Ordinance 009-19RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinarzce No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed
AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONS 153.002, 153.0609 153.0619 153.0639 153.0649 153.0659
153.066 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO
AMEND THE BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
REGULATIONS.
(CASE 18-005ADMC)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend Dublin's Zoning Code to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin, and
WHEREAS, Dublin City Council adopted the Bridge Street Corridor Districts as part of the
City of Dublin Zoning Code, including Sections 153.057-153.066, on March 26, 2012 and as
amended in November 2013, August 2014, December 2014, February 2017 and November 2017
to implement the Bridge Street District Plan within the Dublin Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 153.066 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code states that the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board may evaluate and monitor the
application of the requirements and standards of Sections 153.057 through 153.066 and
recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSD district standards and requirements
to better implement the Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended adoption of
the proposed amendments to amend the development review process regulations for properties
within the Bridge Street District on October 11, 2018 because it serves to improve the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, F7 of
its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Section 153.002 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.002 Definitions
(B) General Definitions
(2)(m) Bridge Street District (BSD)
A planned area of the city generally bounded on the east by Sawmill Road, on
the north and west by I-270, and including land within the Architectural Review
District boundaries and along the north and south sides of SR 161.
(3)(0) Concept Plan
A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed PUD or BSD
project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the city to discuss
the concept for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is
generally consistent with the Community Plan and other applicable plans of the
city.
(6)(d) Final Development Plan
A detailed plan showing the location of all site improvements, including
easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points of
ingress and egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and
off-site), landscaping, architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones,
service areas, ground signs, directional signs, location of refuse containers,
lighting and accessory structures, and other similar improvements, and may
include a subdivision plat of a proposed PUD or BSD project. Critical
dimensions are shown unless otherwise required.
(16)(z) Preliminary Development Plan
A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning to a PUD or BSD project, outlining
permitted and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Pale 2 of 28
patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open space areas and linkages,
buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and their relationship with
surrounding uses. For the purposes of §§ 153.050 through 153.056, a
preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and any other
development plan adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are
still in force.
Section 2. Section 153.060 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.060 Lots and Blocks
(B) Applicability
The requirements of this section apply to developments within all BSD zoning
districts that require a Concept Plan in accordance with § 153.066, and for land
within all BSD zoning districts proposed for subdivision in accordance with
Chapter 152.
(C) General Block and Lot Layout
(2) Maximum Block Size
(a) Required Subdivision
Unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, all developments
requiring a Concept Plan in accordance with § 153.066(E)(1)
shall subdivide consistent with the maximum block sizes as
required by Table 153.060-A, Maximum Block Dimensions.
Section 3. Section 153.061 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.061 Street Types
(C) Street Network
(2) Street Types
Available street type configurations shall be reviewed with the
applicant during the Concept Plan review process, as described in
§ 153.066.
(4) Street Network Map
(a) In addition to the Thoroughfare Plan, the Street Network Map shall
be used as a guide in determining the appropriate locations and
alignments of new streets during the Preliminary Development Plan
approval process as required in § 153.066.
(b) Actual street alignments and locations will be determined through
the Preliminary Development Plan review process as individual
properties are developed and through the City's Capital Improvements
Program process, as applicable.
(g) Actual locations of new alleys and service streets will be
determined through the Preliminary and Final Development Plan
review processes.
Section 4. Section 153.063 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
Form 6220S
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
11 Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
§ 153.063 Neighborhood Standards
(A) Intent
Passed Page 3 of 28
They are not intended to designate the precise locations for approved street
types, use areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code; actual
locations and specific development requirements will be determined through
the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
reviews as required in § 153.066 for individual neighborhoods.
(C) BSD Sawmill Center Neighborhood District
(2) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined
through the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final
Development Plan review processes.
(5)(d) Gateways
1. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Final Development
Plan, but locations shall be identified with the Preliminary
Development Plan and shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Final Development
Plan, but locations and types shall be identified with the Preliminary
Development Plan and shall meet the following criteria:
D. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street
intersections as identified during the Preliminary and Final
Development Plan reviews, such as those serving as entrances
to a designated shopping corridor and other gateway locations,
with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated
along the corridor as appropriate to the character of the street.
FIGURE 153.063 A
NOTE: Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of
the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
as required in § 153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(D) BSD Historic Transition Neighborhood District
(2) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined
through the Preliminary and Final Development Plan review processes.
(5)(c) Gateways
1. Gateway designs shall be approved with the Final Development
Plan, but locations shall be identified on the Preliminary Development
Plan and shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Final Development
Plan, but locations and types shall be identified on the Preliminary
Development Plan application and shall meet the following criteria:
G. Other open space nodes shall be provided at gateway
locations as identified during the Preliminary and Final
Development Plan reviews, such as at prominent street
intersections, with other appropriately scaled open space types
integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of
the street.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Page 4 of 28
FIGURE 153.063 B
NOTE: Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of
the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
as required in § 153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(E) BSD Indian Run Neighborhood District
(3) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined
through the Preliminary and Final Development Plan review processes.
(6)(d) Gateways
1. Gateway designs shall be approved by the required reviewing body,
but locations shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan
and shall be coordinated with the street network.
(7)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved by the required reviewing
body, but locations and types shall be identified on the Preliminary and
Final Development Plan and shall meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 C
NOTE: Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of
the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
as required in § 153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(F) BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District
(3)(h)
3. For the purposes of measuring block length, the limits of private street
sections designed and constructed to public street standards and defined on
the Preliminary Development Plan shall be used in lieu of right-of-way.
(5)(e) Gateways
2. Gateway designs shall be approved by on the Final Development
Plan, but locations shall be identified on the Preliminary Development
Plan and shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space locations shall be approved on the Final Development
Plan, but locations and types shall be identified on the Preliminary
Development Plan and shall meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 D
NOTE: Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of
the Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
as required in § 153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
Section 5. Section 153.064 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.064 Open Space Types
(D) Suitability of Open Space
Form 6220S
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 5 of 28
(1) Per the applicable review process, the PZC or ART shall review all proposed
open space types during the Preliminary Development Plan, and Final
Development Plan or the Minor Project, application review processes to
determine the suitability of the open space... .
Section 6. Section 153.065 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.065 Site Development Standards
(B) Parking and Loading
(1)(b)1.C. Where on-site surface parking is provided on a site included as part
of a Preliminary Development Plan, parking may be permitted by the required
reviewing body to encroach required setbacks to facilitate coordinated site
design and contiguous parking areas with future development phases.
(1)(f)(A) Applications for Final Development Plan
(3)(c)(3) Bicycle parking racks, docks or posts provided within the street right-
of-way shall be of a consistent design on all streets.
(D) Landscaping and Tree Preservation
(2)(c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of
a lot consistent with an approved Preliminary Development Plan, Final
Development Plan, or Minor Project shall be replaced in accordance with
§ 153.146 except as provided by § 153.065(D)(9).
(2)(k) A registered landscape architect shall be used to prepare landscape plans
required for applications for a Final Development Plan.
(9)(a)2.C. A tree survey prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted with
the tree preservation plan for all Preliminary and Final Development Plans,
and/or Minor Project applications for lots containing existing trees.
(9)(a)2.D. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Preliminary and
Final Development Plans, and/or Minor Project application shall identify all
landmark trees and/ or significant tree stands on the site, including critical root
zones to establish the limits of tree preservation zones, as determined by the
required reviewing body.
(9)(b)(3) Removal of trees on any portion of a site required to be occupied by
a public street as approved by the City Engineer and the required reviewing
body with a Preliminary Development Plan application;
(9)(b)(4) Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a
structure pursuant to the standards of § 153.062 as approved by the required
reviewing body with applications for Final Development Plan or Minor Project;
(11) Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required
reviewing body with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project application
and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than the
aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the
provisions of §153.065(D).
(E) Fencing, Walls and Screening
(1)(a) High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final
Development Plan or Minor Project by the required reviewing body with
examples of successful, high quality installations.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRET"T BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Page 6 of 28
a
(2)(d) Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required
reviewing body with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project application
and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than the intent
of the provisions of § 153.065(E)(2).
(3)(a) High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final
Development Plan or Minor Project by the required reviewing body with
examples of successful, high quality installations.
(F) Exterior Lighting
(8) Lighting plans submitted as part of an applicable Final Development Plan
or Minor Project shall include existing lighting from streets and adjacent
buildings developed under these standards, and proposed lighting generated
from light poles and building lighting.
(G) Signs
(2)(e) Master Sign Plans
A Master Sign Plan may be requested in accordance with the provisions
of 153.066(K). Master Sign Plans are required for projects meeting the
criteria of 153.066(K)(1)(d).
Section 7. Section 153.066 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin is hereby amended
and shall provide as follows:
§ 153.066 Review and Approval
(A) Intent
The intent of this section is to provide an efficient and predictable review
process for rezoning and/or development applications within the Bridge Street
District (BSD) zoning districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for
exceptional, carefully considered design and high quality development
consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in the BSD
Special Area Plan in the Community Plan. The review and approval procedures
and criteria help ensure that new development and redevelopment is served by
adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of
the City, and to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents,
occupants, and users of property in the BSD districts and surrounding areas of
the City.
(B) Required Approvals
(1) Summary
This section outlines the requirements and procedures for development
review specifically within the BSD districts. The review procedures of
this section shall be used for all development applications in a BSD
district. Table 153.066-A, Summary Procedure Table, describes the
review procedures applicable in all BSD districts.
(2) Abbreviations
The following abbreviations and terms are used in this section:
ART: Administrative Review Team
BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals
CC or Council: City Council
PD or Director: Planning Director
PZC or Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed_. Pam
Form 6220S
TABLE 153.066-A: SUNINIARY PROCEDURE TABLE
R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback
Type of Application
PD
ART
BZA
PZC
Council
Zoning Code
Reference
Zoning Code Approvals
Zoning Map or 'Text Amendment
R
R
D
§ 153.234
Conditional Use
R
D
§ 153.236
Special Permit
R
D
§ 153.231(G)
Use Variance
R
R
D
§ 153.231 (H)(3)
Non -Use (Area) Variance
R
D
§ 153.231(H)(2)
Other Approvals
Building Code Appeal
D
§ 153.231(I)
Bridge Street District Applications
Pre -Application
RF
§ 153.066(C)
Informal
RF
RF
§ 153.066(D)
Concept Plan
R
D
§ 153.066(E)
Concept Plan with a Development Agreement
R
R
D
§ 153.066(E)
Preliminary Development Plan
R
D
§ 153.066(F)
Final Development Plan
R
D
§ 153.066(G)
Minor Project
R
D
A
§ 153.066(H)
Administrative Departure
R
D
A
§ 153.066(1)
Waivers
R
D
§ 153.066(J)
Master Sign Plwi
R
D
§ 153.065(H)(2)(e)/
§ 153.066(K)
Parking Plans
R
D
§ 153.066(H)(2)(f)/§ 153.
065(B)
Administrative Approval
D
A
§ 153.066(L)
Open Space Fee in Lieu
R
D
§ 153.066(M)(1)/§ 154.0
64(D)(E)
Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval
D
233/§ 153.066(N)(
§ 153. 3)
(C) Pre -Application
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Pre -Application submittal is to provide a
potential applicant with a non-binding review of a
development proposal and to provide information on the
procedures and policies of the City, including application
review procedures.
(b) Pre -Application reviews do not result in a development
decision or permit, and shall not obligate the City or the
developer to take any action on the proposal.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) A request for apre-application review shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of division (N)(1) of this
section.
(b) Requests shall be submitted to the Director, who shall be
responsible for circulating any submittal material to the
applicable departments for input.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS • DAYTON, OHIO
Gnrr" C.' 9nQ
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Page 8 of 28
(c) The Director and staff shall use reasonable efforts to conduct
an expeditious review of the submitted materials and provide
non-binding input and recommendations.
(d) The Director may schedule a meeting with the potential
applicant to discuss the request or may provide a written
summary of the staff review.
(e) Additional staff reviews of the pre -application submittal may
be requested by the applicant prior to filing a formal
application.
(� Any and all written summaries of the pre -application review
shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with a
formal application.
(D) Informal
Prior to submittal of an application for a Concept Plan (CP), an applicant may
submit an Informal application for review of a development concept with the
PZC. Such submittal shall include a completed application form and supporting
material sufficient to describe the development concept. The review of the
informal submittal shall be non-binding upon the PZC and the applicant,
however, it is intended to provide feedback by the PZC that should inform the
preparation and subsequent review of the CP. The Planning Director shall
prepare a brief analysis and comments that will be submitted to the PZC with
the application.
(E) Concept Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Concept Plan (CP) is to provide a general
outline of the scope, character, and nature of the proposed
development that is consistent with the policy direction of the
Community Plan and the BSD Special Area Plan, the
requirements of the BSD Code, other related policy and
regulatory documents, and the review criteria, and to consider
the proposal within the context of existing and planned
development within the vicinity of the project.
(b) The CP allows the required reviewing body the means to
ensure that the proposed concept is consistent with the
following:
1. That the proposed land uses are consistent with
Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, and BSD
Code;
2. That the proposed block framework and street network
are generally compatible with the adopted plans, lead
to the creation of a walkable, urban place;
3. That the proposed development concept generally
fulfills the intent of the BSD Special Area Plan; and
4. That the proposed development concept has the
potential to create a walkable, urban place.
(c) The CP review provides an opportunity for public input at an
early stage of the development process.
(d) The CP review is intended to provide clear direction to the
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRET"T BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 9 of 28
applicant by the required reviewing body resulting from its
review and approval of the application.
(e) If the CP is approved by the required reviewing body it shall
serve as a basis for preparation by the applicant of the
Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for the proposed
development.
(f) For projects that will propose a development agreement due to
the need for development timeframe, public infrastructure,
public and private contributions, development restrictions, or
other related items, City Council shall serve as the required
reviewing body for the CP. In those cases, the Director and the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall each review the CP
and provide a recommendation to Council to approve, approve
with conditions, or disapprove the CP.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) The CP is a mandatory step in the development review and
approval process for the BSD.
(b) An application for a CP shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (D)(3) and (N)(1) of this Chapter.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the CP in the
BSD, unless a development agreement is proposed in
conjunction with a proposed project, then City Council shall
be the required reviewing body for the CP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the CP
application under the criteria of division (D)(4) of this section.
(e) The PZC shall review the CP application, the minutes of the
PZC meeting if an informal review was requested by the
applicant, the Director's recommendation, and render its
decision based on the criteria of division (D)(4). In the instance
the PZC is the required reviewing body, the Commission will
render a decision for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial and written record of the Commission's decision shall
be provided.
(f) In the instance of a CP associated with a proposed development
agreement, the Commission will make a recommendation of
approval, approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
(g) City Council shall review the CP application and the
recommendations of PZC and the Director, and render its
decision based on the criteria of division (D)(4) of approval,
approval with conditions, or denial.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that the CP shall indicate overall
design of the proposed project. Information submitted should be
comprehensive enough to enable the required reviewing body to
understand the existing site and concept for the proposed development,
and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (D)(4).
The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials
as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
(4) Review Criteria
Passed Page 10 of 28
The required reviewing body shall make its decision on an application
for a CP based on each of the following criteria and may consider the
recommendation of the Director and, if City Council is the required
reviewing body, the recommendation of the PZC. For applications
associated with a development agreement, the PZC shall apply these
criteria in the formulation of its recommendation to City Council.
(a) The CP is consistent with the applicable policy guidance of the
Community Plan, the BSD Special Area Plan, and other
applicable City plans, and related policies;
(b) The CP conforms to the applicable requirements of the BSD
Code;
(c) The illustrative lots and blocks, supporting street and
pedestrian network, and internal circulation provide a coherent
development pattern that conforms to the requirements of
§§153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061 Street Types, and
153.065 Site Development Standards, and the conceptual
locations of access points to surrounding streets will avoid
adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic
infrastructure;
(d) The proposed land uses allow for appropriate integration into
the community, consistent with adopted plans, and align with
the requirements of § 153.059 Uses;
(e) The conceptual buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to
create a cohesive development character that complements the
surrounding environment, and conforms to the architectural
requirements of § 153.062 Building Types;
(f) The conceptual design of open spaces, including location and
relationship to surrounding buildings, provides for meaningful
public gathering spaces that benefit the community both within
and outside the proposed development;
(g) The CP allows for the connection and or expansion of public
or private infrastructure and the continued provision of
services required by the City or other public agency; and
(h) The development concept conforms to the requirements of
§ 153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable.
(F) Preliminary Development Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to
establish a framework for the proposed development that is
consistent with the requirements of the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Code, BSD Design Guidelines, other
adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and the review
criteria.
(b) The PDP allows the PZC to ensure that the proposed
development is consistent with the following:
1. That the street network and block framework provide
a coherent and rational development pattern;
2. That the proposed street types provide for walkable
urbanism;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 11 of 28
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the
location and surrounding neighborhood;
4. That the proposed development creates the urban
setting envisioned by the applicable neighborhood
standards;
5. That planned open spaces and building types within
the development are integrated in order to complement
each other;
6. That the proposed development is consistent with the
general development requirements of the City with
respect to such elements as infrastructure,
transportation, and environmental considerations; and
7. That the proposed development will contribute to the
creation of signature places in the City consistent with
the BSD Special Area Plan through an evaluation of
long-term phasing plans, transitional development
conditions, and planned placemaking elements.
(c) The PDP is intended to establish the direction of the proposed
development based on all applicable code requirements and
shall refine the approved CP.
(d) If a PDP is approved by the PZC, such action shall be binding
and shall serve as the basis for submittal of the Final
Development Plan (FDP) for the proposed development or
phases thereof.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a PDP may not be submitted prior to the
review and approval of a CP.
(b) The PDP is a mandatory submittal requirement prior to filing
a FDP. However, the PDP may be combined with the FDP at
the request of the applicant, by motion of the PZC following
its approval of the CP, or if recommended by the Director and
agreed by the applicant.
