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems 4 EPA, Division of Surface Water Rule Reference: OAC 3745 -42 FReon 0, May, 2008 Final This guidance document does not affect the requirements found in the referenced rules. Purpose The purpose of this guidance document is to provide recommendations for the design of an onsite sewage treatment system. Background This guidance document should be referenced for reviewing designs of onsite sewage treatment systems that will treat domestic wastewater. The guidance document replaces the onsite sewage treatment system related material in Ohio EPA's guidance document, "Sewage: Collection, Treatment & Disposal Where Public Sewers Are Not Available (Greenbook). Procedure Contact the office listed below for more information. Related Policy or guidance "Sewage: Collection, Treatment & Disposal Where Public Sewers Are Not Available (Greenbook). For more information contact: Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water PTI, Compliance Assistance, & CAFO Unit (614) 644 -2001 2008 ater Table of Contents Preface..................................................................................................... ............................... 3 Definitions................................................................................................ ............................... 3 General Recommendations ....................................................................... ..............................4 Prohibitions.............................................................................................. ............................... 5 SiteEvaluation .......................................................................................... ............................... 6 SoilEvaluation .......................................................................................... ............................... 6 Design Recommendations ......................................................................... ..............................7 Pretreatment Recommendations ............................................................. ............................... 8 Soil Treatment & Dispersal ....................................................................... ............................... 8 Table 1A: Limiting Condition: Seasonal High Ground Water ................................... .............................10 Table 7 - <200 gpd ............................................................................................................................... .............................10 201 gpd — 999 gpd ................................................................................................................. .............................10 Siting soil absorption systems handling 1,000 gallons per day or l ess ................... .............................22 2 1000 gpd ............................................................................................................................. .............................10 Table 9 - Table 1B: Limiting Conditions: Bedrock, Ground Water, Sand & Gravel, Compacted Soils ...................11 <200 gpd ............................................................................................................................... .............................11 - Siting soil absorption systems handling more than 10,000 gallons per day ......... .............................24 201 gpd — 999 gpd ................................................................................................................. .............................11 2 1000 gpd ............................................................................................................................. .............................11 Innovative Treatment Technologies ....................................................... ............................... 12 Appendix................................................................................................ ............................... 13 SandFilters ................................................................................................................. .............................13 SurfaceSand Fil ters ................................................................................................................ .............................13 SubsurfaceSand Fil ters .......................................................................................................... .............................14 Tankage...................................................................................................................... .............................15 DualCompartment Septic Tank ............................................................................................. .............................15 DosingChamber ..................................................................................................................... .............................16 InfluentChamber ................................................................................................................... .............................16 SoilDispersal Components ...................................................................................... ............................... 17 Conventional Leach Field- Gravity ........................................................................................... .............................17 Conventional Leach Field- Pressure ......................................................................................... .............................17 At -Grade Leach Fiel d .............................................................................................................. .............................18 ShallowTrench Leach Field .................................................................................................... .............................18 MoundTreatment System ..................................................................................................... .............................19 DripDistribution System ........................................................................................................ .............................19 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetl ands ................................................................................. .............................20 TrenchDetail .............................................................................................................. .............................20 IsolationDistances ..................................................................................................... .............................21 Table 7 - Siting septic tanks and sewage collection systems ................................................. .............................21 Table 8 - Siting soil absorption systems handling 1,000 gallons per day or l ess ................... .............................22 Table 9 - Siting soil absorption systems handling 1,001 to 10,000 gallons per day ............... .............................23 Table 10 - Siting soil absorption systems handling more than 10,000 gallons per day ......... .............................24 21 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Preface In 1993, the Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water's Greenbook was last updated. That version outlined basic onsite sewage treatment system information regarding leach fields and contained a small reference to mound systems. In 2006, the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) was tasked by House Bill 231 to develop a new set of rules governing Home Sewage Treatment Systems (HSTS) and was given the regulatory authority for Small Flow Onsite Sewage Treatment Systems (SFOSTS). Ohio EPA concurrently was developing their Onsite Sewage Treatment System (OSTS) rule to replace the existing Greenbook guidance document. In March 2007, the HSTS rules were rescinded by the legislature and a Sewage Study Commission created to re- evaluate the ODH rules. Ohio EPA has therefore delayed the OSTS rule development until ODH develops their HSTS /SFOSTS rules. In the mean time, Ohio EPA saw the need to provide an interim guidance document that reflects more current technologies and viewpoints regarding the OSTS program. This Interim Onsite Sewage Treatment System guidance document is intended to bridge the gap between the Greenbook and the future Ohio EPA OSTS rule. Definitions At -grade system: Defined as an OSTS where wastewater is conveyed to a soil absorption system that is constructed on in -situ soil at the ground surface and covered by soil. Certified Professional Soil Scientist: Defined as an individual with a baccalaureate degree with a major in agronomy, soils, or a closely allied field of principles of pedology to soil classification, investigation, education, and consultation and on the effect of measured, observed and inferred soil properties and their use, and who is a member of the Ohio Association of Pedologists and /or ARCPACS. Failure: Defined as an OSTS which exhibits one or more of the following but not limited to: • The system refuses to accept wastewater at the rate of design application thereby interfering with the normal use of plumbing fixtures. • Wastewater discharge exceeds the absorptive capacity of the soil, resulting in ponding, seepage, or other discharge of the effluent to the ground surface or to surface waters. • Wastewater is discharged from the system causing contamination of a potable water supply, ground water, or surface waters. Fill: Defined as soil other than in -situ soils. Fill may be evident by one or more of the following but not limited to: • No soil horizons or indistinct soil horizons (e.g. surface mine reclamation) • Depositional stratification • Presence of a soil horizon which has been covered. • Materials in a horizon such as cinders or construction debris. • Position in the landscape 31 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Hydric Soils: Defined as soils that are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the top twelve inches of the soil. Infiltrative Surface: Defined as the contact area where the wastewater is applied to the soil, sand, or other medium for treatment and dispersal purposes. In -situ soils: Defined as soils that are naturally occurring and have not been placed and have not been disturbed. Limiting Condition: Defined as bedrock, normal groundwater, a restrictive soil layer, seasonal high groundwater or any other condition that severely limits the soils ability to treat and /or disperse wastewater. Onsite Sewage Treatment System: "OSTS" means a disposal system which treats and disperses wastewater into a soil absorption system. Small Flow Onsite Sewage Treatment System: "SFOSTS" means a system, other than an home sewage treatment system, that treats not more than one thousand gallons of sewage per day and that does not require a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit issued under section 6111.03 of the Revised Code or injection well drilling or operating permit issued under section 6111.043 of the Revised Cod e. Severe Soils: Defined as soils with permeability rates of < 0.2 in /hr and with a limiting condition of < 24 inches or less. Vertical Separation: Defined as the distance between the bottom of the infiltrative surface and the top of the most limiting condition. General Recommendations This interim guidance document outlines Ohio EPA's opinion of what design standards, siting restrictions, operation, and management requirements are needed for any OSTS. Onsite sewage treatment system designs vary according to the site and wastewater characteristics encountered, however, all designs should strive to incorporate the following features to achieve satisfactory long -term performance: • Shallow placement of the trench or infiltration surface ( <2 feet below final grade) • Organic loading comparable to that of septic tank effluent at its recommended hydraulic loading rate. • Trenches installed parallel to surface contours • Narrow trenches ( <3 feet wide) • Timed dosing with peak flow storage • Even distribution of wastewater over the infiltration surface. 41 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water • Multiple cells to provide periodic resting, standby capacity, and space for future repairs or replacement. The designer should attempt to include as many of the above features as possible to ensure optimal longterm performance and minimal impact on public health and environmental quality. Additional concepts to consider when designing an OSTS include: • A certified professional soil scientist should conduct the soil evaluation, especially in locations where depth to limiting condition(s) is likely to be < 24 ". Systems being designed for 200 gpd or less may not need a soil scientist to conduct a soil evaluation. • A minimum of 1:1 ratio (lineal feet gravity leach line to gpd) should be included. Unfiltered septic tank effluent should have a 2:1 ratio in severe soils if system is greater than 200 gpd. • A minimum storage capacity of 2.5x the ADF in septic tank should be included and minimum 1,000 gallon septic tank is recommended. • Dual compartment septic tanks are recommended. Two single compartment septic tanks may also be recommended on a case by case basis. • Septic tank effluent filters are recommended, especially where no other pretreatment is provided. • Tankage pumping /inspection schedules should be addressed in the permit, PTI forms, and on detailed plans (grease interceptor, septic tank, dosing tank if needed). • OSTS over 1,000 gpd should incorporate pressure distribution, however with proper justification, dosed gravity may be recommended. OSTS greater than or equal to 2500 gpd should only incorporate pressure distribution. • Systems proposed over 1,000 gpd, which deviate from this guidance document, should be discussed with Central Office's Division of Surface Water's PTI Unit before approval. • Equalization may be allowed to justify smaller soil dispersal areas for systems with uneven flow distribution throughout the operation of the system. • 100 % replacement area is recommended. • The maximum length of any gravity leaching lateral should not exceed one hundred feet. • Trenches should be as high as possible in the soil to maximize the usable soil for treatment. • Gravelless technology may be used in lieu of the requirement for aggregate. No reduction in soil distribution area should be permitted. • A grease interceptor and pretreatment component are strongly recommended for any OSTS that will have restaurant strength wastewater (high BOD /TSS). Prohibitions • Curtain drains should not be installed to overcome site restrictions (if ground water is an issue, the installation of an up- gradient drain is acceptable). • Soil absorption systems should not be installed in hydric soils. Soils that no longer maintain those anaerobic conditions may be acceptable for onsite sewage treatment systems, if a soil scientist can confirm adequate aerobic conditions exist to provide treatment. 51 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water • The soil dispersal portion of the treatment system should not be placed on fill (unless the certified professional soil scientist determines the fill soil shows signs of proper structure and features of a classified soil). • A pretreatment component should not be placed in the septic tank (other than effluent filters) as not to reduce the systems' storage capacity. • Clean water connections should be prohibited from discharging to an OSTS. • Only domestic sewage or wastewater that has the same characteristics as domestic sewage should be permitted to go to the soil absorption system. • Industrial waste is prohibited from entering an OSTS which includes but not limited to: • Beauty Shops (chemical rinse, wash bowls) • Dental Offices (surgical & medical waste) • Medical Offices (surgical & medical waste) • Animal Care Facilities (chemical flea dips) • Funeral Homes (embalming fluids) • Slaughter House (animal fluids) • Floor Drains in vehicle maintenance areas (others similar recommended by UIC) • Construction /installation of the soil treatment and dispersal components should be prohibited (in the permit) when the ground is frozen and /or saturated. • Soil absorption area should not be located within 20 feet of any occupied building. For additional setback distances and recommendations, see Tables 7 -10 at the end of this document. Site Evaluation A preliminary site evaluation will help determine the best suitable location and layout for the proposed OSTS. The site evaluation will also show what site specific conditions are present that may impact the placement of the system. The site evaluation should determine the following, but is not limited to: • Property set -backs • Any existing tankage or soil absorption systems on site. • Low lying areas • Trees, rocks, etc. that would block the placement of the system in the area • Any disturbed area • Contour and elevation of site • Any existing or proposed buildings, side walls, driveways, paved areas or other hardscapes. • Locations of streams, wells, or other features that need to be avoided Note: The site /soil evaluation data should be filled out using Form B2 and the soil evaluation form developed by ODH. The applicant should also refer to OAC 3745 -42 -03 for a complete list of information that will need to be included in a permit to install application. Soil Evaluation A certified professional soil scientist should conduct the soil evaluation to determine the site specific characteristics of the soils and determine the proper location for the OSTS. A non certified professional soil scientist may perform the evaluation as long as they can demonstrate training and knowledge of 61 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water soils as they are related to wastewater treatment and transport. The soils professional or qualified individual should be able to identify the following soil characteristics, including but not limited to: • Depth to limiting condition • Nature of limiting condition • Soil classification per USDA nomenclature • Estimated permeability of soil horizons that will be used for soil absorption • Estimate the soil's linear loading rate A limiting condition is defined as any condition present in the subsurface soil that limits the treatment and /or dispersal of wastewater. Limiting conditions include: • Seasonal high ground water • Ground water • Sand /gravel lenses • Bedrock • Fractured bedrock • Compacted soils (impervious layer) A suitable area should be chosen and marked with visible markers so that the soil absorption area is not compromised during construction, however, if the area is disturbed or compacted, then the soils should be deemed unsuitable unless the soil scientist evaluates the soil again and demonstrates it is still suitable. Design Recommendations Many factors go into the design of an OSTS making no two systems ever the same. Listed below are several general rules of thumb to keep in mind during the design. Any design recommendation not listed, can also be determined from the list of acceptable guidance documents. Anyone deviating from these design recommendations should provide justification as to the deviation. • Design flows shall be based on OAC 3745 -42 -05 (Note: water use records or other information may be used in place of design flow rule values if done in accordance with the rule). • No more than 2 feet of sand fill should be used for mound systems. • A minimum of 50 feet should be maintained between the septic system and ground water well and a minimum of 10 feet from buildings and property lines. • Disinfection may be utilized, but on a case by case basis. • Severe soils should utilize pressure distribution for systems greater than 1000 gpd. • Supplemental guidance documents suggested for design of OSTS include: • OSU Bulletin 896 "Suitability of Ohio Soils for Treating Wastewater" • US EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual • OSU Bulletin 813 "Mound Systems for On -site Wastewater Treatment" • OSU Bulletin 829 "Mound System: Pressure Distribution of Wastewater Design and Construction in Ohio" • US EPA "Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment" • Ohio EPA Guidance Document for Small Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands with Soil Dispersal System 71 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water o OSU Bulletin 876 -99 "Sand Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment for Ohio Communities" • The soil dispersal system should be installed on the same property in which the sewage is being generated. Pretreatment Recommendations Pretreatment may be required on a case by case basis. Determining factors for pretreatment may include but are not limited to: • High strength wastewater • Aquifers near soil dispersal system • System located in sensitive watershed Ohio EPA has historically approved numerous types of pretreatment units. The tabulated list below represents the most common pretreatment units approved. Any pretreatment component not appearing on the list potentially can be used in the design of an OSTS. Technical reports /specifications on the proposed component should be submitted to the Ohio EPA prior to the submittal of the proposed OSTS PTI. Approvable pretreatment /additional components include but are not limited to: • Sand Filter- SPSF (Single Pass Sand Filter) (A) • Puraflo Peat Biofilters (B) • Eco -flo Peat Biofilters (C) • Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (D) • Sand Filter- RSF (Recirculating Sand Filter) (E) • UV disinfection' (F) Note 1: UV should only be considered when the proposed OSTS has the potential to discharge into a usable aquifer or is located within a sensitive watershed. Pretreatment components that are listed per the Ohio Department of Health's approvable components for HSTS may be allowed. For a complete list of ODH's list of pretreatment components, please visit the following website: http:// www.odh.ohio.gov /odhPrograms /eh /sewage /sewmore.aspx It should be noted that the pretreatment components referenced above are typically used for soil based dispersal systems and not discharging systems to the waters of the state. Soil Treatment & Dispersal There are numerous ways in which wastewater can be dispersed away from the wastewater treatment system. Below is a list of soil treatment and dispersal components that Ohio EPA has traditionally approved in the past and are comfortable with the approval of these components. To determine when and where these components may be utilized, refer to Tables 1A & 1B for an exact determination. The components include but are not limited to: • Gravity leach tile field 81 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water • Pressure leach tile field (2) • At -grade leach tile field (gravity) (3) • At -grade leach tile field (pressurized) (4) • Gravelless trench lines (5) • Shallow Trench System (gravity) (ET tile field)' (6) • Shallow Trench System (pressurized) (ET tile field)' (7) • Unlined constructed wetland cell (for SSFCW systems only) (8) • Mound System (9) • Serial Distribution (gravity) (for systems > 15% slope) (10) • Drip Distribution (11) Note: Drip distribution systems should have pretreatment built in to the design. Acceptable pretreatment units include but are not limited to: • Micro FAST • SCAT Biofilters • Quanics Aero Cell • Quanics Biocoir • Delta ECOPOD • RSF / SPSF Note 1: Shallow Trench Systems are formally known as Evapo- transpiration tile field systems. 