(c) An application for PDP shall be submitted in accordance with
the provisions of divisions (E)(3) and (N)(1) of this section.
(d) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the PDP
within the Bridge Street District.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the PDP application
under the criteria of division (E)(4) of this section.
(f) The PZC shall review the PDP application and the
recommendation of the Director and render its decision based
on the criteria of division (E)(4) of this section for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the
Commission's decision shall be provided to the applicant.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that a PDP shall provide information
that is sufficient to ensure general conformity with the regulations and
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Page 12 of 28
that can serve as a basis for the future consideration of a FDP.
Information submitted should be sufficiently detailed to enable the
PZC to understand the existing site and the PDP for the proposed
development, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in
division (E)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and
supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined
by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a PDP based on
each ,of the following criteria:
(a) The PDP shall be consistent with the approved CP, the record
established by the required reviewing body, the associated
Staff Report, and the Director's recommendation;
(b) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted City
plans, and related policies;
(c) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements
and use specific standards of § 153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to
create a cohesive development character that complements the
surrounding environment, and conforms to the requirements of
§§153.062 Building Types and 153.065 Site Development
Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of
§ 153.060 Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and
standards of §153.061 Street Types, including the general
pattern of streets, blocks, and development reflected on the
BSD Street Network Map and the conceptual locations of
access points to surrounding streets to avoid adverse impacts
on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system,
driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for
safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles,
and emergency services;
(h) The proposed design of buildings conforms to the BSD Code
and is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while
integrating with nearby development;
(i) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed
to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance
the community both within and outside the proposed
development, and conform to the requirements of § 153.064
Open Spaces;
(j) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for
the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or
that may be required by the City or other public agency
including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public
water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities,
traffic control, waste management, and administrative
services;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
11 Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
��1� , £� Page 13 of 28
(k) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of
§ 153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(I) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater
management systems and facilities that comply with the
applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable
design criteria or regulations as adopted by the City or required
by other government entities;
(m) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by
existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure
consistent with the City's most recently adopted capital
improvements program;
(n) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase
has adequate infrastructure to serve the development
independently without the need for further phased
improvements; and
(o) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable
design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to
buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes.
(G) Final Development Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Final Development Plan (FDP) is to
confirm compliance with the PDP, all requirements of the BSD
Code, Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design
Guidelines, and other adopted plans, policies, and regulations,
and the review criteria.
(b) The FDP allows the PZC to ensure that the proposed
development is compliant with the following:
1. That the street network and block framework provide
a coherent and rational development pattern;
2. That proposed street types provide for walkable
urbanism;
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the
location and neighborhood, including assuring that the
dimensions of a parcel meet the lot size requirements
for the applicable building type;
4. That the architecture, building materials and colors,
landscaping and buffering, and site layout create a
functional, aesthetically appealing urban place;
5. That the proposed development creates the urban
setting envisioned by the applicable neighborhood
standards;
6. That planned open spaces and building types within
the development are integrated in order to complement
each other;
7. That the proposed development is consistent with the
general development requirements of the City with
respect to such elements as infrastructure,
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No.
09-19_(Corrected)
/£ F Page 14 of 28
transportation, and environmental considerations; and
8. That the proposed development will contribute to the
creation of signature places in the City consistent with
the BSD Special Area Plan through an evaluation of
long-term phasing plans, transitional development
conditions, and planned placemaking elements.
(c) The FDP is intended to verify the proposed development, or
phases of development, is in compliance with all applicable
code requirements, and is consistent with the PDP.
(d) All development within the BSD District shall require an
approved FDP prior to applying for site disturbance approval,
CZPA, and/or building permits. In addition, the following
development activities shall also require an approved FDP:
(1) When a project involves the design or construction of
new streets, or a proposed realignment or relocation of
any street in the general pattern of street development
conceptualized by the BSD Street Network Map in
§ 153.061 that is required or permitted by the City;
(2) When a project requires land subdivision in
accordance with Chapter 152; or
(3) When a project does not meet the criteria for a Minor
Project (MP).
(e) Applications for a FDP shall be reviewed by the PZC, whose
approval shall be binding and shall serve as the regulatory and
administrative document for zoning compliance.
(2) Review Procedures
(a) An application for a FDP shall be submitted in accordance with
the provisions of divisions (F)(3) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the
applicant, by motion of the PZC at the time of CP review and
approval, or recommended by the Director.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the FDP
within the BSD.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the final
development plan application under the criteria of division
(F)(4) of this section.
(e) The PZC shall review the FDP application and the
recommendation of the Director and render its decision based
on the criteria of division (F)(4) of this section for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the
Commission's decision shall be provided.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that a FDP shall provide final project
information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity to an
approved PDP. In cases where the applicant has been authorized to
submit a combined PDP and FDP, then the submittal shall incorporate
the required information for the PDP and as required below.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 15 of 28
Information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the PZC to
understand the existing site and the FDP for the proposed project or a
portion thereof, and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in
division (F)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and
supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined
by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a FDP based on
each of the following criteria:
(a) The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP,
and consistent with the record established by the required
reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director's
recommendation;
(b) The proposed development is consistent with the Community
Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other
adopted City plans, and citywide administrative and financial
policies;
(c) The proposed land uses conform to all applicable requirements
and use specific standards of § 153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to
the requirements of §153.062 Building Types and §153.065
Site Development Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of
§ 153.060 Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and
standards of § 153.061 Street Types, including the general
pattern of streets, blocks, and development reflected on the
BSD Street Network Map, as amended;
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system,
driveways, and any connections to the public realm provide for
safe and efficient access for pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles,
and emergency services;
(h) The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings
is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while
integrating with nearby development, and avoids
overshadowing of existing or proposed development;
(i) The proposed site design, landscaping, screening, and
buffering is consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines;
(j) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed
to conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance
the community, benefit the community both within and outside
the proposed development, and conform to the requirements of
§ 153.064 Open Spaces;
(k) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for
the adequate provision of services currently furnished by or
that may be required by the City or other public agency
including, but not limited to, fire and police protection, public
water and sanitary sewage services, recreational activities,
traffic control, waste management, and administrative
services;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
r:nrm 917) 3nC
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Page 16 of 28
(1) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of
§ 153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(m) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater
management systems and facilities that comply with the
applicable regulations of this code and any other applicable
design criteria or regulations as adopted by the City or required
by other government entities;
(n) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by
existing and/or planned public or private infrastructure
consistent with the City's most recently adopted capital
improvements program;
(o) If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases,
each phase has adequate infrastructure to serve the
development independently without the need for further
phased improvements; and
(p) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable
design standards and guidelines, including but not limited to
buildings, open spaces, and streetscapes.
(H) Minor Project
(1) Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of the Minor Project (MP) is to provide an efficient review
process for smaller projects that do not have significant community
effects, as defined in (1-1)(2).
(2) Minor Projects Defined
The following projects shall be considered eligible for review and
approval as an MP:
(a) Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor
area by not more than 25%, or not more than 10,000 square
feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the
effective date of this amendment, or when first constructed,
and associated site development requirements.
(b) Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not
more than 25% of any individual fagade elevation of the
structure.
(c) Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related
improvements that do not involve construction of a new
principal building. Parks, when used to meet requirements as
an open space type, as provided in §153.064, shall require a
FDP.
(d) Accessory structures 1,000 gross square feet or smaller and the
related accessory uses.
(e) Modifications to existing structures in accordance with
§ 153.062(B)(2) that increase the gross floor area by not more
than 25%1, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area,
whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this
amendment and associated site development requirements; and
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) P ,a Page 17 of 28
(� Parking plans when not associated with a PDP or a FDP.
(3) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a minor project MP shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of divisions (G)(4) and (N)(1)
of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for the MP.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the MP under
the criteria of division (G)(5).
(d) The ART shall review the MP application and the Director's
recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria
of (G)(5) of this section for approval, approval with conditions,
or denial. A written record of the ART's decision shall be
provided.
(e) The ART may forward any MP application to the PZC for
consideration. In making such a determination, the ART shall
conclude that the application raises complex issues, including
but not limited to, the need for public infrastructure
improvements and/or other neighborhood or community -wide
effects that would benefit from a public review and decision
by the PZC. These applications shall be reviewed against the
criteria in (G)(5) of this section.
(f) If the application is not approved by the ART, the applicant
shall be given the opportunity to revise the application in
response to the ART's comments and resubmit for
reconsideration.
(g) Decisions of the ART are appealable to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a MP provides
sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the applicable
provisions of this code. The information should be sufficiently detailed
to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site
and the MP request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The
applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as
outlined in division (M)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The Administrative Review Team (ART) shall make its decision on an
application for a MP based on each of the following criteria and the
recommendation of the Director:
(a) The MP shall be consistent with the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Code, BSD Design Guidelines, and
adopted plans, policies, and regulations;
(b) In cases where a MP is proposed within or as part of an
approved PDP or FDP, the MP shall be consistent with such
approved PDP or FDP;
(c) The MP shall be consistent with the record established by the
required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the
Director's recommendation;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed - Page 18 of 28
(d) The proposed land uses meet all applicable requirements and
use specific standards of § 153.059 Uses; and
(e) The proposed site improvements, landscaping, screening, and
buffering shall meet all applicable requirements of the BSD
Code and respond to the standards of the BSD Design
Guidelines.
(I) Administrative Departure
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The intent of the Administrative Departure (AD) is to provide
an efficient process to allow minor deviations from the strict
application of the BSD requirements caused by unusual site or
development conditions or conditions unique to a particular
use or other similar conditions that require reasonable
adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this
Chapter.
(b) The AD shall not convey special rights or other approvals that
would not otherwise result from a decision under this code.
(2) Administrative Departure Defined
An AD shall be limited to any modification of no greater than 10% to
a numeric zoning standard related to building dimensions, lot
dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking, fencing,
walls, screening, or exterior lighting.
(3) Review Procedure
(a) An application for an AD shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (H)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for
administrative departures.
(c) A request for an AD may be submitted with an application for
a PDP, FD, MP, or at any other time as may be necessary.
(d) A request for an AD may be processed simultaneously with a
PDP, FDP, or MP to which it relates.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the AD under
the criteria of division (H)(5).
(f) The ART shall determine whether each requested AD is
approved, approved with conditions, or denied. A written
record of the ART's decision will be provided. Decisions
relative to an approved FDP shall be reported to the PZC.
(g) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria
for an AD, the applicant may request a Waiver under the
provisions of division (I) of this section or submit a new
application for a FDP or MP, as applicable.
(h) Decisions may be appealed to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements
Form 6220S
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
r:.,rn,% ajonc
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 19 of 28
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AD
provides sufficient information to evaluate whether the request should
be granted under divisions (1-1)(2) and (1-1)(5). The information should
be sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to
understand the existing site, proposed AD, and the related PDP, FDP
or MP for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall
submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in
division (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The ART shall make its decision on the requested AD based on the
following criteria:
(a) The need for the AD is caused by unique site conditions,
conditions on surrounding properties, and/or otherwise
complies with the spirit and intent of the Community Plan,
BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other
adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable
requirements within §§ 153.057 through 153.066;
(b) The AD is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a
matter of general convenience;
(c) The AD does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign,
building type, or open space type that is not otherwise
permitted in the BSD district;
(d) The AD, if approved, does not adversely impact the pedestrian
experience; and
(e) The AD, if approved, will ensure that the development is of
equal or greater development quality with respect to design,
material, and other development features than without the AD.
(J) Waiver
(1) Purpose and Applicability
Under the provisions of this section, Waivers are a process to allow
deviations from specific code requirements that may only be granted
by the PZC.
(2) Waivers Defined
A Waiver is defined as a request for a deviation from a requirements of
§§ 153.059 through 153.065, which do not otherwise qualify for an AD
under the provisions of division (H) of this section.
(3) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a Waiver shall be made in accordance with
the provisions of divisions (I)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for Waivers. In
cases where a Waiver is submitted with a Minor Project (MP),
the PZC shall be the required reviewing body for both the
Waiver and the MP.
(c) The Waiver may be submitted with any application for a PDP
or FDP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Fussed Page 20 of 28
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Waiver
under the criteria of division (I)(5). Additional Waivers
determined by the Director during his/her review, may be
included for review by the PZC.
(e) The PZC shall review the requested Waiver using the criteria
of division (5) of this section. Should other Waivers be
necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this
Chapter resulting from the requested Waiver, those Waivers
shall also be reviewed by PZC.
(f) The PZC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
Waiver request. A written record of the PZC decision will be
provided.
(4) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for a Waiver provides
sufficient information to evaluate whether the Waiver should be granted under
divisions (I)(2) and (I)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to
enable the PZC to understand the existing site, proposed PDP, FDP, or MP as
noted in (J)(3)(b), and the related Waiver request for the proposed project or a
portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental
materials as outlined (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a proposed Waiver based
on all of the following criteria:
(a) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of
or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other
circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee, including
easements and rights-of-way;
(b) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the
Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan BSD Design Guidelines,
other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirements
in §§ 153.057 through 153.066;
(c) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter
of general convenience;
(d) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal
or greater development quality with respect to design, material, and
other similar development features than without the Waiver;
(e) The requested Waiver is better addressed through the Waiver rather
than an amendment to the requirements of this Chapter; and
(f) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open
space type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSD district.
(K) Master Sign Plan
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The purpose of the Master Sign Plan (MSP) is to define the
scope, character, and aesthetic quality of signs and sign
regulations for an individual tenant, multi -tenant building, or
multi -building development; while allowing an additional
degree of flexibility and creativity in sign design and display.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 21 of 28
(b) The MSP review is intended to confirm the proposed sign
design or comprehensive sign plan is consistent with the
development context, architectural character, and the BSD
Design Guidelines. MSPs are not intended to permit larger or
more visible signs, and are not intended to permit a greater
number of signs without consideration of the BSD Design
Guidelines.
(c) The MSP allows the PZC the means to evaluate the proposal
for its consistency with §153.057 through §153.066, the
Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design
Guidelines, and other adopted City plans, and the review
criteria, and to consider the proposal within the context of
existing and planned development within the vicinity of the
project boundary.
(2) Review Procedure
(a) An application for a MSP shall be submitted in accordance
with the provisions of divisions (J)(3) and (N)(1) of this
Chapter.
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for MSPS in the
BSD.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the MSP
application under the criteria of division (J)(4) of this
section. The Director's recommendation shall be provided
prior to the respective public hearing.
(d) The PZC shall review the MSP application and the
recommendation of the Director, and render its decision based
on the criteria of division (J)(4) for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial. A written record of the Commission's
decision shall be provided.
(e) The applicant may request additional review meetings with the
PZC.
(3) Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that the MSP shall indicate general
information, sign design standards, and the area of applicability.
Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the
PZC to understand the existing site and design concept for the proposed
MSP. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental
materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria
The PZC shall render its feedback on an application for a MSP based
on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the
Director.
(a) The MSP is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special
Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City
plans and policies;
(b) The proposed signs are appropriately sited and scaled to create
a cohesive character that complements the surrounding
environment and meets the intent of the architectural
requirements of § 153.062 Building Types;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 22 of 28
(c) The proposed signs are not in conflict with public streets, open
spaces, utilities, or rights-of-way, and do not impede the
continued provision of services required by the City or other
public agency; and
(d) The MSP responds to the requirements of § 153.063
Neighborhood Standards, as applicable.
(L) Administrative Approval
(1) Purpose and Applicability
(a) The Director may authorize an Administrative Approval (AA)
to an approved FDP or MP that is required to correct any
undetected errors or omissions, address conditions discovered
during the permitting process or construction, or that is
necessary to ensure orderly and efficient development.
(b) Any approved AA must be consistent with the intent of the
related approved FDP or MP.
(c) The Director may also authorize an AA to existing structures
and associated site improvements that are necessary to
complete ordinary maintenance, refurbishment or Zoning
Code compliance.
(2) Administrative Approval Defined
The following are considered AA's:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots;
(c) Adjustments of up to 10% in total building floor area or floor
plan;
(d) Adjustments to building height up to 10% for no more than
10% of the floorplate of the highest occupied floor when
necessary to accommodate building equipment or features
required to comply with building code;
(e) Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the
landscape plan;
(f) Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management
facilities;
(g) Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including
screening walls);
(h) Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and
lighting;
(i) Changes in building material or color;
(j) Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state,
or federal departments; and/or
(k) Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that
do not alter the basic design or any specific conditions imposed
as part of the original approval.
Form 6220S
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
(3)
(a)
Review Procedure
Passed Page 23 of 28
(a) An application for an AA shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (K)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The Director shall be the required reviewing body for
applications for an AA.
(c) The Director shall review the request after receiving a
complete application and make a decision to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny an AA application under the criteria
of division (K)(5) of this section. The Director's decision shall
be provided to the applicant in writing.
(d) The Director may forward any AA application to the PZC for
consideration. In making such a determination, the Director
shall conclude that the application raises complex issues,
including that the proposal is of such magnitude that it has a
detrimental effect on the approved development or there are
neighborhood or community -wide effects that may result if the
proposal is approved, that would benefit from a public review
and decision by the PZC.
(e) If denied, or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be
given the opportunity to revise the request in response to the
Director's comments and resubmit for further consideration.
(fl Requests not meeting the requirements for an AA shall require
the filing and approval of a new application for a FDP, MP or
other application as applicable, in accordance with this section.
(g) Decisions may be appealed to PZC.