91 Page Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Table 1A: Limiting Condition: Seasonal High Ground Water 5 200 gpd Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component2 Soil Dispersal Syste m1,3 >_ 24 Not required for domestic sewage (1) - (11) (24 > x >_ 6) See Footnote (1) - (11) (< 6) No new systems recommended No new systems recommended 201 gpd - 999 gpd Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component Soil Dispersal System' ( >_ 36) Not required for domestic sewage (1) - (11) (36> x> 12) (A)(B)(C)(D) or (E) (1) - (11) (12>x >_ 6) (A)(B)(C)(D) or (E) and possibly (F) (4)(9)(11) (< 6) No new systems recommended No new systems recommended Z, 1000 gpd Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component Soil Dispersal System''" ( >_ 24) Required for systems >2500 gpd or sensitive areas (A) or (E) and(F) where justified (2)(4)(7)(11) (24> x >_ 12) (A) or (E) and(F) where justified (11) (12>x >_6) No new system recommended No new system recommended (< 6) No new system recommended No new system recommended Note 1: If the limiting condition is determined to be seasonal high ground water, soil dispersal system options may be less restrictive for vertical separations distances < 12 inches, butall efforts should be made to keep the pointof dispersal above the water table. For systems>1000gpd, DSW's Central Office should be consulted. Note 2: Pretreatment components should always be required for higher strength sewage (restaurant, facilities with food service, etc.). Also, a minimum of a septic tank effluent filter is recommended for all but very small systems with vertical separation greater than 24 ". Note 3: The minimum recommended total lineal feet for a tile field should be 200 feet for any new system. Note 4: If drip distribution is used, refer to pretreatment list on previous page for recommended components. Footnote Pretreatment recommended (A)(B)(C)(D) or (E) as flows increase and vertical separation decreases. 101 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Table 1B. Limiting Conditions. Bedrock, Ground Water, Sand & Gravel, Compacted Soils 5 200 gpd Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component Soil Dispersal System ( >_ 36) Not required for domestic sewage (1)411) (36> x> 24) (A) or (D) ( 1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) (< 24) No new systems recommended No new systems recommended 201 gpd - 999 gpd Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component Soil Dispersal System ( >_ 36) Not required for domestic sewage (1)411) (36> x >_ 24) (A)(B)(C)or (D) 5 (2)(4)(7)(9)(11) (< 24) No new systems recommended No new systems recommended Note 2: Pretreatment components should always be required for higher strength sewage (restaurant, facilities with food service, etc.). Also, a minimum of a septic tank effluent filter is recommended for all but very small systems with vertical separation greater than 24 ". Note 5: Additional pretreatment may be recommended; especially as vertical separation gets smaller. 111 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Minimum Soil Dispersal Systems Z, 1000 gpd (All systems require Septic Tanks) Vertical Separation (in) Pretreatment Component Soil Dispersal System ( >_36) Required for systems >2500 gpd, sensitive areas (2)(4)(7)(11) (A) -(E), and /or drip components (< 36) No new system recommended No new system recommended Note 2: Pretreatment components should always be required for higher strength sewage (restaurant, facilities with food service, etc.). Also, a minimum of a septic tank effluent filter is recommended for all but very small systems with vertical separation greater than 24 ". Note 5: Additional pretreatment may be recommended; especially as vertical separation gets smaller. 111 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Innovative Treatment Technologies Innovative treatment technologies shall be evaluated on a case by case basis provided that the following information is submitted to the Agency: • The criteria that will be used to design the treatment system. • Manufacturer's literature that explains or supports the design, operation, maintenance, or reliability of the treatment system to be viable in Ohio's climate and in Ohio's site specific soils. • A list of other similar installations in Ohio or installations in other states with similar climate and soil conditions as Ohio with the name, address, and other phone numbers of the appropriate regulatory agencies and up -to -date performance data. • If there are special operation or maintenance requirements that would be required for this system, these requirements should be specified in writing. • Proposed staffing levels, man hour, and process sampling frequency. • Periodic reports concerning operation, maintenance, and performance of the treatment system will be required to be submitted to the appropriate district office and /or central office staff as specified in the permit. • For design criteria not addressed specifically by this chapter, generally accepted design standards and methodologies should apply for the treatment, conveyance and storage facilities. • After the innovative treatment technology has been operating under design conditions for three years or in continuous operation for five years, the engineer or manufacturer may petition the Director to remove the "innovative" designation. The Director can take this action independently at any time. 121 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Appendix Surface Sand Filters L Sand Filters � - i BOTH SIDES - -- -- WATERPROOF � -�� At 3 DIMENSION MAYBE REDUCED FOR SMALL PLANTS OUTLET II 1 DOWN TURN ELBOW SUSPENDED 1 DI SFRI BUTI ON U NES SHALL ABOVE SPLASH SLAB OR SERRATED BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED EDGE OF DOWN TURN ELBOW T - SLOPE I MPERVI OUR IT PER 1 TO Section A 131Page Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water G ^RIGID PIPE MIN mnaETE 3PL4SH 3L4B 1 iI 23 II _E II: [i om M N II STONEPIPRAP >`o (ARCONO SPLASH FIVE ONLY) � - i BOTH SIDES - -- -- WATERPROOF � -�� At 3 DIMENSION MAYBE REDUCED FOR SMALL PLANTS OUTLET II 1 DOWN TURN ELBOW SUSPENDED 1 DI SFRI BUTI ON U NES SHALL ABOVE SPLASH SLAB OR SERRATED BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED EDGE OF DOWN TURN ELBOW T - SLOPE I MPERVI OUR IT PER 1 TO Section A 131Page Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Subsurface Sand Filters Loading rate not to exceed 1.15 gal /sq. ft/day VENT 3- F II 1 II ° �I II 1: II . I 18 ° FILTER SAND I SLOPE 3'- 1/8'T03 /4- GRAVEL 1'TO1' 3'- UCTO 3/4' GRAVEL IT- 3/4-TO15 -GRAVEL '(MIN)5 /4 -TO1.5 "GRAVEL Section A -A 141 Page version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Dual Compartment Septic Tank A L Tankage 18" RISER & COVERS Length* Refer to Ratios TO 117" TO PERMIT 9" MIN. NOT LESS THAN OVERFLOW \ 20 %OF UQUIDDEPTH INLET f /) _ 6" MIN N 2" MIN 6 "MINIMUM 8" MI N 4' MINIMUM 2/3 CAPACITY I I 1 Section A -A TEE OUTLET ON Length: Width: Depth 4:1:1 151 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Dosing Chamber I (From! control Panel Note: The effective volume of the dosing chamber typically is based on the average daily flow soothe fillingtime should not exceed 30 minutes unless flow equalization provided. InFluentChamber FROM DOSING PUMP PLUMBER' PLUG OR OTHER SEAL WATERTIGHT 12" SEAL g•• 21611 DEVICE MINIMUM SIZE a" COVER \ SIN MIN a SECTION B -B PROVIDE REMOVABLE STOP PLATE 161 Pa g Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ONLYAPPLIEN WHENONE DISPOSAL ARM IS RESTING FROM BEHIND PUMPS 1/4" DRAIN BIBLE ATEVALVE IN LOSING CHAMBER ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE ALVE OF CHECK V L #MINIHN SIZE FOR DISCHARGE RATES TO PREVENT OVERFLOW Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Soil Dispersal Components Conventional Leach Field- Gravity NFLVFN 100'MAOMVM Conventional Leach Field- Pressure A INSPECR ON POFF Y" FIELD THEE INSPECTIONPORT FAULT' IN 50' 6' OR MORE INFLVEM UNE(SJ UnoN BOX ❑ 6'OR MORE HOW DE , SHOW t A DOSINGCHAMBER A T6'ORMORE 3 IN 50 Conventional Leach Field- Pressure A n M 300'MPMMUM 171 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water INSPECR ON POFF Y" FIELD THEE FAULT' IN 50' 6' OR MORE INFLVEM UNE(SJ UnoN BOX ❑ 6'OR MORE HOW DE , SHOW t A DOSINGCHAMBER A T6'ORMORE n M 300'MPMMUM 171 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water At -Grade Leach Field 100'MAOMUM EARTHEPN BHIXFILL 1 INSPECTION PORT � V� v V� V`� V V� V V� V VV v V v v v v v AT GRADE TRAVEL P PERFORATED PIPE SECTION A -A Section A-A Shallow Trench Leach Field INFLUEN A loo'M MUM AA J I NSPECTON PORT COVER * }y V'V�. o' `y vV V. Vw yW. AV GRAVEL ELEVATION MPMMUM FPII ELEVATION 3" IN 50' 18 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Mound Treatment System OBSERVATION TUBE AGGREGATE i �E 3 L TOE { UY, FG .`b Y:x FORCE MAIN FROMMBER CHAMBER Drip Distribution System SEPTICTANK DISTRIBUTION LATERAL PERFORATED PIPE FLOW METER DOSI NG CHAMBER FILTER POMP PRMAEATMENTONIT DRAT N TO SEPTI C TANK 191Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency TOPSOIL 1 TOE EF INFILTRATIVE SURFACE SUPPLY MANIFOLD ��r RETURN MANIFOLD KNIFED IN Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands Inlet Nitrification Plant Up -Take Liner Trench Detail REMOVABLE COVER ]4" . M INLET OUTLET DISrRIBIfTION BOX U. -MIN GEOTEXPLE VVV V V V IMAX COVER Z V V VV F 2 "MIN GROVEL {4 "FIELOTILE 12" MIN GRAVEL Ipp CONVENTIONAL TRENCH Note: Notto Scale GEOTEXTII£ V V y V V y V y V Y V 6" MAX COVER V V V VV ]" MIN GRAVEL {P'FIELDTLE 10 "M GRAVEL SHALLOW TRENCH 201 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water From Septic Tank Fri Par on Nitrification Plant Up -Take Liner Trench Detail REMOVABLE COVER ]4" . M INLET OUTLET DISrRIBIfTION BOX U. -MIN GEOTEXPLE VVV V V V IMAX COVER Z V V VV F 2 "MIN GROVEL {4 "FIELOTILE 12" MIN GRAVEL Ipp CONVENTIONAL TRENCH Note: Notto Scale GEOTEXTII£ V V y V V y V y V Y V 6" MAX COVER V V V VV ]" MIN GRAVEL {P'FIELDTLE 10 "M GRAVEL SHALLOW TRENCH 201 Pa g Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Isolation Distances The tables below are recommended setbacks for siting septic tanks, sewage collection systems, and soil absorption systems. Table 7 - Siting septic tanks and sewage collection systems. These recommendations apply to: These recommendations cover: Siting new septic tanks and sewage collection systems. • Sewage collection systems (excluding service lines), • Lift stations and other devices which may hold wastewater, and • Household sewage storage or treatment tanks. Recommended setbacks: a Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells a a The location meets all sanitary isolation standards a public water system must maintain for its v drinking water supply wells as established in OAC 3745- 09 -04. This provision applies to service lines. Drinking Water Source Protection Area for a Community or Non - transient. Non - community Public Water c Y System Using Ground Water c No additional setbacks beyond the sanitary isolation radius unless the sewage collection system is pressurized. Pressurized sewage collection systems should not be located within an inner management zone determined to be highly susceptible to contamination. Transient. Non - community Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells No additional setbacks beyond the sanitary isolation radius. Private Water Systems The location is at least 50 feet from a water system private water system drinking water supply well. Drinking Water Supply Intakes No additional setbacks. `v Known Sinkholes and Drainage Wells t O -The location is at least 100 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well. -The location is at least 50 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well if additional engineering and management 211 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Table 8 - Siting soil absorption systems handling 1,000 gallons per day or less. These recommendations apply to: These recommendations cover: Soil absorption systems handling 1,000 Siting new soil absorption systems handling 1,000 gallons per day or less. gallons per day or less. Recommended setbacks: Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells a a The location meets all sanitary isolation standards a public water system must maintain for its 9; drinking water supply wells as established in OAC 3745- 09 -04. Drinking Water Source Protection Area for a Community or Non - transient. Non - community Public Water System Using Ground Water Y C o The location is outside of an inner management zone determined to be highly susceptible to contamination unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. Transient. Non - community Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells No additional setbacks beyond the sanitary isolation radius. Private Water Systems The location is at least 50 feet from a private water system drinking water supply well. Drinking Water Supply Intakes No additional setbacks. `v Known Sinkholes and Drainage Wells t O -The location is at least 100 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well. -The location is at least 50 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well if additional engineering and management 221 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Table 9 - Siting soil absorption systems handling 1,001 to 10,000 gallons per day. These recommendations apply to: These recommendations cover: Soil absorption systems handling 1,001 to Siting new soil absorption systems handling 1,001 to 10,000 gallons per day. 10,000 gallons per day. Recommended setbacks: a Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells a The location meets all sanitary isolation standards a public water system must maintain for its 9; drinking water supply wells as established in OAC 3745- 09 -04. Drinking Water Source Protection Area for a Community or Non - transient. Non - community Public Water System Using Ground Water Y C p` -The location is outside of an inner management zone determined to be highly susceptible to contamination unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. -The location is outside of a protection area determined to be highly susceptible to contamination unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. Transient. Non - community Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells The location is at least 300 feet from a transient non - community public water system drinking water supply well unless additional controls are included in the system's design and operation. Private Water Systems The location is at least 300 feet from a private water system drinking water supply well unless additional controls are included in the system's design and operation. Drinking Water Supply Intakes No additional setbacks. `v Known Sinkholes and Drainage Wells t O -The location is at least 300 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well. -The location is at least 100 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well if additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. 231 Page Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Version (5/21/08) Division of Surface Water Table 10 - Siting soil absorption systems handling more than 10,000 gallons per day. These recommendations apply to: These recommendations cover: Siting new soil absorption systems handling 10,000 Soil absorption systems handling more than gallons per day or less. 10,000 gallons per day. Recommended setbacks: a Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells a The location meets all sanitary isolation standards a public water system must maintain for its 9; drinking water supply wells as established in OAC 3745- 09 -04. Drinking Water Source Protection Area for a Community or Non - transient. Non - community Public Water un � System Using Ground Water Y C Q -The location is outside of an inner management zone determined to be highly susceptible to contamination. -The location is outside of an inner management zone determined to have a moderate or low susceptibility to contamination unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. -The location is outside of a protection area determined to be highly susceptible to contamination unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. Transient. Non - community Public Water System Drinking Water Supply Wells The location is at least 300 feet from a transient non - community public water system drinking water supply well unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. Private Water Systems The location is at least 300 feet from a private water system drinking water supply well unless additional engineering and management controls are included in the system's design and operation. Drinking Water Supply Intakes No additional setbacks. Known Sinkholes and Drainage Wells O -The location is at least 300 feet from a known sinkhole or drainage well. 241 Page Version (5/21/08) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Office of the City Manager Ubj* 5200 Emerald Parkway* Dublin, OH 43017-10•1 1*tyof D in Phone: 614-410-4400 9 Fax.- 614-410-4490 Cit Tax. Members of Dublin City Council Re:, Ordinance 12-17 — Rezoning approximately 0.67 Acres at the Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Summit View Road and Sawmill Road, from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. (Case 16-10OZ) I�� This is a request by the property owner for review and approval of a standard district rezonint from R-1. Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District for a 0.67 acre site. 153.0,26,(A).. Permitted Uses Permitted Uses in the district include a number of administrative, institutional, and professional uses such as general & medical office, legal services, political organizations, libraries, and religious organizations. Child and daycare centers are permitted provided applicable Code provisions are met regarding the specific use. Conditional Uses allow for auto-oriented uses, personal services such as beauty & barber shops, eating and drinking establishments, fitness centers, and animal services such as grooming, training, and veterinarians. Development standards in the SO district are primarily based on the size of the proposed building or development. There is no minimum lot size or required lot width except that the lo must be large enough to meet all the standards listed in the SO section. Required side & rear yard setbacks are based on a calculation of the closest parallel elevation being one-fourth thel Memo re. Ord. 12-17 Summit View Property - Rezoning February 9, 2017 Page 2 of 2 sum of the height and width of that elevation. The minimum for all side & rear yard setbacks in this district is 15 feet unless otherwise determined by the previous calculation. Recornmendab4on of the Planni'ng and Zonl"ng Commi*ssi"on Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 12-17 at the second reading/public hearing on February 27, 2017. 1 Standard District Rezoning 0 150 300 View P Summit View Property MMMMMEZ= City of Dublin Summit View Road & Sawmill Road Feet CITY OF DUBLIN_ ts.a urea wga.NSllalwq 59'q SMer.ay'.Rmtl dR1n.Mg1V 161}.1E R1e0e /RO'. 61"161147 Fav 61"1600 wee rile:.w...eotn m.�r February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153.232) I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Informal Review ❑ Final Plat Pamel Slza (Ain 0. 67 (Section 152.085) ❑ Concept Plan ❑ Conditional Use (Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) ❑ Final Development Plan ❑ Corridor Development Distinct (CDD) Sign (Section 153.053(E)) (Section 153.115) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan ❑ Minor Subdivision (Section 153.0531(1 ❑ Standard District Rezoning ❑ Rightof -Way Encroachment (Section 153.018) ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Other (Please Specify): (Section 152.015) Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address(es): 36 3 B S (s -Mml+v IC. W aaC Tax OlParcel Number(s): fl l 3 _ One, p� Pamel Slza (Ain 0. 67 Existing Land Use /Development:��Pl �^ D,.I Loci IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use /Development: / 1% L f 0 Q 1 cz - SO ` eL Iij r�l r / ^ O Total cans affected by application: .6-7 -7 0. � Q Y C / 1 111 Ct IRRFNT PRnPi hWN11i ole_e.. »._» _.. »:___, Name (Individual or Organization)p: -f^ 1 p Mailing Address: IdSlb (30- 1lQAitVi t'I D,.CQ (StreaL City, State, ZIP Cori ll lAb It n i Ohl C1 9 "1 O I I {' Daytime Telephone: 614 _ 657 - i23 ( Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: D- 1'nY@tb -tel 3'D, iI"i Page 1 of 3 IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the pemon(s) who is submitting the application If different than the property owners) Ilsred In part III. Please complete if applicable. Name pp canlsalso poperty owner: yes no ❑ Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Mailing Address: (Street. City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT I PROPERTY OWNER: This Is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part N or Property owner listed In Part 111. Please complete If applicable. Name: 1, \Developer, Organization (Owl netr Contmcwo, etc.): Mailing Address: 6516 8�\\0.fi }1+� (Street, City, State, Zip Code) y 3 O Daytime Telephone: 61 H - 6 5.7 Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: A m pa P0.i Q(3 . V+ • 1 VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVES): N the applicant ie not the p.operty this section must be completed and notarized. - the owner, hereby authorize to act as my applicant or represemathm(s) In all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. 1 agree to ba bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: LJ Check this box if the Authorization for Owners Applicant or Representative(s) Is attached as a separate document Subscribed and mom before me this day of 20 State of County of Notary Public VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The OwnerlApplicart, as noted babes, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and Post a notice on the property described In this application. I AK h t I ?C(.jt-_j the owner or authorized representative. hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Date: 11 2' 0 , I Page 2 of 3 Vlll. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission anchor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. I ' `K1 `11 yd(Z -1 the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a gurantse or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: y I I/� I Date: j I 2 I it ITV \� TU IX. must be 1 , the owner or authorized repre sentative, have mad and understand the contents of this application. The Information contained i this application, attached as 14 and other Iniormation submlttad Is complete and In all respects hue and correct, to the b"T)of mi knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: A% P _ Data / '� Subscribed and sworn to before me this ! * day of N✓P./yl bar, yg / L Suite of 0h; o Receipt No: Map Zone: Data Received: County of Ff(Lyl ILL n Notary Pub Ic ( Fi'Q City Council Action: Ordinance Number: Type of Request `111r 111 � IER.NpT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received: Application NO: PSZ Drta(el: PSZ ACIIOn: Receipt No: Map Zone: Data Received: Receivedil, City Council (First Reading(: Cary Council (Second Residing): City Council Action: Ordinance Number: Type of Request N, S, E, W (Circle( Side of N, S. E, W (Circle( Side of Nearest Intersection: Distance horn rum at Intersection: Ezialing Zoning Distant: Requested Zoning DistNCt Page 3 of 3 SG POWERED BY ELITE STARS SURVEY RETRIEVAL SYSTEM L A N ❑ T T L E .rreyslarscan MOP6r1Y1W11F$$: i4 SWMRNEWROAO WBUN, OH104 6 w.NEY NLMBFA I &1JC 1� ■��xf N90.00'E 192.20 N90 -M F 151.30' I �1 .. ....... .. . Vm 0.6]1 be T ul Q 0$70 AC TRACra _IQ 3 x' �w aiz m 3 J n y z ( Z Ib HI� Q S 5695'17' E 192.13' —_ xxxes'tnvlBaB S %95'1]'E111.52' a° 1_�HN9i'iT�IRRf summr V E wa as cluv.orx - i "a. SCAIE 1 "= BO OF.QS'ip'''; GR /y; _ UOEI rar c XJ Cv 5..8047 °' xRnraxmmMNSOrowEr 'o,?]gyAl m 16,v - 1810$CRprlg{StgLiJyj Np NAY � 9NYN 4l EUB.ItNR.NFLCMGThF SGIY 1•stl A91HilIMT lSdt' &VO POINR W diE1¢5l: NpMENBIEIE CIFTIi NUMBFIt LN 514xP OprEb//AIb TIISMQZrGWELCPN p�NtIFlCATON SLWEY IE NOT TO BE DSED F'JATIF INSTµIP1gN ORflUI1tNNG DFEEN,35, $N -1Ya, GPPgGES, tDDRION5011 NJY eiXER 51RNCNRE, rO DE1ERMNE EXACT BgxNDAiYtINES, OUNDARYwRhY 5REOLYP�. RUYFR:Pp11L PAiEL $gLFA BIW/E]1 NpAE$ IICRAN wazm /o1BGlNU wr :saBACREs , MEi£SAN❑BOUNOS y�iwPAQYIE SI/BV(I, SUSOOia '. Ts proud to v;pport' KO�(11er1� . PUr PG <D'JNM1:FRANCIN cure, _ .. _. ... 