Submittal Requirements
It is the intent of these regulations that an application for an AA
provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the
applicable provisions of this code and the approved FDP or MP, and to
evaluate whether the AA should be granted under division (K)(2) and
(K)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the
Director to understand the existing site and the AA request for the
proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an
application and supplemental materials as outlined (N)(1) and
determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria
The Director shall make his or her decision on an application for a
proposed AA based on all of the following criteria:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots, required
setbacks and/or RBZs are maintained, and the boundaries to
any approved PDP, FDP, or MP are not altered;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots maintain
the perimeter setbacks, yards, buffers, and required parking;
(c) Adjustments for buildings do not alter the character or the use
of the originally approved building, building height(s), or floor
plans except as provided for in division (K)(2);
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials shall be of an equal or
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 24 of 28
greater size and quality as the approved materials;
(e) Redesigned and/or relocated stormwater management facilities
shall maintain the approved general character of said facilities
and the approved stormwater capacities;
(f) Relocating fencing, walls, or screening (not including
screening walls) shall maintain the same level and quality of
materials and screening;
(g) Modifications to sign location, sign face, and related
landscaping and lighting, shall maintain the approved general
sign design, number of signs, and dimensional requirements;
(h) Changes in building material shall be similar to and have the
same general appearance comparable to previously approved
material; such changes shall be of equal or higher quality than
the previously approved material;
(i) Changes in color shall be complimentary to the architectural
design and character of the building;
(j) The modification is not being requested solely to reduce cost
or as a matter of general convenience; and
(k) The requested modification would be better addressed through
the modification rather than an amendment to the requirements
of this Chapter or to the approved FDP or MP.
(M) Other Applicable Approvals
(1) Open Space Fee in Lieu
After a recommendation from the Director in consultation with the
Director of Parks and Recreation, the PZC shall determine whether a
request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication may be
approved, as provided in § 153.064(D) and (E).
(2) Conditional Uses
The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall apply in
the BSD districts. The PZC is the required reviewing body for
Conditional Use applications.
(3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment
The amendment procedures of § 153.234 shall apply in the BSD
districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall be
submitted for consideration by the PZC and City Council.
(4) Preliminary and Final Plats
Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be governed by Chapter
152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
(5) Special Permit
The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the BSD
districts.
(6) Zoning Variance
Form 6220S
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. __ 09-19 (Corrected)
(N)
Pussed__Page 25 of 28
The Zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) shall apply in the
BSD districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall
be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and
for City Council in the instance of a use variance.
(7) Public Tree Permit
The Tree Permit requirements of § 153.134(G) shall apply in the BSD
districts.
General Provisions
(1) Applications
(a) Each application required by this section shall be made in
writing on a form provided by the City and shall be
accompanied by the fee as established by City Council.
(b) Applications shall include all information required by the City,
unless deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature
and scale of the proposed development. No application shall
be accepted and processed by the City until it is deemed
complete by the Director. If found to be incomplete, the
Director shall inform the applicant of any additional materials
required to certify that the application is complete.
(c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or
required reviewing body may request additional materials if
deemed necessary to evaluate the proposal.
(d) No application for a FDP that has been denied by the PZC shall
be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the
decision, unless permitted by the Director after a
demonstration by the applicant of a change of circumstances
from the previous application that may reasonably result in a
different decision.
(e) The Director may approve the simultaneous review of
applications required by this Chapter and/or a subdivision plat
required by the Code, if the Director determines that
simultaneous review will not adversely impact the
achievement of the purpose and intent of this Chapter. The
provisions of § 153.066(F)(2)(b) and (G)(2)(b) govern relative
to the fling of a combined PDP and FDP.
(f) Where public reviews are required by this Chapter, a written
notice of the public meeting shall be sent, not less than ten days
prior to the meeting, to the applicant, property owner, and
owners of parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject
parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax list. The
notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the
subject of the request, describe the nature of the request, the
time, date and location of the meeting at which the application
will be considered, and indicate when and where written
comments will be received concerning the request.
(2) Decisions
(a) Any application required to be reviewed under this section
shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the
required reviewing body based on the applicable review
criteria as provided in this section and other applicable
provisions of this Chapter. The recommending body and
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed Page 26 of 28
required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their
decisions in the minutes and provide a written record of the
decision.
(b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body
determines that an application does not meet the applicable
review criteria as provided in this section and other applicable
provisions of this Chapter, but determines that the application
could meet those criteria with modifications that could not be
reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that the
decision on the application be postponed to provide the
opportunity to make those modifications.
(c) Following the approval of a FDP or MP, the applicant may
proceed with the process for obtaining a Certificate of Zoning
Plan Approval (CZPA) and Building Permit (BP), consistent
with the approval as granted. All construction and
development under any BP shall comply with the approved
FDP and MP, and any other approval, as applicable.
(3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval
A CZPA issued by the Director verifying compliance with all
applicable zoning requirements is required prior to modification,
extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or change of use in
BSD.
(4) Code Administration
The PZC may evaluate and monitor the application of the requirements
and standards of § 153.057 through § 153.066 by the Director. The PZC
may advise the Director as to whether it finds that the requirements or
standards (including requests for an AA) are being applied correctly,
and recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSD district
standards and requirements to better implement the Community Plan,
BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other related
policy and regulatory documents adopted by the City.
(5) Duration of Approvals
(a) Because the review of an Informal application is non-binding
on the City and does not result in a decision by the PZC, the
comments made during the Informal application review do not
expire. However, if the applicant makes any material change
in the Informal application following the review, the applicant
should not assume that the previous Informal review
comments remain applicable to the revised application.
(b) An approved CP shall be valid for a period of no more than one
year. If an application has not been filed for a PDP for at least
a portion of the site within that one-year period, then the CP
shall no longer be valid. A new CP application shall be
required in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter.
(c) An approved PDP shall be valid for a period of no more than
two years. If a FDP application for at least a portion of the site
has not been filed within that two-year period, then the PDP
shall no longer be valid. A new PDP application shall be
required in accordance with this Chapter.
(d) An approved FDP shall be valid for a period of no more than
two years. If a Building Permit and/or CZPA has not been filed
for at least a portion of the project within the two-year period,
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Fr%rm R77f1Q
u Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected) Passed Pale 27 of 28 ,
the FDP shall no longer be valid. A new FDP application shall
be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(e) An approved MP shall be valid for a period of no more than
two years. If a Building Permit and/or CZPA for at least one
portion of the site has not been filed within that two-year
period, then the MP shall no longer be valid. A new MP
application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(� Abandonment
1. Once a final approval is granted by the required
reviewing body, if the Director of Building Standards
determines that work has been abandoned for a
continuous period of six months, the approval shall
lapse and cease to be in effect.
2. The Director of Building Standards shall make the
determination of abandonment based on the presence
of one or more of the following conditions:
a. Removal of construction equipment or
supplies;
b. Expiration of an active building permit issued
by the City;
C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property,
such as overgrown weeds, failure to secure
buildings, broken windows, or other evidence
of lack of maintenance;
d. Other actions documented by the Director of
Building Standards and/or Director
evidencing an intent to abandon the
construction of the project.
3. Once the Director of Building Standards makes a
determination of abandonment, if a new BSD
application is not submitted within 90 days from the
date of the determination, the owner shall restore the
site to its previous condition, and/or remove any
structures or other evidence of work on the site, within
180 days from the date of the determination of
abandonment. If the owner fails to restore the site to
its previous condition within 180 days, the City may
take any and all actions necessary to restore the site to
its previous condition, including removing any
structures or other evidence of work, and the costs of
removal shall be assessed against the property.
(6) Architectural Review Board Authority
Until otherwise amended, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall
be the required reviewing body for the following districts: BSC
Historic Core, Historic Residential, Historic South, and Historic
Transition Neighborhood, as outlined in § 153.170 through § 153.180 in
the Codified Ordinances. The ARB shall be sole authority for Waivers
and Master Sign Plans in the above noted zoning districts, pursuant to
the standards and criteria in § 153.066.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Ordinance No. 09-19 (Corrected)
Passed __ Page 28 of 28
(7) Single -Family Detached Home
A single-family detached home and additions thereto are not subject to
the submittal of a CP, PDP, nor FDP. A single-family home and
additions there to shall submit a Building Permit as required by code
and issuance of a CZPA as provided for in §153.233. Any proposed
modifications to zoning standards of the BSD Code associated with a
proposed single-family home and any additions thereto shall be subject
to review and approval of a Waiver, AA, and/or AD provided for in
this Chapter. A single-family home is not subject to MP provisions of
this Chapter.
(Ord. 07-12, passed 3-26-12; Am. Ord. 84-13, passed 11-4-13; Am. Ord. 114- 14, passed 12-8-
1 A\
ATTF;ST:
Clerk of Council
permitted by law.
2019.
Form 6220S -
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway * Dublin, OH 43017-1090
C is ty ot""'D u b I is n Phone.- 614.410.4400,o Fax.- 614.410.4490
777A K A
Tom. Members of Dublin City Council
From,* Dana L. McDaniel, City Mana
Date,,, April 2., 2019
InfRiated By: Vincent A. Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Amendments to Sections 153.002, 153.060, 153.061, 153.063, 153-064,
153.065, 153.066 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to
amend the Bridge Street District DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS regulations.
(Case 18-005ADMC)
Two minor revisions were made to Ordinance 09-19 since the first reading. In section (E)(4)(a),
the text was revised to correct an oversight and in section (N)(7)', grammatical corrections were
made. In addition, the Redlined and Clean versions of the text was included in the documents for
this reading (only a portion had been included with the first reading documents).
As part of the analysis phase of this project, Clarion interviewed stakeholders and city staff to
identify issues related to the code and the Bridge Street development process. This resulted in a
February 20, 2017 memo that provided a record of the feedback. As a follow up to that task,
Clarion prepared an independent assessment of the code and city procedures, issuing a March 2,
2017 memo.
Staff and consultants presented these findings to a joint work session of City Council and the
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17,, 2017. General support was voiced for the proposed
direction. Two initial priorities of this update were completed (sign code amendment affecting pre-
Memo re. Ordinance 09-19 - Bridge Street District Code Amendments, Review and Approval Process
April 2, 2019
Page 2 of 5
010610103 1 400 WOM CA zi
Memo re. Ordinance 09-19 - Bridge Street District Code Amendment: Review and Approval Process
April 2, 2019
Page 3 of 5
Clarity was added regarding the duration of specific approvals (Informal, CP,. PDP,, FDP and
MP)G
The provision regarding the review of individual single-family detached homes was clarifile
with language added regarding the applicability of a Waiver, AA, or AD. 1
MCI
The proposed code amendment seeks to streamline the development review and approval process,
while promoting consistency among application types. The ordinance includes administrative
references in other portions of the zoning code, as well as 153.066 that require revisions in order
to eliminate conflicts with the proposed amendment.
Among the major changes are the following, which are described in more detail in the next
section .
Codification of the non-binding Informal review step, at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The informal review has been a practice, but never codified in the BSD
code.
The following provides a detailed review of the proposed changes. Both a ""clean" and a "redlined"'
version of the proposed amendment is included.
Section A. Intent
Minor edits are proposed to clarify the text.
Section B. Required Approvals
Major changes are presented on Table 153.066-A Summary Procedure Table, which reflect th
core changes to the BSD process. The major revisions are the following (details are provided i
subsequent subsections): I
* Planning Director has been added to reflect the staff review and recommendation
function, while the Architectural Review Board has been removed per Council direction.
* The Informal review has been added,, as recommended by the Commission.
* The BSD Basic Plan has been replaced with the Concept Plan (CP), which is reviewed
and approved by PZC, except when projects are proposing a development agreement;
Memo re. Ordinance 09-19 - Bridge Street District Code Amendment: Review and Approval Process
April 2, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Memo re. Ordinance 09-19 - Bridge Street District Code Amendment: Review and Approval Process
April 2, 2019
Page 5 of 5
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 09-19 at the second reading/public
hearing on April 8,, 2019.
Office of the Cipty Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway * Dublin, OH 43017-109*
Uityof D-ublin Phone: 614.410.4400 * Fax: 614.410.4490
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From,* Dana L. McDaniel,, City ManaW04_.,
Date: March 12, 2019
InIffioated By: Vincent A. Papsidero', FAICP, Director of Planning
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Re.: Ordinance 09-19
Amendments to Sections 153.002, 153.060, 153.061, 153.063f 153.0641
153.065
,( 153.066 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances tzoning Code) to
Amend the Bridge Street District Development Review Process Regulations.
(Case 18-005ADMC)
*1
As part of the analysis phase of this project, Clarion interviewed stakeholders and City staff to
identify issues related to the code and the Bridge Street development process. This resulted in a
February 20, 2017 memo that provided a record of the feedback. As a follow up to that task,,
Clarion prepared an independent assessment of the code and City procedures, issuing a March 2,
2017 memo.
Beginning in 2018, staff and the consultants restarted the project and drafted this amendment,
which was the subject of a Council work session and three joint sessions of the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Board. At the June 20., 2018 work session, City
Council directed staff to remove the Historic District from the BSD code. This separate project is
underway.
Memo re. Bridge Street District Code Amendment: Review and Approval Process
March 12, 2019
Page 2 of 5
Memo re. Bridge Street District Code Amendment:, Review and Approval Process
March 12, 2019
Page 3 of 5
The following provides a detailed review of the proposed changes. Both a "clean," and a "redlined"
version of the proposed amendmentis included.
Section A. Intent
Minor edits are proposed to clarify the text.
Section B. Required Approvals
Major changes are presented on Table 153.066-A Summary Procedure Table, which reflect the
core changes to the BSD process. The major revisions are the following (details are provided in
subsequent subsections):
Memo re. Bridge Street District Code Amendment,,, Review and Approval Process
March 12, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Section H. Admini5tradve Depanure5
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
Section L Waiver
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
Memo re. Bridge Street District Code Amendment: Review and Approval Process
March 12, 2019
Page 5 of 5
Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 09-19 at the second reading/public hearing
on April 8, 2019.
Cross Reference Check
153.002(B) General Definitions
(2)(m) BRIDGE STREET GGRRIDGR DISTRICT (86655D). A planned area of the city generally
bounded on the east by Sawmill Road, on the north and west by I-270, and including land
within the Architectural Review District boundaries and along the north and south sides of SR
161.
(3)(0) CONCEPT PLAN. A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed PUD or
BSD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the city to discuss the
concept for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is generally consistent
with the Community Plan and other applicable plans of the city.
(6)(d) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of all site
improvements, including easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points
of ingress and egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and off-site),
landscaping, architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground signs,
directional signs, location of refuse containers, lighting and accessory structures, and other
similar improvements, and may include a subdivision plat of a proposed PUD or BSD project.
Critical dimensions are shown unless otherwise required.
(16)(z) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning to a
PUD7. or a BSD Feymew and _...._,..,_' .._,._,.__,._ of "" ^"project, outlining permitted
and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to
be preserved, open space areas and linkages, buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and
their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of §§ 153.050 through 153.056, a
preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and any other development plan
adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are still in force.
153.60 LOTS AND BLOCKS
(B) ) APPLICABILITY
The requirements of this section apply to developments within all BSD zoning districts that
require Concept Plan Review in accordance with § 153.066, and
for land within all BSD zoning districts proposed for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152.
(C) GENERAL BLOCK AND LOT LAYOUT
(2) ) Maximum Block Size
(a) ) Required Subdivision
Unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, all developments requiring Beyelepmen
Plan a Concept Plan Review in accordance with §153.066(E)(1){})1 shall
-
(16)(z) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning to a
PUD7. or a BSD Feymew and _...._,..,_' .._,._,.__,._ of "" ^"project, outlining permitted
and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation patterns, critical natural areas to
be preserved, open space areas and linkages, buffer areas, entryways, and major utilities and
their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of §§ 153.050 through 153.056, a
preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and any other development plan
adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are still in force.
153.60 LOTS AND BLOCKS
(B) ) APPLICABILITY
The requirements of this section apply to developments within all BSD zoning districts that
require Concept Plan Review in accordance with § 153.066, and
for land within all BSD zoning districts proposed for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152.
(C) GENERAL BLOCK AND LOT LAYOUT
(2) ) Maximum Block Size
(a) ) Required Subdivision
Unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, all developments requiring Beyelepmen
Plan a Concept Plan Review in accordance with §153.066(E)(1){})1 shall
subdivide consistent with the maximum block sizes as required by Table 153.060-A,
Maximum Block Dimensions.
153.61 STREET TYPES
(C) STREET NETWORK
(2) Street Types
...Available street type configurations shall be reviewed with the applicant during the Pfe-
App"Eatien Reyie• 'Concept Plan Rreview process, as described in §153.066.
(4) Street Network Map
(a) ...In addition to the Thoroughfare Plan, the Street Network Map shall be used as a
guide in determining the appropriate locations and alignments of new streets during the
Preliminary Development Plan approval process as required in §153.066.
(b) ...Actual street alignments and locations will be determined through the Preliminary
Development Plan Review -review process as individual properties are developed and
through the City's Capital Improvements Program process, as applicable.
(g) ...Actual locations of new alleys and service streets will be determined through the
Beyelepment Plan Review and Site Plan Review Preliminary and Final Development Plan
review processes.
153.63 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS
(A)INTENT
... They are not intended to designate the precise locations for approved street types, use
areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code; actual locations and specific
development requirements will be determined through the Develepment Plan and Site Plan
Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan Reviews reviews
as required in §153.066 for individual neighborhoods.
(C) BSD SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(2) ...Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Beyelepment Plan and Site Plan Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan. and Final
Development Plan Review review processes.
(5)(d) Gateways
1. ...Gateway designs shall be approved with the Site—Final Development Plan Review,
but locations shall be identified with the Preliminary Development Plan wand
shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Site -Final Development Plan Review,
but locations and types shall be identified with the Preliminary Development Plan
applieatien nd shall meet the following criteria:
D. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street intersections as
identified during the Beyelepment PlanPreliminary and Final Development
Plan Reviewsreviews, such as those serving as entrances to a designated
shopping corridor and other gateway locations, with other appropriately scaled
open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the character of
the street.
FIGURE 153.063 A
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Beyelepment
Plan and SiteConcept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as
required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(D) BSD HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(2) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Beyelepment Plan and Site Preliminary and Final Development Plan Review review
processes.