15UMN axnemm EurEUxD rrt1t. LANDMARK SumyGC:q CeLmyu. CM164V12 __ __ Rome btl�9D]B Lmtnw ss ao�io� o¢M�awny�Mamrcv�vaw.M��o Cwrt'.x a W 1. wo samwzmsmE [cu Fa:6tAx859[W 16 -100Z *Akhil Patel Joanne Crockett R -1— 3838 Summit View Road 6516 Ballantrae Place 3840 Summit View Rd. Rezoning Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Church of the Redeemer Moravian 3883 Summit View Rd. Dublin, OH 43016 Joanne Crockett 8155 Sawmill Rd. Dublin, OH 43016 Dorothy Crissinger 8161 Sawmill Rd. Dublin, OH 43016 Bobby & Esther Sargent Larry Rigsby Cooperleaf Apartments 3850 Summit View Rd. 8167 Sawmill Rd. 8619 Gold Leaf Ln. Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Summit View Road Rezoning 16 -100Z Summit View Road Standard District Rezoning Proposal: Rezoning a 0.68 -acre parcel from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. The site is located on the north side of Summit View Road, at the intersection with Sawmill Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Akhil Patel, Ari Investments LLC. Planning Contact: Logan Stang, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4652, Istang @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Ms. Mitchell motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Standard District Rezoning because the proposed rezoning meets the future land use designation of the Community Plan, the thoroughfare plan, and the special area plan. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: The Standard District Rezoning will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Absent Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Yes Stephen Stidhem Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Logan Stang Planner I PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.474 dublinohiousa.gov Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 Motion and Vote Mr Stmdhem matipped, Ms Mitchell seroAded, to approve the CoAditippal Ilse with a parkiAg alteratkA4 and no rondotmonr. The vote 1var c fellnigr- Mc Ile Deco M grown, M Mill � ec� r yes; r er, yes; Mc Mitchell, yes; d M Stodh and erv. i yes (Approved 5 — 0) 3. Summit View Road Rezoning Summit View Road 16 -10OZ Standard District Rezoning The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for a Rezoning of a 0.68 -acre parcel from R- 1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. He said the site is on the north side of Summit View Road, at the intersection with Sawmill Road. He said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Logan Stang presented an aerial view of the site and noted the property is approximately two- thirds of an acre in size and is currently undeveloped. He added the surrounding properties are not currently serviced by public utilities and there are no plans to extend utilities in this area in the five -year CIP. Mr. Stang restated the applicant is proposing to rezone this property from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional. He stated the current zoning only permits single - family dwellings while the proposed zoning classification permits a number of professional and administrative uses such as general office, medical office, and legal services. He said the Suburban Office district also outlines a number of conditional uses such as beauty or barber shops and animal services. Upon approval of this rezoning, he stated any future development proposals would be subject to the requirements of the City's Zoning Code and applicants would file directly for building permits. He clarified Standard Districts do not require additional zoning approval like the PUD process. Mr. Stang presented the Community Plan — Future Land Use Map. He noted The Community Plan identifies a Future Land Use designation of Neighborhood Office /Institutional for the entire northwest corner of Sawmill & Summit View Roads. He said this classification is identified for areas adjacent to residential where land transitions or buffers are necessary. Furthermore, he said development intensity would be low due to greater setbacks and extensive landscaping and would usually not exceed 9,500 square feet per acre. He stated the proposed zoning classification permits uses that correspond with this future land use designation. Motion and Vote Mr Stmdhem matipped, Ms Mitchell seroAded, to approve the CoAditippal Ilse with a parkiAg alteratkA4 and no rondotmonr. The vote 1var c fellnigr- Mc Ile Deco M grown, M Mill � ec� r yes; r er, yes; Mc Mitchell, yes; d M Stodh and erv. i yes (Approved 5 — 0) 3. Summit View Road Rezoning Summit View Road 16 -10OZ Standard District Rezoning The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, said the following application is for a Rezoning of a 0.68 -acre parcel from R- 1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. He said the site is on the north side of Summit View Road, at the intersection with Sawmill Road. He said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Logan Stang presented an aerial view of the site and noted the property is approximately two- thirds of an acre in size and is currently undeveloped. He added the surrounding properties are not currently serviced by public utilities and there are no plans to extend utilities in this area in the five -year CIP. Mr. Stang restated the applicant is proposing to rezone this property from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional. He stated the current zoning only permits single - family dwellings while the proposed zoning classification permits a number of professional and administrative uses such as general office, medical office, and legal services. He said the Suburban Office district also outlines a number of conditional uses such as beauty or barber shops and animal services. Upon approval of this rezoning, he stated any future development proposals would be subject to the requirements of the City's Zoning Code and applicants would file directly for building permits. He clarified Standard Districts do not require additional zoning approval like the PUD process. Mr. Stang presented the Community Plan — Future Land Use Map. He noted The Community Plan identifies a Future Land Use designation of Neighborhood Office /Institutional for the entire northwest corner of Sawmill & Summit View Roads. He said this classification is identified for areas adjacent to residential where land transitions or buffers are necessary. Furthermore, he said development intensity would be low due to greater setbacks and extensive landscaping and would usually not exceed 9,500 square feet per acre. He stated the proposed zoning classification permits uses that correspond with this future land use designation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 Mr. Stang presented the Community Plan — Thoroughfare Plan. He said Summit View Road is designated as a "Collector" with a planned right -of -way of 60 feet. He said Sawmill Road is designated a "Major Arterial" with a planned right -of -way of 160 feet; however, since Sawmill Road lies within the City of Columbus' jurisdiction any improvements or right -of -way dedication would have to meet Columbus' thoroughfare plan, which only calls for 120 feet of right -of -way. Based on a recent survey, he pointed out that Sawmill Road currently contains 80 feet of right -of -way leaving a 40 -foot deficit from the planned width, which means the applicant would be required to dedicate approximately 20 feet of right -of -way to the City of Dublin before development could occur on this parcel. Mr. Stang presented the Community Plan — Summit View /Sawmill Area Plan. He highlighted that these area plans contain conceptual design recommendations for areas of interest throughout the City with the intent of guiding future development. Mr. Stang noted the Summit View /Sawmill Plan has a few recommendations that pertain to this site; the first being a recommended setback of 100 feet for office development. Second, he said is sensitive placement of office development within existing trees and natural features. And the third, he said is the use of a green corridor as an amenity for office and residential development and to buffer the office development from adjacent residential uses. He noted that these recommendations are based on a larger scale commercial development as shown in the plan, which was the projected course of development for the neighborhood commercial component. He said the large development would remove a number of site constraints that exist for developing this single property; however, the proposed rezoning meets the intent of the neighborhood commercial component along that entire northwest corner. Mr. Stang said the proposed rezoning meets the future land use designation of the Community Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan, and the special area plan; therefore, Planning recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this application to City Council. Phil Hartmann indicated this is the first straight zoning that this Commission has seen; it is not a planned district so there will not be conditions and it does not lend itself to debate. The Vice Chair invited the applicant to present his case Akhil Patel, 6516 Ballantrae Place, said he and his wife own Ari Investments LLC, which purchased this corner lot and the adjoining lot on Summit View Road with the intent of rezoning the corner lot and adding an office building there for his law practice. He said the new office building would be an asset as the lot is currently vacant. He stated they have already made substantial improvements to the adjoining lot that contains a house. He said the house was very rundown and they replaced the gravel drive with a concrete driveway. The Vice Chair invited public comment. Ira Maurer, 8421 Glencree Place, Dublin, said he has resided there for 25 years. He said development would contribute to traffic issues. Through discussions of the Community Plan over the years, he said they concluded to maintain the neighborhood. He said this has been a more rural area and he enjoys the wildlife. He indicated he is concerned with development that will come with lit up parking lots and noise from trucks. He said he welcomes development in the area but wanted everyone to be mindful of the neighbors as they have been there for a long time, raised their kids there, love to be there, and he built his own house there. He asked everyone to take into consideration, quality of life for these residents, especially when the Community Plan states maintaining the feel of neighborhoods in Dublin. Trina Holmberg said she is the pastor of the Church of the Redeemer across the street at 3883 Summit View Road. She stated her concern is that the area stay a neighborhood. She also said she is concerned the church will gain overflow parking from this new development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 Joanne Crockett, 3840 Summit View, said her property is immediately west of this proposal and has resided