(5)(c) Gateways
1.... Gateway designs shall be approved with the `'Final Development Plan Review,
but locations shall be identified wkl+-on the Preliminary Development Plan wand
shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan Review,
but locations and types shall be identified with -on the Preliminary Development Plan
application and shall meet the following criteria:
G. Other open space nodes shall be provided at gateway locations as identified
during the Beyelepment PlanPreliminary and Final Development Plan
Reviewsreviews, such as at prominent street intersections, with other appropriately
scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate to the
character of the street.
FIGURE 153.063 B
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Beyelepment
Plan and SiteConcept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as
required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(E) BSD INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(3) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Beyelepment Plan and Site Preliminary and Final Development Plan Review review
processes.
(6)(d) Gateways
1.... Gateway designs shall be approved by the required reviewing body, but locations
shall be identified Akron the Preliminary Development Plan wand shall be
coordinated with the street network.
(7)(d) Open Space Network
2. ...Open space designs shall be approved by the required reviewing body, but
locations and types shall be identified vAWon the Preliminary and Final Development
Plan RR4 Site PIRR and shall meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 C
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Deyelepmen
Plan and Site Ha Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as
required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
(F) BSD SCIOTO RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(3)(b)
3. For the purposes of measuring block length, the limits of private street sections
designed and constructed to public street standards and defined on the Preliminary
Development Plan shall be used in lieu of right-of-way.
(5)(e) Gateways
2.... Gateway designs shall be approved by Akron the `'Final Development Plan
Review, but locations shall be identified with -on the Preliminary Development Plan
wand shall be coordinated with the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. ...Open space locations shall be approved wM+-on the `'Final Development Plan
Review, but locations and types shall be identified Akron the Preliminary
Development Plan Review and shall meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 D
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Beyelepment
°Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as
required in §153.066 for individual neighborhood areas.
153.64 OPEN SPACE TYPES
(D) SUITABILITY OF OPEN SPACE
(1) Per the applicable review process, the PZC or ART eF FequiFed Feyiewing bedy hall
review all proposed open space types during the Preliminary Development Plan, and Final
Development Plan or the Minor Project,
Qgydeer2g12kPlan-application review processes -to determine the suitability of the open
space.
153.65 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(B) PARKING AND LOADING
(1)(b)1.C. Where on-site surface parking is provided on a site included as part of a
Preliminary Development Plan Review, parking may be permitted by the required reviewing
body to encroach required setbacks to facilitate coordinated site design and contiguous
parking areas with future development phases.
(1)(f)(A) Applications for `'Final Development Plan Review
(3)(c)(3) Bicycle parking racks, docks or posts provided within the street right-of-way shall
be of a consistent design on all streets ineluded within a Beyelepment Plan eF Site Plan
ncaicovsite.
(D) ) LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
(2)(c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of a lot
consistent with an approved Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan, or
Minor Project, PFe'mFnm .aFy and Finn Reye ,..... ent Plan ,._ Site PlanReyiew _hall be
replaced in accordance with §153.146 except as provided by §153.065(D)(9).
(2)(k) A registered landscape architect shall be used to prepare landscape plans required for
applications fora Final Development Plan Reyiew.
(9)(a)2.C. A tree survey prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted with the tree
preservation plan for all Preliminary and Final Development Plans, Site Plan and/or Minor
Project Reyiewapplications for lots containing existing trees.
(9)(a)2.D. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Preliminary and Final
Development Plans, Sitehand/or Minor Project Review application shall identify all
landmark trees and/ or significant tree stands on the site, including critical root zones to
establish the limits of tree preservation zones, as determined by the required reviewing
body.
(9)(b)(3) Removal of trees on any portion of a site required to be occupied by a public
street as approved by the City Engineer and the required reviewing body with a Preliminary
Development Plan Review- application;
(9)(b)(4) Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a structure
pursuant to the standards of §153.062 as approved by the required reviewing body with
applications for Final Development Plan or Minor Project eF Site Final Beye'epment Plan
Review;
(11) ...Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing
body with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project eF Site Final Beye'ewflent Plan
Review application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than
the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering functions anticipated with the provisions of
§153.065(D).
(E) FENCING, WALLS AND SCREENING
(1)(a)... High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final Development Plan
or Minor Project „_ Site Final Beye'ep -gnj Plan by the required reviewing body with
examples of successful, high quality installations.
(2)(d)... Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing
body with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project eF Site Final Beye'ewflent Plan
Review application and approved only if the proposed alternative is equal to or better than
the intent of the provisions of §153.065(E)(2).
(3)(a)... High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final Development Plan
or Minor Project „_ Site Final Beye'ep -gnj Plan by the required reviewing body with
examples of successful, high quality installations.
(F) EXTERIOR LIGHTING
(8) Lighting plans submitted as part of an applicable Final Development Plan or Minor
Project „_ Site Final Beye'e _ent Plan "- ie;AF- shall include existing lighting from streets
and adjacent buildings developed under these standards, and proposed lighting generated
from light poles and building lighting.
(G) SIGNS
(2)(e) Master Sign Plans
A Master Sian Plan may be reauested in accordance with the provisions of 153.0661K
153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
(A) Intent, The intent of this section is to provide an efficient and predictable review process
for rezoning and/or development applications within the Bridge Street District GeFFide
(BSD) zoning districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for exceptional, carefully
considered design and high quality development
mpete °GF deyelepment consistent with the Vision Principles and direction articulated in
the BFidge StFeet DiStF"+ BSD Special Area Plan in the Community Plan. The review and
approval procedures and criteria help ensure that new development and redevelopment
is served by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources
of the Ceity, and to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, occupants,
and users of property in the BSD 8S6 districts and surrounding areas of the Cyeity.
(B) Required Approvals reviews.
(1) Summary. This section outlines the requirements and procedures for
development review specifically within the BSD SSG districts. The review
procedures of this section shall be used for all development applications in a BSD
856 district. Table 153.066-A, Summary Procedure Table, describes the review
procedures applicable in all BSD 856 districts.
(2) Abbreviations. The following abbreviations and terms are used in this section:
Ano. A. ehmt,.,.}.. a' Reymew BeaFd
ART: Administrative Review Team
BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals
CC or Council: City Council
PD or Director: Planning Director
PZC or Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission
TABLE 153.066-A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE
R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback
Type of Application
I PD
I ART
I AR -13-1
BZA
I PZC
I Councils
I Zoning Code Reference
Zoning Code Approvals
Zoning Map or Text Amendment
R
I R
1 R
1
1 R
D
§ 153.234
Conditional Use s
R
_
R
R
p
§ 153.236L
jj�)
Special Permit
R
I D
I
A
§ 153.231(G)
Use Variance
R
R
R
D
§ 153.231 (H)(3)
Non -Use (Area) Variance
R
R
D
§ 153.231(H)(2)
Other Approvals
Building Code Appeal
D
§ 153.231(I)
Bridge Street District Applications ZeniRq DiStFists
Pre -Application
6 153.066(Cl
Informal
RF
6 153.066(Dl
PFe n..�ew
R€
§ + rT��
o..s a Plan
TlCO1CVY
pp)
§ 15;.o66Ej�l`
R
e
ee
Conceot Plan
R
D
6 153.066(D)
Concept Plan
R
—
R
—
D
—
6 153.066(D)
with a
Development
Agreement
Preliminary
Development
R
D
6153.066(E)
Plan
Final
Development
Plan-
R�"
..1.4....4.. J n..... .. D:,4 :4
R
f�{B
D
9
§ ,� o6 ,,:`-;: )
153.066(F)
�f
Rev ew
n..Rh 4...d.. ....:...., n:4
FRI n
F 4
R
O
O
is- "
Rlq�
&
S
�z1)
Minor Project
n....1....._i n....,.4....4
teet ew 9:
R
B
Rewewe;ZRR,RR
R
D
A
§ 153.066(G)
Administrative Departure
R
D
§ 153.066(H)
Waivers"
R
R
D
9
§ 153.066(I)
Master Sign
Plan Rev eva
R
R
D
§ 15;.o65 E6)Egy
6153.065(H)(2)(e)/
6153.066(J) and (U(8)
Parking Plans
R
9{R
9
D
§-15;.o65 EB)EI)E€) f
§ 15;.o66EG)
6 153.066(G)(2)(f)
/6153.065(61
Administrative Aooroval Sepa4we
D
§ 153.066(K)
Open Space Fee in Lieu
R
R
D
§ 153.066 (L)(1)/
§ 159.96q {$}{€j
6154.064 (D) -(E)
Certificate of Zonina Plan Aooroval
D
153.233
6 153.066 (M(3)
Apprevals
Pg:__FMad f Eat SRS
§Ki
..
n..Feyai (Bu Id ng and q to
n^ 1e
��{
* .
153 T�TT7
3 c n66(pq
§ 15;.C)66 EE))Ez)
(C) Pre-Aapplication +eview.
(1) Purpose and Aapplicability.
(a) The purpose of the Pffre-Aapplication submittalFeyievv is to provide a
potential applicant with a non-binding review of a development proposal
and to provide information on the procedures and policies of the Ceity,
including application review procedures.
(b) PFe app;;catieR Fev+ew with the —1Ad Fni RRstrat+ xe Review Teas (ART) 0s
^^�.
(bd) Pre-Aapplication reviews do not result in a development decision or permit,
and shall not obligate the _ ity or the developer to take any action on the
proposal.
(2) Review Piprocedure.
(a) A request for a pre -application review shall be made in accordance with
the provisions of division (_f+1NN)(1) of this section.
(b) Requests shall be submitted to the Director, who shall be responsible for
circulating any submittal material to the applicable departments for input.
(c) The Director and staff shall use reasonable efforts to conduct an
expeditious review of the submitted materials and provide non-binding
input and recommendations.
The Director may schedule a meetina with the Dotential aDDlicant to discuss
the request or may provide a written summary of the staff review. The AFT
(d) The ART shall Feyiew the submitted FnateFials and pFeyide men binding
input arm—reeemme.RdatieRs. The- ART shall eemp;ete its F&Vievi Af the
..Ii.-..,tien et FneFe than lit d...,,- fFGF.. the date the Fequest
;;, lamotted
Leef) Additional staff reviews of the pre -application submittalFeyiew Ffleetings
with,. -r- the AR may be requested by the applicant prior to filing a formal
application Fequest °GF a baSiG PlaR Feyiew
(fg) Any and all written summaries The •°•Fof the pre -application
review shall be forwarded to the required reviewing body with a formal the
application feF a basie plan Feyiew.
(D) Informal. Prior to submittal of an application for a Concept Plan (CP), an applicant may
submit an Informal applicationeaues` an mnfeFmal for review of a development concept
with the PZC. Such submittal shall include a completed application form and supporting
material sufficient to describe the development concept. The review of the informal
submittal shall be non-binding upon the PZC and the applicant, however, it is intended to
provide feedback by the PZC that should inform the preparation and subsequent review
of the CP. The Planning Director shall prepare a brief analysis and comments that will be
submitted to the PZC with the application.
10
-- - - -- - - -- - - -
--
11
(BE) Concept Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Concept Plan (CP) is to provide a general outline of the
scope, character, and nature of the proposed development that is
consistent with the Tpolicv direction of the Community Plan
and the BSD Special Area Plan, the requirements of the BSD Code, aN
proposal within the context of existing and planned development within the
12
vicinity of the proiect.
(b) The 6f allAvis- the PZ6 the means-te evalwate the geneeptual 19Fsal
.•'udm.... the OCD Sige ma' AFea Ran OCD D..,-i..n !" umde'mnes and . theF
(b) The CP allows the required reviewing body to ensure that the proposed
concept is consistent with the following:
1. That the proposed land uses are consistent with Community Plan,
BSD Special Area Plan, and BSD Code;
2. That the proposed block framework and street network are
generally compatible with the adopted plans, lead to the creation
of a walkable, urban place;
3. That the proposed development concept generally fulfills the intent
of the BSD Special Area Plan; and
4. That the proposed development concept has the potential to create
a walkable, urban place.
(c) The CP review provides an opportunity for public input at tk—an earajest
early stage of the development process.
(d) The CP review is intended to provide clear direction to the applicant by the
required reviewing body resulting from its review and approval of the
application.
(e) If the CP is approved by the required reviewing bodv, s •g" aetme- sha" "
bipdiaa gee# it shall serve as tea basis for preparation by the applicant
&•ubwttal-of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for the proposed
development.
(f) For projects that will propose a development agreement due to the need
for development timeframe, public infrastructure, public and private
contributions, development restrictions, or other related items, City Council
shall serve as the required reviewing body for the CP. In those cases, the
Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall each review the CP
and provide a recommendation to Council to approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the CP.
..ed ren a mated woth a .a,..,,.1,........ ent a ent woth the
by the 6+ty. The —deyeleementaweementmay set eu
and E)Fmyate eentFobatiens,develeementFestrtetie ns—rdatke.F
13
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) The CP is a mandatory step in the development review and approval
process for the BSD.
(b) An application for a CP shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (D)(3) and (MN)(1) of this ehaetefChapter.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the CP in the BSD, unless
a development agreement is proposed in coniunction with a
proposed proiect, then City Council shall be the required reviewing body
for the CP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the CP application under the criteria
of division (D)(4) of this section. T"" DEFe-.}AFLs emdatmAR ;hall-be
(e) The PZC shall review the CP application, the minutes of the PZC meeting if
an informal review was requested by the applicant, the Director's
recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of division
(D)(4). In the instance the PZC is the required reviewing body, the
Commission will render a decision for approval, approval with conditions,
or denial and written record of the Commission's decision shall be provided.
(f) In the instance of a CP associated with a proposed development
agreement, the Commission will make a recommendation of approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
(g) City Council shall review the CP application and the recommendations of
PZC and the Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of
division (D)(4) of approval, approval with conditions. or denial.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the CP shall
existing site and concept for the proposed development, and to evaluate
consistency with the review criteria in division (D)(4). The applicant shall submit
an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (MN)(1) and
determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The required reviewing body shall make its decision on an
application for a CP based on each of the following criteria and may consider the
agreement, the PZC shall apply these criteria in the formulation of its
14
guidance of the Community Plan, the, BSD Special Area Plan, and other
applicable City plans, and related policies;
W(b) The CP conforms to the applicable requirements- of the BSD Code�SB
(b)(c) The illustrative lots and blocks, supporting street and pedestrian network,
and internal circulation provide a coherent development pattern that
conforms toa4eps-with the requirements of 55153.060 Lots and Blocks,
153.061 Street Types, and 153.065 Site Development Standards, and the
conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets will avoid
adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(�(d) The proposed land uses allow for appropriate integration into the
community, consistent with adopted plans, and e4eft-withconform to the
requirements of 5153.059 Uses;
(dj(e) The conceptual buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a
cohesive development character that complements the surrounding
environment and Fneets the Ontent -`conforms to the architectural
requirements of 5153.062 Building Types;
(e)(f) The conceptual design of open spaces, including location and relationship
to surrounding buildings, provides for meaningful public gathering spaces
that benefit the community both within and outside the proposed
development;
fA(a) The eemeeo`• .,,..,,.leo eentCP allows for the connection and or expansion
of public or private infrastructure and the continued provision of services
required by the Ci tv or other public agency; and
The development concept ;conforms to the requirements of
5153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable.�d
The eepeeetualdeyeleement addFesses eens+steney woth the
_ 1AG7...... 17!17�7r!!!LT!_''7'}}A
_T_7�HTditi7l
LT7'
15
F.......
land.
- - --
- --
..F
--- --
--------
- - - --
-- - -- -- --
peFFnitted by the eity7
9.
..F the P. -MOR cede ,s n.dM..-,..,-,.,-
„-FeqW.,.d
--
- ------
- -
- - --
- --
--
-- -
--- --
--------
- - - --
-- - -- -- --
--
--- - -
- -
---
-- - -
- - ---- - --
-----
-
- - -
-- --
--
- - --- - - --
... . .
-- -- -
. .
-- -- --
.
- -
.. .
-
.
--
. . .
- - - -- -
16
(FE) Preliminary Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to establish a
framework for the proposed development that is consistent with the
17
Rill
SIMON.
10
Wil I
(FE) Preliminary Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to establish a
framework for the proposed development that is consistent with the
17
deewment. adopted by the Cob,,adopted plans, policies, and regulations,
and the review criteria.
(b) The PDP allows the PZC the--ffieanTto ensure that the proposed
development is consistent with the following:
1. That the street network and block framework provide a coherent
and rational development pattern;
2. That the proposed street types provide for walkable urbanism;
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the location
and surrounding neighborhood;
4. That the proposed development creates the urban 06Ee-setting
envisioned by the applicable neighborhood standards;
5. That planned open spaces and building types within the
development are integrated in order to complement each otherweFk
6. That the proposed development is consistent with the general
development requirements of the City with respect to such
elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental
considerations; and
7. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of
signature places in the City consistent with the
Bist�BSD Special Area Plan through an evaluation of long-term
phasing plans, transitional development conditions, and planned
placemaking elements.
(c) The PDP is intended to establish the direction of the proposed development
based on all applicable code requirements and shall refine the oFepesal
vmca-rnrmcapprOVe Gegcepc�CP.
(d) If a PDP is approved by the PZC, such action shall be binding and shall
serve as the basis for submittal of the Final Development Plan (FDP) for
the proposed development or phases thereof.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a PDP may not be submitted prior to the review and
approval of a CP.
(aj(b) The PDP is a mandatory submittal requirement prior to filing a FDP.
or if recommended by the Director and agreed
by the applicant.
(-b)(c) An application for PDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (E)(3) and (MN)(1) of this section.
(ej(d) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the PDP within the Bridge
Street District.
(4)(e) The Director shall make a recommendation for approval, approval with
18
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the Commission's decision shall be provided to the applicant.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a PDP shall
provide information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity with the
regulations and that can serve as a basis for the future consideration of a FDP.
Information submitted should be sufficiently detailed to enable the PZC to
understand the existing site and the PDP for the proposed efeieE-tdevelopment,
and to evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (E)(4). The applicant
shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division
(MN)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4)Review Criteria. The PZC shall make Ots Feeemmendatmen -- its decision on an
application for a PDP based on each of the following criteria—end-= ;a
(a) The PDP shall be consistent with the approved CP, the record established
by the required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the
Director's recommendation;
(b) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area
Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, afA-other adopted City plans and related
policies;
(c) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use
specific standards of 5153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a
cohesive development character that complements the surrounding
environment, and aFe eemsmstent wot-hconform to the requirements of
5153.062 Building Types and 5153.065 Site Development Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks are consistent with the requirements of
5153.060 Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types i ;;conform to the requirements
and standards of 5153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of
streets, blocks, and development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map
and the conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets to
avoid adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for
Pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services,
(h) The proposed design of buildings it„ conforms to the BSD
Code and ^:t., _ We aualo`y bumIt ,.nymF,..... ent is consistent with the BSD
Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby development;
(i) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to
conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the
community both within and outside the proposed development, and afe
-sis cMnform to the requirements of 5153.064 Open Spaces;
(i) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate
19
protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational
activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services;
(k) The proposed development ,z;conforms to the requirements
of 5153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(I) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management
systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this
code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by
the City or required by other government entities;
(m) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/-or
planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the City's most
recently adopted capital improvements program;
(n) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has
adequate infrastructure to berme serve the development
independently without the need for further phased improvements; and
(o) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards
and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and
streetscapes.
20
T7745"VII R_�T
Marr
m !L11.T7!!gerPTETTSMIR\
.
--
7_�7 !LTi77.'
-- -- - - -
--
- - - --
-
-- -
-- - - --- --
- ---
-- --- - - -
- -
--- --
--- - - - - - --
--
- - - -- -- --
-- - -- - -- - --
- --- -- - - -
--
-- ---
-- - - - --
-- - ---- -
- --
- -
-- -
21
k.I ..._ _rr..___. _.. ._ ---._.___.._
and suitability ef epen
spaee
..--- . --._
On § 153.061
._1_.._.. ---
and the
.__ .--
site
_7r__,
design
_.__..___._..�
ineeFpeFates
preteetien,-publie-.:ater
and sanitapt
sewage
sew;ees,Feefeatienal
(h) StffmwateF management
systems
and faeilitie
•sem-Rat-eaase
a
teratierls
is
iffiplemented
On
is
if the deyelepment
te be
phases,
eaeh
phase
able
te
�aad
i eemmunity
plan and
etheF
(FG) Final Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Final Development Plan (FDP) is to confirm compliance
with the PDP, all requirements of the BSD Code, Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, aookable-BSD Ddesign Geuidelines, and other fe[ated
peiiey and reaa;atew=deeungents adeeted by the GiWadooted plans,
policies, and regulations, and the review criteria.
(b) The FDP allows the PZC he--rieanTto ensure that the proposed
development is compliant with the following;
1. That the street network and block framework provide a coherent
and rational development pattern;
2. That proposed street types provide for walkable urbanism;
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the location
and neighborhood, including assuring that the dimensions of a
parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building
tvpe,,
4. That the architecture, building materials and colors, landscaping
and buffering, and site layout create a functional, aesthetically
appealing urban place;
5. That the proposed development creates the urban elaee-setting
envisioned by the applicable neighborhood standards;
6. That planned open spaces and building types within the
development are integrated in order to complement each otherweFk
7. That the proposed development is consistent with the general
22
considerations; and
8. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of
signature places in the City consistent with the
Bist�BSD Special Area Plan through an evaluation of long-term
phasing plans, transitional development conditions, and planned
placemaking elements.
(c) The FDP is intended to verify the proposed development, or phases of
development, is in compliance with all applicable code requirements, and
is consistent with the PDP.
(d) All development within the BSD District shall require an approved FDP prior
to applying for site disturbance approval, CZPA, and/or building permits. In
addition, the following development activities shall also require an
approved FDP:
a. When a proiect involves the design or construction of new streets, or a
proposed realignment or relocation of any street in the general pattern
of street development conceptualized by the BSD Street Network Map
in 5153.061 that is required or permitted by the City;
b. When a proiect requires land subdivision in accordance with Chapter
152; or
c. When a proiect does not meet the criteria for a Minor Proiect (MP).
(e) Applications for a FDP shall be reviewed by the PZC, whose approval shall
be binding and shall serve as the regulatory and administrative document
for zoning compliance.
(2) Review Procedures.
(a) An application for a FDP shall be submitted in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (F)(3) and (MN)(1) of this section.
(b) The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant,
by motion of the PZC at the time of CP review and approval, or
recommended by the Director.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the FDP within the BSD.
(ed) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the final development plan application
under the criteria of division (F)(4) of this section. The-9keete
Director and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4) of
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the Commission's decision shall be provided.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a FDP shall
provide final proiect information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity to
an approved PDP. In cases where the applicant has been authorized to submit a
combined PDP and FDP, then the submittal shall incorporate the required
information for the PDP and as required below. Information should be sufficiently
detailed to enable the PZC to understand the existing site and the FDP for the
23
supplemental materials as outlined in division (MN)(1) and determined by the
Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a FDP
based on each of the following criteria and the Feeem--enda`men of the ^m---`--•
(a) The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP, and consistent
with the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated
Staff Report, and the Director's recommendation;
(b) The proposed development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, mother adopted City plans,
and related policies;
(c) The proposed land uses weet-conform to all applicable requirements and
use specific standards of 5153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and ad4efe-conform to the
requirements of 5§153.062 Building Types and 5153.065 Site Development
Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks 19FGigesed aFe eensis�Mnform to the
requirements of 5-153.060 Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types adhere to the requirements and standards of
5153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of streets, blocks, and
development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map, as amended;
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for
Pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services,
(h) The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings is consistent
with the Gite BSD Design Guidelines"-" -••-'m`•• buolt ,.nymF,..... ent, while
integrating with nearby development, and avoids overshadowing of
existing or proposed development;
(i) The proposed site design, landscaping, screening, and buffering is
consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines;
(i) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to
conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the
community, benefit the community both within and outside the proposed
development, and are consistent with the requirements of 5153.064 Open
(k�) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate
provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the
City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police
protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational
activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services;
Q) The proposed development -d—conforms to the requirements of
5153.063 Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(m4) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management
the City or required by other government entities;
24
Cum)
recently adopted capital improvements program;
Lire) If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases, each phase
has adequate infrastructure to be—eonsWeFedserve the development
independently without the need for further phased improvements; and
(pe) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards
and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and
streetscapes.
(6!i) Minor Pyroject Feview.
(1) Purpose and Aapplicability,
4�--The purpose of the Mfinor Pftroject MP eyievv is to provide an efficient
review process for smaller projects that do not have significant community effects,
as defined in (1-1)(2).
(2) Minor Proiects Defined. The following projects shall be considered eligible for
review and approval as an MP eF pFejeet;
(b) Multiple family and tewnheuse buildings ef eight eF feweF dwelling units
000 squaFe feet eF less gFess fleeF aFea and asseemated site deyelepment
�s.
`d) Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not
more than 25%, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area,
whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or
when first constructed, and associated site development requirements.
(be) Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25%
of any individual fagade elevation of the structure.
`€) Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do
not involve construction of a new principal building. Parks, when used to
meet requirements as an open space type, as provided in § 153.064, shall
require a FDPsite��.
`g) Accessory structures 1,000 gross square feet or smaller and the related
accessory uses.
Lek) Modifications to existing structures in accordance with § 153.062(B)(2) that
increase the gross floor area by not more than 25%, or not more than
10,000 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the
effective date of this amendment and associated site development
requirements; and
(f) Parking plans when not associated with a PDP or a FDP.
25
(3) Review PVrocedure.
(a) An application for a minor project MP reyieva shall be made in accordance
with the provisions of divisions (G)(4) and ( )(1) 0#(44 of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for the MP
ml F
E. )Fe than 11 days kem the date the Fequest was
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the MP under the criteria of division
(G)(5). The Il:.-..eteKs endatmen ..ha" be a eymded ... to the
(d) The ART shall review the MP application and the Director's
recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of (G)(5) of
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the ART's decision shall be provided.
(e) McFRa4yely—Tthe ART may forward any MP
application to the Planning and Zening Gemmissien PZC for consideration.
In making such a determination, the ART shall concluder
that the application raises complex
issues, including but not limited to, the need for public infrastructure
improvements and/or other neighborhood or community -wide effects that
would benefit from a public review and decision by the PZC Gemmiasien
deeisien. These applications shall be reviewed against the criteria in (G)(5)
of this section
(fe) If the application is not approved by the ART, the applicant shall be given
the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's
comments and resubmit for reconsideration. Fellewing the deeisien, the
(a) Decisions of the ART are appealable to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for a MP provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the
applicable provisions of this code. The information should be sufficiently detailed
to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and the MP
determined by the Director.
26
(5) Review Criteria. The Administrative Review Team (ART) shall make its decision
on an application for a MP based on each of the following criteria and the
recommendation of the Director: F&WO&AF GFOteffma a19191 to �alien °e -.F
(a) The MP shall be consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area
Plan, BSD Code, BSD Design Guidelines, and adopted plans, policies, and
regulations;
(b) In cases where a MP is proposed within or as part of an approved PDP or
FDP, the MP shall be consistent with such approved PDP or FDP;
(c) The MP shall be consistent with the record established by the required
reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director's
recommendation;
(d) The proposed land uses meet all applicable requirements and use specific
standards of 5153.059 Uses; and
(e) The proposed site improvements, landscaping, screening, and buffering
shall meet all applicable requirements of the BSD Code and respond to the
standards of the BSD Design Guidelines.
(.11!) Administrative Ddepartures.
(1) Purpose and Aapplicability.
(a) The intent of the Administrative Departure (AD) this divisien (H) is to
provide an efficientye process to allow minor deviations from
the strict application of the BSD $SG distFiet requirements caused by
unusual site or development conditions or conditions unique to a particular
use or other similar conditions that require reasonable adjustments, but
remain consistent with the intent of this ehaptefChapter. Examples inelude,
..I........ nts
T
�
(b) The AD shall not convey special rights or other approvals that would not
otherwise result from a decision under this code.
(2) Administrative Departure Defined. An AD shall be limited to any modification
of no greater than 10% to a numeric zoning standard related to building
(3) Review PVrocedure.
(a) An application for an AD shall be made in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (H)(4) and (MN)(1) of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for administrative
departures.
(c) A request for an AD administFatiye depaFtwe may be submitted with an
application for a devele. . plan PDP, FD, site plan,, or FnineF pFejeet MP
Feyiew or at any other time as may be necessary.
27
the time p ed fee ADT staFt eYeF n the day the Fequest fGF
(d) A request for an AD administicatiYe depaFtuiae may be processed
simultaneously with tke a PDP, FDP, deyelepment plan, site plan, or MP
to which it relates.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the AD under the criteria of division
(1-1)(5). The- DoFe tAFL endatOAR ..hall b .,coded19FOG-F to the
reseeetiye eubl:e ;ea4pe
(f) The ART shall determine whether each requested AD :e
depaFtuiae is approved, approved with conditions, or denied. A written
record of the ARTs decision will be provided. Decisions relative to an
approved FDP shall be reported to the PZC.
(c) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria for an AD
..d...;..;..tFati •,, d,.paFtUFe the applicant may request a Wwaiver under the
provisions of division (I) of this section or submit a new application for a
FDP deyele`~ment plan, n, to plan, n, or MPas applicable.
(d) Decisions may be appealed to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for an AD provides sufficient information to eRGWFe „eneFal68
--Mime-"'- eFeymsmens of this eedeevaluate whether the request should be granted
under divisions (H)(2) and (1-1)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed
to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site, proposed
AD, and the related PDP, FDP or MP- and the --'aced ^^ ee st for the proposed
proiect or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and
supplemental materials as outlined in division (MN)(1) and determined by the
Director.
(5) Review Criteria feF administicatiYe depaFtuiae appFeyal. The ART shall make its
decision on the requested administicatiYe depaFtuiae AD based on the following
criteria:
(a) The need for the AD is caused by unique site
conditions, conditions on surrounding properties, and/or otherwise
complies with the spirit and intent of the Community Plan, BFidg_ `tFeet
9istriE413SD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, mother adopted
City plans and policies, and all applicable requirements within 5§153.057
through 5153.066;
(b) The AD is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of
general convenience;
(c) The AD administicatiYe depaFtuiae does not have the effect of authorizing
any use, sign, building type, or open space type that is not otherwise
permitted in the that BSD BSG district; and
28
by FRGFe than 19% ef the FeqWiFement; and
(d) The AD, if approved, does not adversely impact the pedestrian experience.
(el The AD administFatiye depaFtwe, if approved, will ensure that the
development is of equal or greater development quality with respect to
design, material, and other development features than without the AD
(10 Waiver-Feview.
(1) Purpose and Aapplicability. Under the provisions of this section, Waivers are a
process to allow deviations from specific code requirements that may only be
granted by the PZC.
(2) Waivers Defined. A Waiver is defined as a request for a deviation from a
Requests feF waiYeFs shall be submitted feF any pFejeet elements that deymate kem
he requirements of § - 153.059 through 5153.065, which aR that
do not otherwise qualify for an adFRORO tFatoye d,......+, eAD under the provisions
of division (H) of this section.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a Waiver shall be made in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (I)(4) and (MN)(1) of this section.
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for Waivers. In cases where
a Waiver is submitted with a Minor Proiect (MP), the PZC shall be the
required reviewing body for both the Waiver and the MP.
(b) chThe waive�Waiver . _ may be submitted with any application for
a PDP or FDP.
(ej(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the Waiver under the criteria of
division (I)(5). Additional Waivers determined by the Director during
his/her review, may be included for review by the PZC. T"
'I"-'
(d) The PZC FequiFed Feyiewing bedy shall review the requested Wwaivers
using the criteria of division (5) f)(6) of this section. Should other
Wwaivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with other requirements of this
eiChapter resulting from the requested Wwaivers, those Wwaivers
shall also be reviewed by PZC
(e) The PZC the FequiFed Feyiewing bed shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the speeifie Wwaiver request(s). A written record of the
29
PZC decision will be provided. ne� FneFe than 28 days fFeFn the
FeGARqRqeRdgtOAR ef the AP
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for a Waiver provides sufficient information to ensw- -eneFal ---`-aigigimeable eP this e-A-deevaluate whether the Wiaver should be granted
under divisions (DO and (I)(5). The information should be sufficiently detailed to
enable the PZC to understand the existing site, proposed PDP, FDP, or MP as noted
in (1)(3)(b), and the related Waiver request for the proposed proiect or a portion
thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as
outlined (MN)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria ev . The PZC FequiFed Feyiewing bedy shall make
its Feeemmendatien/clecision on an application for a proposed Wwaivers based on
all of the following __:},._:_ and with _ _: , __}: the _ ,_}: _f the
T.
(a) The need for the Wwaiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of
or conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other
circumstance outside the control of the owner/lessee, including easements
and rights-of-way;
(b) The Wwaiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the
Community Plan, °.:dge StFeet DiStF:,.}BSD Special Area Plan BSD Design
Guidelines, other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable
requirements in 55153.057 through 153.066
(c) The Wwaiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of
general convenience;
(d) The Wwaiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or
greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other
similar development features than without the Wwaiver;
(e) The requested Waiver is men weuld better be addressed through
the Wwaiver rather than an amendment to the requirements of this
; and
(f)
1 E9 11 j(A)7'
and
(fig) The Waiver
does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space type that is
not otherwise permitted in that BSD BSG district.
30
Willi
30
narss�rer+r r�� ...... n r�r�9Ea�ra9Ea�raa� r_rn�irrsr�-
WIEN
' --- -- -- --ZPWAI ----alaiwam
-
(JK) Master Sian Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicabili
(a) The purpose of the Master Sian Plan (MSP) is to define the scope,
character, and aesthetic quality of signs and sian regulations for an
individual tenant, multi -tenant building, or multi-buildina development;
while allowing an additional degree of flexibility and creativity in sign design
and display.
(b) The MSP review is intended to confirm the proposed sign design or
comprehensive sign plan is consistent with the development context,
architectural character, and the BSD 4Desian Guidelines. MSPs are not
intended to permit larger or more visible signs, and are not intended to
permit a greater number of signs without consideration of the BSD Design
Guidelines.
(c) The MSP allows the PZC the means to evaluate the proposal for its
consistency with 5153.057 through 5153.066, the Community Plan, toe
BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City
plans, and the review criteria, and to consider the proposal within the
context of existing and planned development within the vicinity of the
proiect boundary.
ca IIIc i ici iTiwc a IIIaIIggC019 IeOle9V reaiairement, e,eeeet a MSP—s a e
B. Pigoo5a'io On oc'ces5 of 50,000 Saaa're iccc of aro55 iiggi a'rea',
B. Pigoo5a'io iii'v oivuig iivc as"cre5 of iiioie of gcacigoiiiu is a'rea's of
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a MSP shall be submitted in accordance with the
31
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for MSPs in the BSD4.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the MSP application under the criteria
of division (1)(4) of this section. The Director's recommendation shall be
provided prior to the respective public hearing.
(d) The PZC shall review the MSP application and the recommendation of the
Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (1)(4) for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the
Commission's decision shall be provided.
(d) The applicant may request additional review meetings with the PZC.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the MSP shall
indicate general information, sign design standards, and the area of applicability.
Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable theeatiled
PZC to understand the existing site and design concept for the
proposed MSP. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental
materials as outlined in division (MN)(1) and determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The PZC shall render its feedback on an application for a MSP
based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director.