there for 38 years. She indicated she had sent questions to Mr. Stang about this property ahead of this meeting. She asked how many commercial buildings are permitted in Dublin without access to a sewer system as there is no access here. She questioned how this is to be a defined gateway as stated in the Community Plan. She said recently, 43 acres behind her property was annexed to Perry Township. She said Perry Township could build anything they want there, including a strip mall. She said that will impact her and everyone else who lives there. She asked if this property is spot zoned, if she will be entitled to the same for her property if she chooses to follow what Perry Township does. Tara Haid, 8280 Bibury Lane, said she is opposed to this property being rezoned. She said she likes the current neighborhood feel and while she has only been a resident a few years, she had planned on living there well into the future. She reported she grew up in Dublin and selected this property specifically because it is multi - cultural, close to the park, and traffic is still manageable. She said commercial development would add to the traffic issues. Cathy De Rosa inquired about the potential road improvements for the area. Mr. Stang said the City of Dublin would need to coordinate with the City of Columbus because the majority of Sawmill Road falls in their jurisdiction. He said Dublin has no roadway improvements planned for Summit View Road but does not know what the City of Columbus has in mind for Sawmill Road. Ms. De Rosa asked about the lack of utilities. Mr. Stang explained a lot of properties in this area do not currently have utilities. He indicated all services for Dublin would come from Riverside, which is a considerable amount of distance to be covered in order to reach these properties in the northeast corner. He said Engineering is pushing for expanding utilities, including this area. Unfortunately, he said there is nothing as yet included in the five -year CIP. He explained the last major update to the Community Plan was 2007 for this area. Bob Miller said the dialogue for how this was put together and the impact of the existing single - family units must have been discussed at some point and he asked staff if anyone recalled the intent for this area. Claudia Husak said the Community Plan Special Area Plan was conceptual but Neighborhood Office /Institutional would fit well here surrounded by Mixed - Residential, Low Density housing as shown on the Future Land Use Map. She indicated the City has been approached about senior housing development in this area but a proposal did not formalize and nothing else has come forward. Mr. Miller asked when the Perry Township change occurred. Mr. Hartmann answered litigation is pending in the court of appeals. Ms. De Rosa inquired about green way space in standard zoning and who is responsible for maintaining it. In a standard district, Mr. Stang explained just base regulations are required. Deb Mitchell inquired about parking requirements in standard zoning. Mr. Stang said they are the base requirements that are outlined in the zoning code. Chris Brown indicated traffic on Sawmill Road heading north has increased due to the expansion of Liberty Township, Perry Township, Powell, and the Olentangy area. Victoria Newell arrived moments ago and Mr. Brown asked her to contribute her thoughts. Victoria Newell said she was concerned the Commission was being asked to rezone such a small parcel and the neighbors would have more protection with a PUD. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 Ms. Husak pointed out the Future Land Use Map shows this area as Suburban Office Mr. Brown said the Master Plan states this should be Suburban Office considering this is on Sawmill Road and the value of the property. He asked if this rezoning was denied this evening if the applicant could bring back a proposal for a PUD and define what goes in there. Mr. Miller asked if the Community Plan is just a recommendation tool. Vince Papsidero said it is official city development policy, more than a guideline as it is reviewed with regard to rezonings. The Vice Chair invited the applicant back to speak to recent Commission comments Mr. Patel said he respects the residents and he is a resident since he owns the lot next door. He said a PUD would not be feasible as there are multiple owners and he only owns the corner. He indicated that unless a developer purchased it all from the multiple owners, it would not be feasible to bring this back for a PUD. He said the alternative is that it would be zoned residential and a house would be built on the corner of Sawmill Road and Summit View Road, which he believes is not what Dublin wants. He said with this proposal there will be deep setbacks for green space. Ms. De Rosa said she was concerned since it has been since 2007 since the City has received community input in terms of this area. She indicated the Commission does not have the most current view of this piece of property at this point. She asked if it would be appropriate to ask City Council to review the Community Plan for this area. Mr. Papsidero said if that was the direction staff would be asked to take, given the current workload, it could not be addressed again until 2018. Mr. Brown said when he looks at the history, the church, the park, and Sawmill Road, it is such a mixed area and there is also a lot of residential in the area. He asked how the residents would be buffered from this transitional area and money pressures stemmed from Sawmill Road as density grows; the pressure to grow north concerns him. Ms. Newell said she experienced this similar situation many years ago while living in Indian Run Meadows and the proposal to develop Perimeter Center and the small office development between the residents and Perimeter Center came forward. She said she would prefer to follow what is in the Community Plan because she does not see this developing for residential but a PUD would be better. Mr. Miller said he agrees in that he would prefer to follow the Community Plan but struggles with empathy for the residents. He questioned what criteria he should be following for his decision because he does not see a lot of latitude. Mr. Hartmann said that was exactly right. He highlighted the outline in 153.026 and guided him Ms. Mitchell said she agreed with Mr. Brown and Ms. Newell to follow the Community Plan. She said she would like to see this developed in a way to take into account the residents and buffering. She asked if a PUD is possible. Mr. Hartmann said that would be up to the applicant. He said from what has been filed as of today, the Commission should only consider the straight zoning from R -1 to Suburban Office before them by considering the criteria. Mr. Brown added the Commission is not being asked to make a final decision but rather to make a recommendation to City Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission January 5, 2017 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 Both Mr. Miller and Mr. Stidhem said they would recommend in favor based on the criteria but would like Council to know their reservations as part of the recommendation. Ms. Newell said the Commission has compassion for the residents but at the same time are bound by the criteria review. Mr. Brown concluded that if the Commission preserves residential along Sawmill Road, particularly single family, nobody with any deep pockets will want to live there and will want to sell so he would prefer to see a small professional office building on 0.6 acres when it is feasible. He said he is not opposed to this and would provide a buffer. He said we do not want an ugly eyesore at the gateway to Dublin. Ms. De Rosa again asked, given the constraints, if an office building with parking would even be feasible. Mr. Stang indicated from a zoning perspective, there is potential for a small building but the biggest constraints right now are the utilities. Motion and Vote Ms. Mitchell motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Standard District Rezoning. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and Ms. Mitchell, yes; (Approval Recommended 6 — 0) Ms. De Rosa asked that City Council be informed of their recommendation to review the Community Plan. Mr. Brown said City Council will receive these minutes but that the citizens are welcome to make their preferences known to City Council about this area. mai�sm�TSrvncmrr�rrvrss�rr�rrrrsrsrs +�mrr� ---------- - - .. ..- city 4 of Dublin OHIO, UST PLANNING REPORT Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, January 5, 2017 Summit View Road — STANDARD DISTRICT REZONING Agenda Item 3 Case Number 16 -10OZ Proposal The rezoning of a property from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. Request Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Standard District Rezoning under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Site Location At the northwest corner of the intersection of Summit View Road and Sawmill Road. Applicant Akhil Patel, Owner Case Manager Logan Stang, Planner I 1 (614) 410 -4652 or Istangadublin.oh.us Recommendation Recommendation of approval to City Council.. The proposed rezoning meets the future land use designation of the Community Plan, the thoroughfare plan, and the special area plan. Planning recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of this application to City Council. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 2 of 7 16 -10OZ Standard District Rezoning 0 200 40 Summit View Road Property City of Dublin Summit View Road & Sawmill Road Feet City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 3 of 7 Details idard Disoct Rezoni- Code Section 153.232(6)(2) provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with the authority to make recommendations to City Council for amendments to the Zoning Map, which is the purpose of a rezoning. The Commission should review the proposal, provide input, and vote on the zoning change. The proposed amendment will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration. The following summarizes the maior components of the proposed Zoning District. Proposal Overview The proposal is for the rezoning from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. The applicant intends to potentially develop the site with a commercial use where the R -1 district onlv permits single- familv dwelling units. Site Area ±0.67 Acres Zoning R -1: Restricted Suburban Residential District Surrounding Zoning North: R -1: Restricted Suburban Residential District (Single - Family) and Uses South: R -1: Restricted Suburban Residential District (Church of the Redeemer) East: City of Columbus West: R -1: Restricted Suburban Residential District (Single - Family) Site Features . ±160 feet of frontage on Sawmill Road and ±115 feet of frontage on Summit View Road Undeveloped parcel with minimal vegetation throughout. Tree line extending along Sawmill Road on the east side of the property. 4l Shared tree line along northern property line with adjacent single- L family residential. Site History In 2001, City Council approved Ordinance #34 -01 to establish Dublin zoning for approximately 509 parcels comprising an area of approximately 872 acres to R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. In 1974, Dublin Village Council approved Ordinance #03 -74 to annex approximately 1,679 acres from Perry Township into the Village of Dublin. Details idard Disoct Rezoni- Code Section 153.232(6)(2) provides the Planning and Zoning Commission with the authority to make recommendations to City Council for amendments to the Zoning Map, which is the purpose of a rezoning. The Commission should review the proposal, provide input, and vote on the zoning change. The proposed amendment will be forwarded to City Council for its consideration. The following summarizes the maior components of the proposed Zoning District. Proposal Overview The proposal is for the rezoning from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. The applicant intends to potentially develop the site with a commercial use where the R -1 district onlv permits single- familv dwelling units. 