(a) The MSP is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan,
BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies;
(b) The proposed signs are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive
character that complements the surrounding environment and meets the
intent of the architectural requirements of 5153.062 Building Types;
(c) The proposed signs are not in conflict with public streets, open spaces,
utilities, or rights-of-way, and do not impede the continued provision of
services required by the City or other public agency; and
(d) The MSP responds to the requirements of 5153.063 Neighborhood
Standards, as applicable.nd
caT i i w i ici aaai coacscoi iaiacu wv cvia i a w i ccomil'len a�ieil5-6rinel6 e5 -an
:_tent of all ..eolmeabl ..a,...u........odelunes fee ..mans On the ocn
(1EL) Administrative Approval ACROF
(1) Purpose and Aapplicability.
(a) The Director may authorize an Administrative Approval (AA) nnine�
Fned0foeatmens to an approved develepmert plans FDP; site plans and or
winereetsMP that is are required to correct any undetected errors or
omissions, address conditions discovered during the permitting process or
construction, or that ands necessary to ensure orderly and efficient
development.
(b) Any approved AA FnineF Fnedifieatiens must be consistent with the intent of
the related approved FDP deyelepment plan, site plan or MP FnlneF pFejeet
(c) The Director may also authorize an AA to existing
structures and associated site improvements that are necessary to
32
complete ordinary maintenance, refurbishment or Zoning Code
compliance.
(2) Administrative Approval Defined. The following are considered AA
(a) Adjustments to lot lines,
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots pFevided the
FnRiRtRiRed.
(c) AId�justments €epbWdiegsof up to 10% in total building floor area or floor
plan L
(��fsj e�#Iee�p�Adiustments to building height up to 10% for no more
than 10% of the floorplate of the hiahest occupied floor when necessary
to accommodate building equipment or features required to comply with
building code as it impaets the exteFieF ef the building that de met alteF the
ehaFaeteF ef the use;
(4)Le)—Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan VAt4
„i
(e) f�Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities PFeYided
/
(# q)_Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls);
pFeyided that the same 'eye' and quality ef FnateFials and seFeening aFe
()Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting, pFeyided
RFe „t. „d.
NLiL-Changes in building material or colors that „-„ simil„- `„ and haye the -„„-„
appFeyed FnateFial;
(+)(jL_Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal
departments; and/or
(j)L�L-Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter
the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original
approval.
(3) Review Plprocedure.
(a) An application for an AA FnineF Fnedifieatien shall be made in accordance
with the provisions of divisions (K)(4) and ( JL1L(N*O of this section
(b) The Director shall be the required reviewing body for applications for an
AA.
(c) The Director shall review the request after receiving a complete application
Director's decision shall be provided to the applicant in writina.
33
(d)
application raises complex issues, including that the proposal is of such
magnitude that it has a detrimental effect on the approved development
or there are neighborhood or community -wide effects that may result if the
proposal is approved, that would benefit from a public review and decision
by the PZC.
(e) If denied, or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be given the
opportunity to revise the request in response to the Director's comments
and resubmit for further consideration. Tf a Feyised applieatieR feF
submitted,
the 14 day Feyiew peFiGE1
Leder Requests not meeting the requirements for an AA Fnine
men shall require the filing and approval of a new application for a
FDP, MP or other application Feyiew, site
, as applicable, in accordance with
this section.
(a) Decisions may be appealed to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for an AA provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the
applicable provisions of this code and the approved FDP or MP, and to evaluate
whether the AA should be granted under divisions NO and (K)(5). The
information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Director to understand the
existing site and the AA request for the proposed proiect or a portion thereof. The
applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined
(MN)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The Director shall make his or her decision on an application
for a proposed Administrative Approval (AA) based on all of the following criteria:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots, required setbacks
and/or RBZs are maintained, and the boundaries to any approved
d-••-'-ement elan __ _.:___ ---:i-e`PDP, FDP, or MP are not altered;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots maintain the
perimeter setbacks, yards, buffers, and required parking;
(c) Adjustments for buildings do not alter the character or the use of the
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials shall be of an equal or greater size
than -and quality as the approved materials;
(e) Redesigned and/or relocated stormwater management facilities shall
maintain the approved general character of said facilities and the approved
stormwater capacities;
(f) Relocating fencing, walls, or screening (not including screening walls) shall
maintain the same level and quality of materials and screening;
(g) Modifications to sign location, sign face, and related landscaping and
liahtina, shall maintain the approved general sign design, number of signs,
and dimensional requirements;
34
(h)
shall be of equaler-eta or higher quality as -than the previously approved
material;
(i) Chances in color shall be complimentary to the architectural design and
character of the building;
(j) The modification is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter
of general convenience; and
(k) The requested modification would be better be -addressed through the
modification rather than an amendment to the requirements of this
efChapter.
(L) Other Aapplicable Approvals Feviews.
(1) Open Sspace F#ee in Lieu. After a recommendation from the Director ART in
consultation with the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Planning and Zeno
Gemmossmen shall determine whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu
of open space dedication may be approved, as provided in §-153.064(D) and (E).
(2) Conditional Uuses. The Ceonditional Uese approval procedures in §-153.236
shall apply in the BSD tK districts. The PZC is the required reviewing body for
Conditional Use applications.
A
Feeemmendatmen fFeFn the DmFeeteF ART and the ARB, as applieable, shall be
-ens he Ce -Reil AF the Planning and Zening
(3) Zoning Mmap or Ttext Aamendment. The amendment procedures of §
153.234 shall apply in the BSD 856 districts. In addition, a recommendation from
the Director ART and the shall be submitted for consideration
by the P4am FnFn0ss0enPZC and City Council.
(4) Preliminary and F#final Pylats. Reviews of Ppreliminary and Final Pplats shall
be governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
(5) Special Pyermit. The Sspecial Ppermit procedures in §-153.231(G) shall apply
in the BSD 856 districts.
(6) Zoning Vveriance. The Zoning Vvariance procedures in §-153.231(H) shall
apply in the BSD 8SG districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director
ART shall be submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for
City Council in the instance of a use variance.
(7) Public Ttrree Pyermit. The Ttree Ppermit requirements of §-153.134(G) shall
apply in the BSD $S6 districts. -
35
II i1�yli7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _R�►_� _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _
If �-A!LT!T_L7 R!L1�1!T_�'L1 T!7!1RT1�t�!T_11►LTS'r�
T�77['J1:�
I'77T_ �!1�i7 TLT_1!11►LTSTJ
_
14"eiliillvwimmm_
_
W"
ffill
(MM) General pyrovisions.
(1) Applications.
(a) Each application required by this section shall be made in writing on a form
provided by the Ceity and shall be accompanied by the fee as established
by City Council.
(b) Applications feF appFeyals On the BSG distFiets shall include all information
required by the Ceity, unless seme-`- - -` -- - deemed unnecessary by
the Director based on the nature and scale of the proposed development.
No application shall be accepted and processed by the Ceity until it is
deemed complete by the Director.
If found to be incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any
additional materials required to eeAW `� �,at-sa�complete th_ eemp!_`e the
applications eoe.
(c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required
36
reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to
evaluate the proposal.
(d) Rescc�cAmissieR No application for a FDP d...,..1...... ent plan , site plan
,=erg: ;s that has been denied by the PZC FeqUiFed Feymewong bedy
shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision,
unless permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of
a change of circumstances from the previous application that may
reasonably result in a different decision.
(e) Simultaneeus pFeeessing. The Director may approve the simultaneous
review of applications required by this Chapter and/or a subdivision plat
required by the Code, if the Director determines that simultaneous review
will not adversely impact the achievement of the purpose and intent of this
Chapter. The provisions of 5153.066(F)(2)(b) and(G)(2)(b) govern relative
to the filing of a combined PDP and FDP.
with that deyelepment plan, Of appFeyed by the .
(f) P • lie FeyiewT Where public reviews are required by this Chapter seetien
a written notice of the public meeting shall be sent, not less than ten days
prior to the meeting, to the applicant, property owner, and owners of
parcels of land within 300 feet of the subject parcel(s), as listed on the
County Auditor's current tax list. The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate
the property that is the subject of the request, describe the nature of the
request, the time, date and location of the meeting at which the application
will be considered, and indicate when and where written comments will be
received concerning the request.
(2) Decisions.
(a) Any application required to be reviewed under this section shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing
body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in this section and
other applicable provisions of this ekapteFChapter. The recommending
body and required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their decisions
in the minutes and provide a written record of the decision to theapp4ieant
met FneFe than ten days afteF a Feeemffiendatien eF deeisien is made, unless
(b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body determines that
an application does not meet the applicable review criteria as provided in
this section and other applicable provisions of this ekaptefChapter but
determines that the application could meet those criteria with modifications
that could not be reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that
the decision on the application be postponed to provide the opportunity to
make those modifications.
new Feyiew peFied shall begin en the date the applieant submits a eemple
37
(c) Following the approval of a FDPtwe:: or FRipeF ffejeat MP
applieatien, the applicant may proceed with the process for obtaining a
Ceertificate of Zzoning Pplan Aapproval CZPA and Bbuilding Ppermit (13P),
consistent with the approval as granted. All construction and development
under any BP building peFmit shall comply with the approved FDP and MP
site plan Feyiew and deyelepment plan, and any other approval, as
applicable.
(3) Certificate of Zaoning pylan Aapproval. A ee—Ft•c•,.. to Af;ZAR;R appFGYal
CZPA issued by the Director verifying compliance with all applicable zoning
requirements is required prior to modification, extension, or alteration of sites and
structures, and/or change of use in BSD 8SG distFiets.
(4) Code Aadministration. The Planning and Zening Gem9m9issienPZC and the
"`--` -'P&Omew BeaFd may evaluate and monitor the application of the
requirements and standards of §§-153.057 through §153.066 by the Director ART.
The PZC G,._._.:__men and the hmteetwa' Reymew o,.__., may advise the Director
ART as to whether it finds that the requirements or standards (including requests
for dm ati-e an AA depaFtWes) are being applied correctly, and recommend
to City Council any changes needed in the BSD lK district standards and
requirements to better implement the Community Plan, BFidg_ `tFeet ^'.=`-'.=`BSD
Special Area Plan, and-tke-BSD Design Guidelines, and other related policy and
reaulatory documents adopted by the City.
(a) Where the PFGYisiensef
eity within a stated
this seetien rege;Fe
peFied ef time, that
thata aetieR -be taken by
time may be e4ended with the
Of deemed neeessaFy
by the BiFeeteF.
(56) Duration of Aapprovals.
(a) Because the review of an Informal application is non-binding on the City
and does not result in a decision by the PZC, the comments made during
the Informal application review do not expire. However, if the applicant
makes any material change in the Informal application following the
review, the applicant should not assume that the previous Informal review
comments remain applicable to the revised application.
lbl An approved CP shall be valid for a period of no more than one vear. If
aAn application shall has not been filed for a PDP for at least a portion of
the site within that one --year
38
site plan Feyiew applieatien is met filed within this Aa new CP
application ba&mew shall be required in accordance with the
requirements of doyisien (D) of this seetienthis Chapter.
`b) An approved PDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If
a FDP application for at least a portion of the site has not been filed within
that two-year period, then the PDP shall no longer be valid. A new PDP
application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(d) An approved FDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If
a Building Permit and/or CZPA has not been filed for at least a portion of
the proiect within the two-year period, the FDP shall no longer be valid. A
new FDP application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter. AN
ChD d...,..1....... ent plan, site . laR AD and eeM,all
the appFeyed deyelepment has met been issued will 1 11 1 1 -1
(e) An approved MP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a
Building Permit and CZPA for at least one portion of the site has not been
filed within that two-year period, then the MP shall no longer be valid. A
new MP application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(fe) Abandonment.
1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if
meaningfully the Director of Building Standards
determines that work has been abandoned for a continuous period
of six months, the approval shall lapse and cease to be in effect.
2. The Director of Building Standards shall make the determination of
abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the
following conditions:
a. Removal of construction equipment or supplies;
b. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the Ceity;
C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as
overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken
windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance;
d. Other actions documented by the Director of Building
Standards and/or Director evidencing an intent to abandon
the construction of the project.
3. Once the Director of Building Standards makes a determination of
abandonment, if a new BFidg_ `'`-__` DistF'.=`BSD application is not
submitted within 90 days from the date of the determination, the
owner shall restore the site to its previous condition, and/or remove
any structures or other evidence of work on the site, within 180
days from the date of the determination of abandonment. If the
owner fails to restore the site to its previous condition within 180
days, the Ceity may take any and all actions necessary to restore
the site to its previous condition, including removing any structures
39
or other evidence of work, and the costs of removal shall be
assessed against the property.
(§7) Appeals The 19FGYOSOGRS Gf Q31(F) Shall a19
(76) Architectural Review Board Authority. Until otherwise amended, the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall be the required reviewing body for the
following districts: BSC Historic Core, Historic Residential, Historic South, and
Historic Transition Neiahborhood, as outlined in 5§153.170 through 5153.180 in
the Codified Ordinances. The ARB shall be sole authority for Waivers and Master
Sign Plans in the above noted zoning districts, pursuant to the standards and
criteria in 5-153.066.
(7) Reb�eis, Team 64R;qI
Fespens .. . and timely FnanneF based
eFmteFoa. While these ebjeetiYe standaMs and eFiteFia must guide the
EngineeF FiFe !`hief C,-..,..... ie h...,..1.......ent fin-•,.-geF PaFI.,- and /1....,.
.
/
(97) Single -Family Detached Homes. A sSingle-family detached homes and
additions thereto are not subiect to the submittal of a Cegeey; m;CP, �l GTRRr a Y
and issuance of a GeFt'f"'t" of Zenona Plan n.....-, Yal G24kP4CZPA as provided for
in 5153.233. Any proposed modifications to zoning erevi-i standards of the
Qmn ee-StFeetBSD Code associated with a proposedfef single-family homes and any
additions thereto shall be subiect to review and approval of a Waiver, AA, and/or
AD Feymew by the nd 9mmostFato a T,._ as provided for in this Chapter.
Single-family homes are not subiect to MP provisions of this Chapter.
(Ord. 07-12, passed 3-26-12; Am. Ord. 84-13, passed 11-4-13; Am. Ord. 114- 14, passed 12-8-
14)
40
153.002(B) General Definitions
(2)(m) BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT (BSD). A planned area of the city generally bounded on the
east by Sawmill Road, on the north and west by I-270, and including land within the Architectural
Review District boundaries. and along the north and south sides of SR 161.
(3)(0) CONCEPT PLAN. A plan that generally indicates the overall design of a proposed PUD or
BSD project with sufficient information to enable the applicant and the city to discuss the concept
for the proposed development and to determine if the proposal is generally consistent with the
Community Plan and other applicable plans of the city.
(6)(d) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A detailed plan showing the location of all site improvements,
including easements, utilities, buildings, parking areas, circulation routes, points of ingress and
egress, transportation and other public improvements (both on- and off-site), landscaping,
architectural drawings, loading and unloading zones, service areas, ground signs, directional
signs, location of refuse containers, lighting and accessory structures, and other similar
improvements, and may include a subdivision plat of a proposed PUD or BSD project. Critical
dimensions are shown unless otherwise required.
(16)(z) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. A plan, submitted at the time of rezoning to a PUD
or BSD project, outlining permitted and conditional land uses, development sites, major circulation
patterns, critical natural areas to be preserved, open space areas and linkages, buffer areas,
entryways, and major utilities and their relationship with surrounding uses. For the purposes of
§§ 153.050 through 153.056, a preliminary development plan shall include a composite plan and
any other development plan adopted prior to effective date of these regulations that are still in
force.
153.60 LOTS AND BLOCKS
(B) ) APPLICABILITY
The requirements of this section apply to developments within all BSD zoning districts that require
a Concept Plan in accordance with § 153.066, and for land within all BSD zoning districts proposed
for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 152.
(C) GENERAL BLOCK AND LOT LAYOUT
(2) ) Maximum Block Size
(a) ) Required Subdivision
Unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, all developments requiring a Concept Plan
in accordance with §153.066(E)(1) shall subdivide consistent with the maximum block
sizes as required by Table 153.060-A, Maximum Block Dimensions.
153.61 STREET TYPES
(C) STREET NETWORK
(2) Street Types
1
...Available street type configurations shall be reviewed with the applicant during the
Concept Plan review process, as described in §153.066.
(4) Street Network Map
(a) ...In addition to the Thoroughfare Plan, the Street Network Map shall be used as a guide
in determining the appropriate locations and alignments of new streets during the
Preliminary Development Plan approval process as required in §153.066.
(b) ...Actual street alignments and locations will be determined through the Preliminary
Development Plan review process as individual properties are developed and through the
City's Capital Improvements Program process, as applicable.
(g) ...Actual locations of new alleys and service streets will be determined through the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan review processes.
153.63 NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS
(A)INTENT
... They are not intended to designate the precise locations for approved street types, use
areas, open spaces or other required elements of this Code; actual locations and specific
development requirements will be determined through the Concept Plan, Preliminary
Development Plan, and Final Development Plan reviews as required in §153.066 for individual
neighborhoods.
(C) BSD SAWMILL CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(2) ...Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan review processes.
(5)(d) Gateways
1. ...Gateway designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan, but locations
shall be identified with the Preliminary Development Plan and shall be coordinated with
the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan, but locations
and types shall be identified with the Preliminary Development Plan and shall meet the
following criteria:
D. Open space nodes shall be provided at prominent street intersections as identified
during the Preliminary and Final Development Plan reviews, such as those serving as
entrances to a designated shopping corridor and other gateway locations, with other
appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the corridor as appropriate
to the character of the street.
FIGURE 153.063 A
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Concept Plan,
Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as required in §153.066 for individual
neighborhood areas.
(D) BSD HISTORIC TRANSITION NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
7
(2) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan review processes.
(5)(c) Gateways
1.... Gateway designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan, but locations
shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan and shall be coordinated with
the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. Open space designs shall be approved with the Final Development Plan, but locations
and types shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan application and shall
meet the following criteria:
G. Other open space nodes shall be provided at gateway locations as identified during
the Preliminary and Final Development Plan reviews, such as at prominent street
intersections, with other appropriately scaled open space types integrated along the
corridor as appropriate to the character of the street.
FIGURE 153.063 B
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Concept Plan,
Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as required in §153.066 for individual
neighborhood areas.
(E) BSD INDIAN RUN NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(3) Actual locations of elements depicted on the graphic will be determined through the
Preliminary and Final Development Plan review processes.
(6)(d) Gateways
1.... Gateway designs shall be approved by the required reviewing body, but locations
shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan and shall be coordinated with
the street network.
(7)(d) Open Space Network
2. ...Open space designs shall be approved by the required reviewing body, but locations
and types shall be identified on the Preliminary and Final Development Plan and shall
meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 C
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Concept Plan,
Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as required in §153.066 for individual
neighborhood areas.
(F) BSD SCIOTO RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
(3)(b)
3. For the purposes of measuring block length, the limits of private street sections
designed and constructed to public street standards and defined on the Preliminary
Development Plan shall be used in lieu of right-of-way.
(5)(e) Gateways
2.... Gateway designs shall be approved by on the Final Development Plan, but locations
shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan and shall be coordinated with
the street network.
(6)(d) Open Space Network
2. ...Open space locations shall be approved on the Final Development Plan, but
locations and types shall be identified on the Preliminary Development Plan and shall
meet the following criteria:
FIGURE 153.063 D
NOTE: ... Actual locations and standards will be provided with the approval of the Concept Plan,
Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan as required in §153.066 for individual
neighborhood areas.
153.64 OPEN SPACE TYPES
(D) SUITABILITY OF OPEN SPACE
(1) Per the applicable review process, the PZC or ART shall review all proposed open space
types during the Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan or the Minor
Project, application review processe to determine the suitability of the open space.
153.65 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(B) PARKING AND LOADING
(1)(b)1.C. Where on-site surface parking is provided on a site included as part of a Preliminary
Development Plan, parking may be permitted by the required reviewing body to encroach
required setbacks to facilitate coordinated site design and contiguous parking areas with
future development phases.
(1)(f)(A) Applications for Final Development Plan
(3)(c)(3) Bicycle parking racks, docks or posts provided within the street right-of-way shall be
of a consistent design on all streets .
(D) ) LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
(2)(c) Protected trees, as defined in this Chapter, removed from any portion of a lot consistent
with an approved Preliminary Development Plan, Final Development Plan, or Minor Project
shall be replaced in accordance with §153.146 except as provided by §153.065(D)(9).
(2)(k) A registered landscape architect shall be used to prepare landscape plans required for
applications for a Final Development Plan.
(9)(a)2.C. A tree survey prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted with the tree
preservation plan for all Preliminary and Final Development Plans, and/or Minor Project
applications for lots containing existing trees.
(9)(a)2.D. The tree preservation plan submitted as part of the Preliminary and Final
Development Plans, and/or Minor Project application shall identify all landmark trees and/ or
significant tree stands on the site, including critical root zones to establish the limits of tree
preservation zones, as determined by the required reviewing body.
4
(9)(b)(3) Removal of trees on any portion of a site required to be occupied by a public street
as approved by the City Engineer and the required reviewing body with a Preliminary
Development Plan application;
(9)(b)(4) Removal of trees on any portion of a lot required to be occupied by a structure
pursuant to the standards of §153.062 as approved by the required reviewing body
with applications for Final Development Plan or Minor Project ;
(11) ...Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing body
with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project application and approved only if the
proposed alternative is equal to or better than the aesthetic, environmental, and buffering
functions anticipated with the provisions of §153.065(D).
(E) FENCING, WALLS AND SCREENING
(1)(a)... High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final Development Plan
or Minor Project by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality
installations.
(2)(d)... Requests for alternative landscaping shall be reviewed by the required reviewing
body with the Final Development Plan or Minor Project application and approved only if the
proposed alternative is equal to or better than the intent of the provisions of §153.065(E)(2).
(3)(a)... High quality synthetic materials may be approved with the Final Development Plan
or Minor Project by the required reviewing body with examples of successful, high quality
installations.
(F) EXTERIOR LIGHTING
(8) Lighting plans submitted as part of an applicable Final Development Plan or Minor Project
shall include existing lighting from streets and adjacent buildings developed under these
standards, and proposed lighting generated
from light poles and building lighting.
(G) SIGNS
(2)(e) Master Sign Plans
A Master Sign Plan may be requested in accordance with the provisions of 153.066(K). Master
Sign Plans are required for projects meeting the criteria of 153.066(K)(1)(d).
153.066 REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
(A) Intent, The intent of this section is to provide an efficient and predictable review process
for rezoning and/or development applications within the Bridge Street District (BSD)
zoning districts and to enhance Dublin's reputation for exceptional, carefully considered
design and high quality development consistent with the Vision Principles and direction
articulated in the BSD Special Area Plan in the Community Plan. The review and approval
procedures and criteria help ensure that new development and redevelopment is served
by adequate and efficient infrastructure so as not to burden the fiscal resources of the
City, and to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, occupants, and
users of property in the BSD districts and surrounding areas of the City.
5
(B) Required Approvals.
(1) Summary. This section outlines the requirements and procedures for
development review specifically within the BSD districts. The review procedures of
this section shall be used for all development applications in a BSD district. Table
153.066-A, Summary Procedure Table, describes the review procedures applicable
in all BSD districts.
(2) Abbreviations. The following abbreviations and terms are used in this section:
ART: Administrative Review Team
BZA: Board of Zoning Appeals
CC or Council: City Council
PD or Director: Planning Director
PZC or Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission
TABLE 153.066-A: SUMMARY PROCEDURE TABLE
R = Recommendation D = Decision A = Administrative Appeal RF = Review & Feedback
Type of Application
PD
ART
BZA
PZC
Council
Zoning Code Reference
Zoning Code Approvals
Zoning Map or Text Amendment
R
R
D
§ 153.234
Conditional Use
R
D
§ 153.236/
Special Permit
R
D
§ 153.231(G)
Use Variance
R
R
D
§ 153.231 (H)(3)
Non -Use (Area) Variance
R
D
§ 153.231(H)(2)
IVpprovals
Building Code Appeal
D
§ 153.231(I)
Bridge Street District Applications
Pre -Application
RF
§153.066(C)
Informal
RF
RF
§153.066(D)
Concept Plan
R
D
§153.066(D)
Concept Plan with a Development Agreement
R
R
D
§153.066(D)
Preliminary Development Plan
R
D
§153.066(E)
Final Development Plan
R
D
§153.066(F)
Minor Project
R
D
A
§153.066(G)
Administrative Departure
R
D
A
§153.066(H)
Waivers
R
D
§ 153.066(1)
Master Sign Plan
R
D
§153.065(H)(2)(e)/ §153.066(J)
and (L)(8)
Parking Plans
R
D
§153.066(G)(2)(f)/§153.065(6)
Administrative Approval
D
A
§153.066(K)
Open Space Fee in Lieu
R
D
§153.066(L)(1)/§154.064(D)(E)
Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval
D
§153.233/§153.066(N)(3)
(C) Pre -Application.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Pre -Application submittal is to provide a potential
applicant with a non-binding review of a development proposal and to
provide information on the procedures and policies of the City, including
application review procedures.
(b) Pre -Application reviews do not result in a development decision or permit,
and shall not obligate the City or the developer to take any action on the
proposal.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) A request for a pre -application review shall be made in accordance with
the provisions of division (N)(1) of this section.
(b) Requests shall be submitted to the Director, who shall be responsible for
circulating any submittal material to the applicable departments for input
(c) The Director and staff shall use reasonable efforts to conduct an
expeditious review of the submitted materials and provide non-binding
input and recommendations.
(d) The Director may schedule a meeting with the potential applicant to discuss
the request or may provide a written summary of the staff review.
(e) Additional staff reviews of the pre -application submittal may be requested
by the applicant prior to filing a formal application.
(f) Any and all written summaries of the pre -application review shall be
forwarded to the required reviewing body with a formal.
(D) Informal. Prior to submittal of an application for a Concept Plan (CP), an applicant may
submit an Informal application for review of a development concept with the PZC. Such
submittal shall include a completed application form and supporting material sufficient to
describe the development concept. The review of the informal submittal shall be non-
binding upon the PZC and the applicant, however, it is intended to provide feedback by
the PZC that should inform the preparation and subsequent review of the CP. The Planning
Director shall prepare a brief analysis and comments that will be submitted to the PZC
with the application.
(E) Concept Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Concept Plan (CP) is to provide a general outline of the
scope, character, and nature of the proposed development that is
consistent with the policy direction of the Community Plan and the BSD
Special Area Plan, the requirements of the BSD Code, other related policy
7
and regulatory documents, and the review criteria, and to consider the
proposal within the context of existing and planned development within the
vicinity of the project.
(b) The CP allows the required reviewing body the means to ensure that the
proposed concept is consistent with the following:
1. That the proposed land uses are consistent with Community Plan,
BSD Special Area Plan, and BSD Code;
2. That the proposed block framework and street network are
generally compatible with the adopted plans, lead to the creation
of a walkable, urban place;
3. That the proposed development concept generally fulfills the intent
of the BSD Special Area Plan; and
4. That the proposed development concept has the potential to create
a walkable, urban place.
(c) The CP review provides an opportunity for public input at an early stage of
the development process.
(d) The CP review is intended to provide clear direction to the applicant by the
required reviewing body resulting from its review and approval of the
application.
(e) If the CP is approved by the required reviewing body it shall serve as a
basis for preparation by the applicant of the Preliminary Development Plan
(PDP) for the proposed development.
(f) For projects that will propose a development agreement due to the need
for development timeframe, public infrastructure, public and private
contributions, development restrictions, or other related items, City Council
shall serve as the required reviewing body for the CP. In those cases, the
Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall each review the CP
and provide a recommendation to Council to approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the CP.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) The CP is a mandatory step in the development review and approval
process for the BSD.
(b) An application for a CP shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
divisions (D)(3) and (N)(1) of this Chapter.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the CP in the BSD, unless
a development agreement is proposed in conjunction with a proposed
project, then City Council shall be the required reviewing body for the CP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the CP application under the criteria
of division (D)(4) of this section.
(e) The PZC shall review the CP application, the minutes of the PZC meeting if
an informal review was requested by the applicant, the Director's
recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of division
(D)(4). In the instance the PZC is the required reviewing body, the
Commission will render a decision for approval, approval with conditions,
or denial and written record of the Commission's decision shall be provided.
(f) In the instance of a CP associated with a proposed development
M
agreement, the Commission will make a recommendation of approval,
approval with conditions, or denial to City Council.
(g) City Council shall review the CP application and the recommendations of
PZC and the Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of
division (D)(4) of approval, approval with conditions, or denial.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the CP shall
indicate overall design of the proposed project. Information submitted should be
comprehensive enough to enable the required reviewing body to understand the
existing site and concept for the proposed development, and to evaluate
consistency with the review criteria in division (D)(4). The applicant shall submit
an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and
determined by the Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The required reviewing body shall make its decision on an
application for a CP based on each of the following criteria and may consider the
recommendation of the Director and, if City Council is the required reviewing body,
the recommendation of the PZC. For applications associated with a development
agreement, the PZC shall apply these criteria in the formulation of its
recommendation to City Council.
(a) The CP is consistent with the applicable policy guidance of the Community
Plan, the BSD Special Area Plan, and other applicable City plans, and
citywide administrative and financial policies;
(b) The CP conforms to the applicable requirements of the BSD Code;
(c) The illustrative lots and blocks, supporting street and pedestrian network,
and internal circulation provide a coherent development pattern that
conforms to the requirements of §§153.060 Lots and Blocks, 153.061
Street Types, and 153.065 Site Development Standards, and the
conceptual locations of access points to surrounding streets will avoid
adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(d) The proposed land uses allow for appropriate integration into the
community, consistent with adopted plans, and align with the requirements
of §153.059 Uses;
(e) The conceptual buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a
cohesive development character that complements the surrounding
environment, and conforms to the architectural requirements of §153.062
Building Types;
(f) The conceptual design of open spaces, including location and relationship
to surrounding buildings, provides for meaningful public gathering spaces
that benefit the community both within and outside the proposed
development;
(g) The CP allows for the connection and or expansion of public or private
infrastructure and the continued provision of services required by the City
or other public agency; and
(h) The development concept conforms to the requirements of §153.063
Neighborhood Standards, as applicable.
(F) Preliminary Development Plan.
0
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) is to establish a
framework for the proposed development that is consistent with the
requirements of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Code,
BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted plans, policies, and regulations, and
the review criteria.
(b) The PDP allows the PZC to ensure that the proposed development is
consistent with the following:
1. That the street network and block framework provide a coherent
and rational development pattern;
2. That the proposed street types provide for walkable urbanism;
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the location
and surrounding neighborhood;
4. That the proposed development creates the urban setting
envisioned by the applicable neighborhood standards;
5. That planned open spaces and building types within the
development are integrated in order to complement each other;
6. That the proposed development is consistent with the general
development requirements of the City with respect to such
elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental
considerations; and
7. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of
signature places in the City consistent with the BSD Special Area
Plan through an evaluation of long-term phasing plans, transitional
development conditions, and planned placemaking elements.
(c) The PDP is intended to establish the direction of the proposed development
based on all applicable code requirements and shall refine the approved
CP.
(d) If a PDP is approved by the PZC, such action shall be binding and shall
serve as the basis for submittal of the Final Development Plan (FDP) for
the proposed development or phases thereof.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a PDP may not be submitted prior to the review and
approval of a CP.
(b) The PDP is a mandatory submittal requirement prior to filing a FDP.
However, the PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the
applicant, by motion of the PZC following its approval of the CP, or if
recommended by the Director and agreed by the applicant.
(c) An application for PDP shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (E)(3) and (N)(1) of this section.
(d) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the PDP within the Bridge
Street District.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the PDP application under the criteria of division
(E)(4) of this section.
(f) The PZC shall review the PDP application and the recommendation of the
10
Director and render its decision based on the criteria of division (E)(4) of
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the Commission's decision shall be provided to the applicant.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a PDP shall
provide information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity with the
regulations and that can serve as a basis for the future consideration of a FDP.
Information submitted should be sufficiently detailed to enable the PZC to
understand the existing site and the PDP for the proposed development, and to
evaluate consistency with the review criteria in division (E)(4). The applicant shall
submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and
determined by the Director.
(4)Review Criteria. The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a PDP based
on each of the following criteria:
(a) The PDP shall be consistent with the approved CP, the record established
by the required reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the
Director's recommendation;
(b) The development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area
Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted City plans, and related policies;
(c) The proposed land uses align with all applicable requirements and use
specific standards of §153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and scaled to create a
cohesive development character that complements the surrounding
environment, and conforms to the requirements of §§153.062 Building
Types and 153.065 Site Development Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060
Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards of
§153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of streets, blocks, and
development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map and the conceptual
locations of access points to surrounding streets to avoid adverse impacts
on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic infrastructure;
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for
pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(h) The proposed design of buildings conforms to the BSD Code and is
consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby
development;
(i) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to
conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the
community both within and outside the proposed development, and
conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces;
(j) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate
provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the
City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police
protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational
activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services;
11
(k) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of §153.063
Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(1) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management
systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this
code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by
the City or required by other government entities;
(m) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or
planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the City's most
recently adopted capital improvements program;
(n) If the development is to be implemented in phases, each phase has
adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently without
the need for further phased improvements; and
(o) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards
and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and
streetscapes.
(G) Final Development Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Final Development Plan (FDP) is to confirm compliance
with the PDP, all requirements of the BSD Code, Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted plans,
policies, and regulations, and the review criteria.
(b) The FDP allows the PZC to ensure that the proposed development is
compliant with the following:
1. That the street network and block framework provide a coherent
and rational development pattern;
2. That proposed street types provide for walkable urbanism;
3. That the proposed building types are appropriate to the location
and neighborhood, including assuring that the dimensions of a
parcel meet the lot size requirements for the applicable building
type;
4. That the architecture, building materials and colors, landscaping
and buffering, and site layout create a functional, aesthetically
appealing urban place;
5. That the proposed development creates the urban setting
envisioned by the applicable neighborhood standards;
6. That planned open spaces and building types within the
development are integrated in order to complement each other;
7. That the proposed development is consistent with the general
development requirements of the City with respect to such
elements as infrastructure, transportation, and environmental
considerations; and
8. That the proposed development will contribute to the creation of
signature places in the City consistent with the BSD Special Area
Plan through an evaluation of long-term phasing plans, transitional
development conditions, and planned placemaking elements.
12
(c) The FDP is intended to verify the proposed development, or phases of
development, is in compliance with all applicable code requirements, and
is consistent with the PDP.
(d) All development within the BSD District shall require an approved FDP prior
to applying for site disturbance approval, CZPA, and/or building permits. In
addition, the following development activities shall also require an
approved FDP:
a. When a project involves the design or construction of new streets, or a
proposed realignment or relocation of any street in the general pattern
of street development conceptualized by the BSD Street Network Map
in §153.061 that is required or permitted by the City;
b. When a project requires land subdivision in accordance with Chapter
152; or
c. When a project does not meet the criteria for a Minor Project (MP).
(e) Applications for a FDP shall be reviewed by the PZC, whose approval shall
be binding and shall serve as the regulatory and administrative document
for zoning compliance.
(2) Review Procedures.
(a) An application for a FDP shall be submitted in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (F)(3) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of the applicant,
by motion of the PZC at the time of CP review and approval, or
recommended by the Director.
(c) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for the FDP within the BSD.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the final development plan application
under the criteria of division (F)(4) of this section.