5153.026 MR Permitted & Conditional Uses L Community Plan Future Land Use Plan Community Plan Thoroughfare Plan City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 4 of 7 tantJ�istric�� The Suburban Office and Institutional District allows numerous administrative, professional, and institutional uses such as general office, medical office, insurance companies, banking organizations, libraries, political organizations and legal services. Conditional uses permitted in this district include personal services such as beauty and barber shops, animal services such as pet grooming and training, and exercise and fitness facilities. The Future Land Use Map identifies the properties at the northwest corner of Summit View Road and Sawmill Road as "Neighborhood Office /Institutional ". This classification is intended for sites located adjacent to residential areas where land use transitions or buffers are necessary. Development intensity is limited through greater setbacks and extensive landscaping. Development will usually not exceed gross densities of 9,500 square feet per acre. The proposed zoning district permits uses that correspond with the future land use classification identified for this area of the City. The Thoroughfare Plan classifies road types based on traffic demand and identifies future character improvements to handle the increased activity. Sawmill Road is identified as a "Major Arterial" with a potential 160 foot right -of -way for six lanes of travel. However, due to the corporate limits between the City of Dublin and the City of Columbus the majority of Sawmill Road is located within the City of Columbus' jurisdiction. Any associated improvements and right -of -way dedication would have to meet the City of Columbus' Thoroughfare Plan which identifies a 120 foot right -of -way as opposed to 160 feet. Summit View Road is identified as a "Collector" with 60 feet of right -of -way and two lanes of travel. Currently, Summit View Road meets the recommended right -of -way width of 60 feet along the property. Sawmill Road has an approximate right -of -way width of 80 feet along the property based on the survey provided by the applicant. This results in a 40 foot deficiency that amounts to 20 feet of required dedication on each side of Sawmill Road. The applicant will be required to dedicate approximately 20 feet of right -of -way through a general warranty deed to the City of Dublin Community Plan Summit View Sawmill Special Area Plan City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 5 of 7 tantJ�istricIezoning The Summit View /Sawmill Special Area Plan comprises the northeast corner of the corporate limit and represents a gateway to the City of Dublin. The design recommendations focus on keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood and enhancing natural features that exist today. The plan promotes neighborhood commercial development at the northwest corner of Sawmill Road & Summit View Road to correspond to the east side of Sawmill Road. The western edge provides for single - family residential that transitions to the existing subdivisions along Summit View Road. A potential greenway from Emerald Fields on the south to the Delaware County Line provides separation ' between the commercial and 5 c residential developments. The property, outlined in yellow, encompasses a small �_ �. L portion of the potential ~ = -- neighborhood commercial lg component. The site was3 f� envisioned as part of a larger _ development proposal that f t .r, would reduce the existing constraints of the single l L property. However, despite the constraints it is possible to _ develop the property upon yi approval of this rezoning with • —` careful site planning. Upon approval of this rezoning, future development proposals would be permitted to file directly to Building Standards for building permits and would not reauire additional zonina approval. Process The Zoning Code requires the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine whether the proposed rezoning will generally conform to the Dublin Community Plan and other applicable area plans, integrates in an appropriate and compatible manner with surrounding land uses, and generally adheres to other accepted planning policies and practices. After recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission the rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 6 of 7 Analysis tantJ�istrict ezonm for public hearing and final vote. This analysis is separate from any consideration of a specific use. 1. Evaluation based on the Future land use designation, 2. Evaluation based on the thoroughfare plan. 33, Eve based on area II plan. Future Land Use met: The site was zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District as part of an area wide rezoning in 2001 to establish Dublin zoning on annexed properties. Prior to this rezoning these properties were regulated by township zoning despite having been annexed into the City in 1974. With the adoption of the 2007 Community Plan the future land use classification for this, and the adjacent properties, was identified as Neighborhood Office /Institutional. The proposed zoning designation, SO, Suburban Office and Institutional meets the intended land use and provides for a wide array of permitted commercial and institutional uses. Thoroughfare Plan met with right -of -way dedication: The thoroughfare plan identifies both Sawmill Road and Summit View Road as key roadways for transportation demand. With the potential for future development in this and the surrounding area roadway improvements are expected to meet the needs of future demand. Currently, the right -of -way for Summit View Road meets the community plan outline so no additional right -of -way is needed at this time. However, Sawmill Road has a planned right -of -way significantly greater than what exists today based on both the City of Columbus' plan and the City of Dublin's plan. The applicant will thus be required to dedicate the required amount of right -of -way for Sawmill Road through a general warranty deed or as determined by the City Special Area Plan met: The Summit View /Sawmill area plan envisions a transitional area from the commercial component of Sawmill Road to the rural character of the existing residential. The conceptual commercial development and subsequent recommendations are synonymous of a larger scale development consisting of multiple properties. While the current proposal only encompasses a small portion of this intended development the zoning classification is in keeping with the future land use and development potential of the area. Mmmendatio tandard District Rezoning Approval In Planning's analysis, the proposed modification to the Zoning Map to rezone from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential to SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District meets the Community Plan. Planning recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16 -10OZ I Summit View Road Property Thursday, January 5, 2017 1 Page 7 of 7 Recommendatio tandard approval of this application to City Council. District Rezoning, RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No .... .. ........... 34.- O1...(AMENDED) Passed AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH DUBLIN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 509 PARCELS COMPRISING OF AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 872 ACRES, AS ANNEXED FROM PERRY TOWNSHIP PRIOR TO 1975, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE FRANKLIN/DELAWARE COUNTY LINE, TO THE EAST BY SAWMILL ROAD, TO THE SOUTH, I -270, AND TO THE WEST THE SCIOTO RIVER AS R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (NORTHEAST TOWNSHIP REZONING — CASE NO. 01-006Z). WHEREAS, under Dublin Code Section 153.004(D), territory annexed to the City of Dublin continues to be governed by the zoning regulations which governed the territory annexed immediately prior to the annexation, as enacted by a Board of County Commissioners under R.C. §§ 303.01 to 303.25, or enacted by a Board of Township Trustees under R.C. §§ 519.02 to 519.25, as the case may be; and WHEREAS, Section 153.004(D) further states that as soon as practicable after the annexation of territory to Dublin, proceedings shall be instituted to include the annexed territory in one or more of the zoning districts defined in the zoning ordinance, as amended; and WHEREAS, certain parcels located in the northeast quadrant were annexed to the Village of Dublin in 1973, and never designated with a proper Dublin zoning classification since annexation; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to rezone certain parcels in the northeast quadrant of the City to ensure they are governed by Dublin zoning classifications in compliance with Section 153.004(D); WHEREAS, this rezoning will ensure consistent administration and equal enforcement of City Codes to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens; NOW, 'YHEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, -(.a- 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 R -I, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application (Exhibit "B "), the list of contiguous property owners (Exhibit "B- 2"), and the list of affected property owners (Exhibit "D "), 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 on the earliest date provided by law. Passed thisj�'Ktay of 2001. L. G MaWor — Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/ Resolution were posted in the Sponsor: Law Director City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. ,Clerk Council, Dublin, Ohio RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS o�w......-1-1 i „y „auxi� Held June 25, 2001 Mr. McCash requested that Mr. Smith determine if there is other legislation that may require revision as well, such as fencing requirements. 2. Stated that the final plans for the Galli Park in the new Ballentrae Golf Course Subdivision will be presented at the July 23rd Council meeting. The City has right -of- entry to the site, which is on Mr. Galli's property. Presently, infrastructure construction is occurring in that area. To allow that construction to continue on schedule, the developer requests authorization to deposit soil on that site, although final plans for the park have not yet been approved by City Council. He inquired if Council had any objection to that plan. There were no objections. Mr. Adamek thanked Ms. Heal for the memo updating Council on the outdoor pool status. LEGISLATION TABLED ORDINANCE SCHEDULED FOR HEARING Ordinance 34 -01— An Ordinance to Establish Dublin Zoning for Approximately 525 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 833 Acres, as Annexed from Perry Township Prior to 1975, Bounded on the North by the Franklin /Delaware County Line, to the East by Sawmill Road, to the South by I -270, and to the West by the Scioto River, as R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Northeast Township Rezoning — Case No. 01 -006Z) (Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Timothy Hansley, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017.) Ms. Clarke explained that this is essentially a housekeeping measure initiated by the Law Director. Most of the land on the east side of the river was annexed in two major annexations, in 1972 and 1975. Dublin did not establish zoning except for those properties for which the landowner specifically requested it, e.g. the Inverness development, the Northeast Quad, Campden Lakes, and Wyandotte Woods. During recent review, the Law Director's office discovered that a large portion of the land on the east side of the river, approximately 531 parcels or 833 acres, still had not been rezoned with Dublin zoning. This is a request to establish the zoning as R -1, Restrictive Suburban Residential District, although specific development proposals will continue to be processed through the system as usual. The application, which was sponsored by the City, was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2001. The Commission recommends approval with the following two conditions: (1) that the legal descriptions of all affected properties be finalized prior to scheduling the public hearing with City Council; and (2) that the property owners be notified by certified mail of the future public hearing, as recommended by the Law Director. A public hearing was previously scheduled for the May 21 st Council meeting but was tabled when it was discovered that an outdated list had been used for the notification. The public hearing was rescheduled for tonight's meeting, and a second notification made using a corrected list of property owners. She added that the upcoming zoning code revision will include a new zoning map. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road inquired if part of this land is not presently zoned. Mr. Smith stated that the present zoning of the land is R -1 township zoning. This action will establish City R -1 zoning. Mr. Maurer inquired what drives the zoning pattern. j Mr. Smith stated that most land was originally zoned R -1, as farmland, under a township zoning. A city will typically rezone it the same -- R -1, unless the economy steers it another direction, via a Community Plan or a rezoning application. Sherman Liddell, 3838 Summit View Road, stated that at the time he purchased his land in 1971 -1972, he pursued rezoning of one acre of land on the corner. At that time, he discovered that the land was zoned Agricultural, not R -1. He noted that Bill Chambers was chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time. Mr. Smith asked that he furnish a copy of that paperwork to him. He noted that the difference in zoning would not have any effect on whatever zoning requests Mr. Liddell might wish to make. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Held June 25, 2001 Mr. Liddell agreed to forward a copy of the materials to Mr. Smith. Muriel Liddell, 3838 Summit View, stated she is concerned about the R -1 zoning specifications requiring an acre of land for one home. She and her husband originally purchased two full acres. They understood that they could have placed a home on each of the two acres. Now, her husband has retired, is also disabled, and they are living on a fixed income. Subsequent to their purchase several years ago, the City has taken some of their land in road widenings and easements. They had planned to sell one of their acres, but the new zoning that would require one acre per home would make that land worthless. Mr. Smith stated that if, through no fault of their own, but as a result of road expansion or takings, their property has been reduced, that would have no effect on the zoning. Mrs. Liddell asked to receive a written assurance of that. Mr. Smith indicated that Planning Director, Bobbie Clarke will forward documentation to the Liddell's. Ms. Liddell stated that a second concern relates to the construction of sewers in their area. A previous Council had made a commitment to the original landowners that when that area received City sewers, no tap -in fee would be charged to those landowners. She is concerned that, unless that also is carried forward in writing, no one will be aware of that commitment. There was no further discussion. Vote on the Ordinance: Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Ordinance 66 -01— An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Ground Lease With Craig R. Sonksen, on a 135' X 104' Tract of Land, Located South of Darby Street, City of Dublin, County of Franklin, State of Ohio, and Declaring an Emergency. Mr. Hansley stated that staff requests that this ordinance remain on the table due to the fact that discussion is continuing with the property owner. SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 74 -01— An Ordinance Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, and Declaring an Emergency. Ms. Grigsby stated that this is an annual housekeeping item required by the Ohio Revised Code, authorizing the City to file with the County Auditor to continue to receive local government funding. Staff requests adoption tonight on an emergency basis. Mr. Adamek moved to dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency legislation. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Ms. Chinnci- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Ordinance 75 -01— An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 21 -95 (Amended) to Update the Arterial Traffic Plan for the City of Dublin. Mr. Hansley stated that this provides for the realignment of Tuttle Crossing to take a more northerly route. At the last Council meeting, staff was requested to provide an amended exhibit, showing the construction stopping at Avery Road. The amended exhibit was provided in the meeting packets. Staff recommends adoption. Christopher Cline, attorney, Blaugrund, Herbert & Martin, 5455 Rings Road, stated that he is present tonight to represent Ilija and Denise Karanfilov. He stated that they own approximately 23 acres on Avery Road. Up to this point, the Thoroughfare Plan placed the Tuttle Crossing extension along the southern boundary of their property. That is also the boundary line between Dublin and Columbus. The Karanfilovs were encouraged by Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —April 19, 2001 DRAFT Page 2 1. Rezoning — 01 -006Z- Northeast Township Rezoning Anne Wanner said for 25 years, Dublin annexed land without establishing Dublin zoning. She noted about 500 acres of the Northeast Quadrant are zoned PUD, but the large residential lots were not generally rezoned after annexation. This was recently uncovered, and it may cause code enforcement difficulties. Dublin has been enforcing the usual Dublin standards in virtually all instances. The Law Director advised initiating this rezoning immediately. Ms. Wanner said this application involves about 525 parcels totaling 883 acres. The area is bounded by the Delaware County line, Sawmill Road, I -270, and the Scioto River. She noted the McKitrick property currently is shown as being zoned CC, Community Commercial District, and all of the others show up as R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential Districts. She said the McKitrick land and the Perry Township offices are being removed from this rezoning. Ms. Wanner said staff has received phone calls, dealing mainly with the minimum lot size. She said this proposal is to convert from the Perry Township R -1 District to the Dublin R -1 District, both of which require a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. She noted that lots in O'Shaughnessy Hills and along Tonti Drive do not meet the minimum lot size. Ms. Wanner said this establishes the proper Dublin zoning and is a housekeeping issue. She said staff recommends approval with two conditions: 1. That the legal descriptions of all the effected properties be finalized prior to scheduling the public hearing with City Council; and 2. That the property owners be notified by certified mail of the future public hearing as directed by the Law Director. John Yeager, on behalf of his mother Rosemary Hussie, said she owns three half -acre lots platted in the mid -50s on the south side of Tonti Drive. He wanted to confirm on the record, that this rezoning will not change their ability to build on these half -acre lots when a sanitary sewer or some other acceptable sewage disposal system is approved in the future. Mack Parkhill, Northeast Dublin Civic Association, said this will benefit all homeowners that are under the impression that they are functioning under an R -1 status. Jim Hanneman, for his mother, Regina Hanneman, who owns three lots on Tonti Drive, is concerned about the ability to build on these half -acre lots. They do not oppose the rezoning. Mr. Banchefsky said rezoning should have been done just following annexation. He noted this will be needed in other areas of the City also. He said the Perry Township/Franklin County R -1 zoning is virtually identical to the Village /City of Dublin's R -1 District. He agreed that this is not a major change; it is simply a housekeeping issue. He said the core problem is that the county /township zoning records from 1950 -1960 were lost. This rezoning will settle any questions that remain about how the land is zoned. Mr. Banchefsky said the lots that came into existence legally prior to the annexation remain in existence after. He said this is simply to bring it into the corresponding Dublin district. Mr. Banchefsky said this does not take away property rights for platted lots, whether developed or not. The lots are 20,000 square feet, and have been developed with homes. Generally, the county requires 40,000 square feet to meet the on -site sanitary requirements. Several of these Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —April 19, 2001 DRAFT Page 3 lots remain vacant, and if there is an available sanitary sewer connection, they can be built. Mr. Banchefsky said the caveat here was that if two non - conforming lots are under the same ownership, those abutting lots would have to be combined to meet the minimum lot area. Mr. Banchefsky said the McKitrick land was zoned CC, Community Commercial District in the township. Depending on the property owner's records, that property might come back for a subsequent rezoning. It may be a request for Dublin Community Commercial or Dublin R -1 District, but that has not been decided. The Perry Township office site was removed because the Township has an ordinance that exempted it from zoning. Mr. Lecklider asked about the lots combined to meet the 40,000 square foot area for sanitary reasons. Mr. Banchefsky because those lots were under, the lots were combined. Lots less than 40,000 square feet will be buildable either through a new sanitary disposal technology or by connection to the public sanitary sewer. He said it is the property owner's burden to prove that they had a legal existing lot of record at the time that the property was annexed. John Ferrara, Tamarisk Court, said when they bought their lots in the Woodlands, they clearly understood that the vacant lots would be developed in the future. Mr. Banchefsky said if the sanitary regulations change, Franklin County Health Department has jurisdiction over those systems. If property owners can comply with the new regulations, they can build. If the regulations allow smaller lot sizes in the future, they could also be built. Ms. Salay was glad these issues were being resolved. Mr. Gerber was comfortable with this. Mr. Lecklider appreciated Mr. Ferrara coming forward to say that he was fully aware that there was a potential for other houses. It is very rare to hear this. Mr. Fishman made a motion to approve this rezoning because it provides an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, maintains the established development pattern and eliminates the use of outdated township regulations, with two conditions: 1) That the legal descriptions of all affected properties be finalized prior to scheduling the public hearing with City Council; and 2) That the property owners be notified by certified mail of the future public hearing, as directed by the Law Director. Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. and Fishman, yes. (Approved 5 -0.) Mr. Sprague thanked everyone for their patience on this complicated matter.