(e) The PZC shall review the FDP application and the recommendation of the
Director and render its decision based on the criteria of division (F)(4) of
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the Commission's decision shall be provided.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that a FDP shall
provide final project information that is sufficient to ensure general conformity to
an approved PDP. In cases where the applicant has been authorized to submit a
combined PDP and FDP, then the submittal shall incorporate the required
information for the PDP and as required below. Information should be sufficiently
detailed to enable the PZC to understand the existing site and the FDP for the
proposed project or a portion thereof, and to evaluate consistency with the review
criteria in division (F)(4). The applicant shall submit an application and
supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by the
Director.
(4) Review Criteria. The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a FDP
based on each of the following criteria:
(a) The FDP shall be substantially similar to the approved PDP, and consistent
with the record established by the required reviewing body, the associated
13
Staff Report, and the Director's recommendation;
(b) The proposed development is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, other adopted City plans, and
citywide administrative and financial policies;
(c) The proposed land uses conform to all applicable requirements and use
specific standards of §153.059 Uses;
(d) The proposed buildings are appropriately sited and conform to the
requirements of §153.062 Building Types and §153.065 Site Development
Standards;
(e) The proposed lots and blocks conform to the requirements of §153.060
Lots and Blocks;
(f) The proposed street types conform to the requirements and standards of
§153.061 Street Types, including the general pattern of streets, blocks, and
development reflected on the BSD Street Network Map, as amended;
(g) The proposed design of the internal circulation system, driveways, and any
connections to the public realm provide for safe and efficient access for
pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and emergency services;
(h) The proposed design, architecture, and materials of buildings is consistent
with the BSD Design Guidelines, while integrating with nearby
development, and avoids overshadowing of existing or proposed
development;
(i) The proposed site design, landscaping, screening, and buffering is
consistent with the BSD Design Guidelines;
(j) The proposed open spaces are appropriately sited and designed to
conserve or enhance natural features as appropriate, enhance the
community, benefit the community both within and outside the proposed
development, and conform to the requirements of §153.064 Open Spaces;
(k) The scale and design of the proposed development allows for the adequate
provision of services currently furnished by or that may be required by the
City or other public agency including, but not limited to, fire and police
protection, public water and sanitary sewage services, recreational
activities, traffic control, waste management, and administrative services;
(1) The proposed development conforms to the requirements of §153.063
Neighborhood Standards, as applicable;
(m) The proposed development provides adequate stormwater management
systems and facilities that comply with the applicable regulations of this
code and any other applicable design criteria or regulations as adopted by
the City or required by other government entities;
(n) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing and/or
planned public or private infrastructure consistent with the City's most
recently adopted capital improvements program;
(o) If the development is proposed to be implemented in phases, each phase
has adequate infrastructure to serve the development independently
without the need for further phased improvements; and
(p) The proposed development demonstrates consistency with the
recommendations, principles, and intent of all applicable design standards
and guidelines, including but not limited to buildings, open spaces, and
streetscapes.
14
(H) Minor Project.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
The purpose of the Minor Project (MP) is to provide an efficient review process for
smaller projects that do not have significant community effects, as defined in
(H)(2)•
(2) Minor Projects Defined. The following projects shall be considered eligible for
review and approval as an MP:
(a) Additions to principal structures that increase the gross floor area by not
more than 25%, or not more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area,
whichever is less, existing as of the effective date of this amendment, or
when first constructed, and associated site development requirements.
(b) Exterior modifications to principal structures involving not more than 25%
of any individual fagade elevation of the structure.
(c) Signs, landscaping, parking, and other site related improvements that do
not involve construction of a new principal building. Parks, when used to
meet requirements as an open space type, as provided in §153.064, shall
require a FDP.
(d) Accessory structures 1,000 gross square feet or smaller and the related
accessory uses.
(e) Modifications to existing structures in accordance with §153.062(6)(2) that
increase the gross floor area by not more than 25%, or not more than
10,000 square feet gross floor area, whichever is less, existing as of the
effective date of this amendment and associated site development
requirements; and
(f) Parking plans when not associated with a PDP or a FDP.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a minor project MP shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (G)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for the MP.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the MP under the criteria of division
(G)(5).
(d) The ART shall review the MP application and the Director's
recommendation, and render its decision based on the criteria of (G)(5) of
this section for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written
record of the ARTs decision shall be provided.
(e) The ART may forward any MP application to the PZC for consideration. In
making such a determination, the ART shall conclude that the application
raises complex issues, including but not limited to, the need for public
infrastructure improvements and/or other neighborhood or community-
wide effects that would benefit from a public review and decision by the
PZC. These applications shall be reviewed against the criteria in (G)(5) of
this section.
(f) If the application is not approved by the ART, the applicant shall be given
15
the opportunity to revise the application in response to the ART's
comments and resubmit for reconsideration.
(g) Decisions of the ART are appealable to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for a MP provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the
applicable provisions of this code. The information should be sufficiently detailed
to enable the required reviewing body to understand the existing site and the MP
request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit
an application and supplemental materials as outlined in division (M)(1) and
determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The Administrative Review Team (ART) shall make its decision
on an application for a MP based on each of the following criteria and the
recommendation of the Director:
(a) The MP shall be consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area
Plan, BSD Code, BSD Design Guidelines, and adopted plans, policies, and
regulations;
(b) In cases where a MP is proposed within or as part of an approved PDP or
FDP, the MP shall be consistent with such approved PDP or FDP;
(c) The MP shall be consistent with the record established by the required
reviewing body, the associated Staff Report, and the Director's
recommendation;
(d) The proposed land uses meet all applicable requirements and use specific
standards of §153.059 Uses; and
(e) The proposed site improvements, landscaping, screening, and buffering
shall meet all applicable requirements of the BSD Code and respond to the
standards of the BSD Design Guidelines.
(H) Administrative Departures.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The intent of the Administrative Departure (AD) is to provide an efficient
process to allow minor deviations from the strict application of the BSD
requirements caused by unusual site or development conditions or
conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require
reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with the intent of this
Chapter.
(b) The AD shall not convey special rights or other approvals that would not
otherwise result from a decision under this code.
(2) Administrative Departure Defined. An AD shall be limited to any modification
of no greater than 10% to a numeric zoning standard related to building
dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage, open space, landscaping, parking,
fencing, walls, screening, or exterior lighting.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for an AD shall be made in accordance with the provisions
16
of divisions (H)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The ART shall be the required reviewing body for administrative
departures.
(c) A request for an AD may be submitted with an application for a PDP, FD,
MP, or at any other time as may be necessary.
(d) A request for an AD may be processed simultaneously with a PDP, FDP, or
MP to which it relates.
(e) The Director shall make a recommendation to the ART for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the AD under the criteria of division
(H)(5).
(f) The ART shall determine whether each requested AD is approved,
approved with conditions, or denied. A written record of the ARTs decision
will be provided. Decisions relative to an approved FDP shall be reported
to the PZC.
(c) Should the ART find that the request does not meet the criteria for an AD,
the applicant may request a Waiver under the provisions of division (I) of
this section or submit a new application for a FDP or MP, as applicable.
(d) Decisions may be appealed to the PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for an AD provides sufficient information to evaluate whether the request should
be granted under divisions (H)(2) and (H)(5). The information should be
sufficiently detailed to enable the required reviewing body to understand the
existing site, proposed AD, and the related PDP, FDP or MP for the proposed
project or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and
supplemental materials as outlined in division (N)(1) and determined by the
Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The ART shall make its decision on the requested AD based on
the following criteria:
(a) The need for the AD is caused by unique site conditions, conditions on
surrounding properties, and/or otherwise complies with the spirit and
intent of the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan, BSD Design
Guidelines, other adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable
requirements within §§153.057 through 153.066;
(b) The AD is not being requested simply to reduce cost or as a matter of
general convenience;
(c) The AD does not have the effect of authorizing any use, sign, building type,
or open space type that is not otherwise permitted in the BSD district; and
(d) The AD, if approved, does not adversely impact the pedestrian experience.
(e) The AD, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or greater
development quality with respect to design, material, and other
development features than without the AD.
(3) Waiver.
17
(1) Purpose and Applicability. Under the provisions of this section, Waivers are a
process to allow deviations from specific code requirements that may only be
granted by the PZC.
(2) Waivers Defined. A Waiver is defined as a request for a deviation from a
requirements of §§ 153.059 through 153.065, which do not otherwise qualify for
an AD under the provisions of division (H) of this section.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a Waiver shall be made in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (I)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for Waivers. In cases where
a Waiver is submitted with a Minor Project (MP), the PZC shall be the
required reviewing body for both the Waiver and the MP.
(c) The Waiver may be submitted with any application for a PDP or FDP.
(d) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the Waiver under the criteria of
division (I)(5). Additional Waivers determined by the Director during
his/her review, may be included for review by the PZC.
(e) The PZC shall review the requested Waiver using the criteria of division (5)
of this section. Should other Waivers be necessary to resolve conflicts with
other requirements of this Chapter resulting from the requested Waiver,
those Waivers shall also be reviewed by PZC.
(f) The PZC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Waiver
request. A written record of the PZC decision will be provided.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for a Waiver provides sufficient information to evaluate whether the Waiver should
be granted under divisions (I)(2) and (I)(5). The information should be sufficiently
detailed to enable the PZC to understand the existing site, proposed PDP, FDP, or
MP as noted in (1)(3)(b), and the related Waiver request for the proposed project
or a portion thereof. The applicant shall submit an application and supplemental
materials as outlined (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The PZC shall make its decision on an application for a
proposed Waiver based on all of the following criteria:
(a) The need for the Waiver is caused by unique site conditions, the use of or
conditions on the property or surrounding properties, or other circumstance
outside the control of the owner/lessee, including easements and rights-
of-way;
(b) The Waiver, if approved, will generally meet the spirit and intent of the
Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan BSD Design Guidelines, other
adopted City plans and policies, and all applicable requirements in
§§153.057 through 153.066;
(c) The Waiver is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter of
general convenience;
(d) The Waiver, if approved, will ensure that the development is of equal or
greater development quality with respect to design, material, and other
18
similar development features than without the Waiver;
(e) The requested Waiver is better addressed through the Waiver rather than
an amendment to the requirements of this Chapter; and
(f) The Waiver does not have the effect of authorizing any use or open space
type that is not otherwise permitted in that BSD district.
(In Master Sign Plan.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The purpose of the Master Sign Plan (MSP) is to define the scope,
character, and aesthetic quality of signs and sign regulations for an
individual tenant, multi -tenant building, or multi -building development;
while allowing an additional degree of flexibility and creativity in sign design
and display.
(b) The MSP review is intended to confirm the proposed sign design or
comprehensive sign plan is consistent with the development context,
architectural character, and the BSD Design Guidelines. MSPs are not
intended to permit larger or more visible signs, and are not intended to
permit a greater number of signs without consideration of the BSD Design
Guidelines.
(c) The MSP allows the PZC the means to evaluate the proposal for its
consistency with §153.057 through §153.066, the Community Plan, BSD
Special Area Plan, BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans,
and the review criteria, and to consider the proposal within the context of
existing and planned development within the vicinity of the project
boundary.
(2) Review Procedure.
(a) An application for a MSP shall be submitted in accordance with the
provisions of divisions (1)(3) and (N)(1) of this Chapter.
(b) The PZC shall be the required reviewing body for MSPs in the BSD.
(c) The Director shall make a recommendation to the PZC for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of the MSP application under the criteria
of division (1)(4) of this section. The Director's recommendation shall be
provided prior to the respective public hearing.
(d) The PZC shall review the MSP application and the recommendation of the
Director, and render its decision based on the criteria of division (1)(4) for
approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A written record of the
Commission's decision shall be provided.
(d) The applicant may request additional review meetings with the PZC.
(3) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that the MSP shall
indicate general information, sign design standards, and the area of applicability.
Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to enable the PZC to
understand the existing site and design concept for the proposed MSP. The
applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined in
division (N)(1) and determined by the Director.
19
(4) Review Criteria. The PZC shall render its feedback on an application for a MSP
based on each of the following criteria and the recommendation of the Director.
(a) The MSP is consistent with the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan,
BSD Design Guidelines, and other adopted City plans and policies;
(b) The proposed signs are appropriately sited and scaled to create a cohesive
character that complements the surrounding environment and meets the
intent of the architectural requirements of §153.062 Building Types;
(c) The proposed signs are not in conflict with public streets, open spaces,
utilities, or rights-of-way, and do not impede the continued provision of
services required by the City or other public agency; and
(d) The MSP responds to the requirements of §153.063 Neighborhood
Standards, as applicable.
(L) Administrative Approval.
(1) Purpose and Applicability.
(a) The Director may authorize an Administrative Approval (AA) to an approved
FDP or MP that is required to correct any undetected errors or omissions,
address conditions discovered during the permitting process or
construction, or that is necessary to ensure orderly and efficient
development.
(b) Any approved AA must be consistent with the intent of the related
approved FDP or MP.
(c) The Director may also authorize an AA to existing structures and associated
site improvements that are necessary to complete ordinary maintenance,
refurbishment or Zoning Code compliance.
(2) Administrative Approval Defined. The following are considered AA's:
(a)
Adjustments to lot lines;
(b)
Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots;
(c)
Adjustments of up to 10% in total building floor area or floor plan;
(d)
Adjustments to building height up to 10% for no more than 10% of the
floorplate of the highest occupied floor when necessary to accommodate
building equipment or features required to comply with building code;
(e)
Substitution of landscaping materials specified in the landscape plan;
(f)
Redesigning and/or relocating stormwater management facilities;
(g)
Relocating fencing, walls or screening (not including screening walls);
(h)
Modifications to sign location, sign face, landscaping and lighting;;
(i)
Changes in building material or color;
(j)
Changes required by outside agencies such as the county, state, or federal
departments; and/or
(k)
Other modifications deemed appropriate by the Director that do not alter
the basic design or any specific conditions imposed as part of the original
approval.
(3) Review Procedure.
(a)
An application for an AA shall be made in accordance with the provisions
of divisions (K)(4) and (N)(1) of this section.
20
(b) The Director shall be the required reviewing body for applications for an
AA.
(c) The Director shall review the request after receiving a complete application
and make a decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an AA
application under the criteria of division (K)(5) of this section. The
Director's decision shall be provided to the applicant in writing.
(d) The Director may forward any AA application to the PZC for consideration.
In making such a determination, the Director shall conclude that the
application raises complex issues, including that the proposal is of such
magnitude that it has a detrimental effect on the approved development
or there are neighborhood or community -wide effects that may result if the
proposal is approved, that would benefit from a public review and decision
by the PZC.
(e) If denied, or approved with conditions, the applicant shall be given the
opportunity to revise the request in response to the Director's comments
and resubmit for further consideration.
(f) Requests not meeting the requirements for an AA shall require the filing
and approval of a new application for a FDP, MP or other application as
applicable, in accordance with this section.
(g) Decisions may be appealed to PZC.
(4) Submittal Requirements. It is the intent of these regulations that an application
for an AA provides sufficient information to ensure general conformity to the
applicable provisions of this code and the approved FDP or MP, and to evaluate
whether the AA should be granted under division (K)(2) and (K)(5). The
information should be sufficiently detailed to enable the Director to understand the
existing site and the AA request for the proposed project or a portion thereof. The
applicant shall submit an application and supplemental materials as outlined (N)(1)
and determined by the Director.
(5) Review Criteria. The Director shall make his or her decision on an application
for a proposed AA based on all of the following criteria:
(a) Adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots, required setbacks
and/or RBZs are maintained, and the boundaries to any approved PDP,
FDP, or MP are not altered;
(b) Adjustments to the location and layout of parking lots maintain the
perimeter setbacks, yards, buffers, and required parking;
(c) Adjustments for buildings do not alter the character or the use of the
originally approved building, building height(s), or floor plans except as
provided for in division (K)(2);
(d) Substitution of landscaping materials shall be of an equal or greater size
and quality as the approved materials;
(e) Redesigned and/or relocated stormwater management facilities shall
maintain the approved general character of said facilities and the approved
stormwater capacities;
(f) Relocating fencing, walls, or screening (not including screening walls) shall
maintain the same level and quality of materials and screening;
(g) Modifications to sign location, sign face, and related landscaping and
21
lighting, shall maintain the approved general sign design, number of signs,
and dimensional requirements;
(h) Changes in building material shall be similar to and have the same general
appearance comparable to previously approved material; such changes
shall be of equal or higher quality than the previously approved material;
(i) Changes in color shall be complimentary to the architectural design and
character of the building;
(j) The modification is not being requested solely to reduce cost or as a matter
of general convenience; and
(k) The requested modification would be better addressed through the
modification rather than an amendment to the requirements of this Chapter
or to the approved FDP or MP.
(L) Other Applicable Approvals.
(1) Open Space Fee in Lieu. After a recommendation from the Director in
consultation with the Director of Parks and Recreation, the PZC shall determine
whether a request for a payment of a fee in lieu of open space dedication may be
approved, as provided in §153.064(D) and (E).
(2) Conditional Uses. The Conditional Use approval procedures in §153.236 shall
apply in the BSD districts. The PZC is the required reviewing body for Conditional
Use applications.
(3) Zoning Map or Text Amendment. The amendment procedures of §153.234
shall apply in the BSD districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director
shall be submitted for consideration by the PZC and City Council.
(4) Preliminary and Final Plats. Reviews of Preliminary and Final Plats shall be
governed by Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances.
(5) Special Permit. The Special Permit procedures in §153.231(G) shall apply in the
BSD districts.
(6) Zoning Variance. The Zoning Variance procedures in §153.231(H) shall apply in
the BSD districts. In addition, a recommendation from the Director shall be
submitted for consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and for City Council
in the instance of a use variance.
(7) Public Tree Permit. The Tree Permit requirements of §153.134(G) shall apply
in the BSD districts.
(M) General Provisions.
(1) Applications.
(a) Each application
provided by the
by City Council.
required by this section shall be made in writing on a form
City and shall be accompanied by the fee as established
22
(b) Applications shall include all information required by the City, unless
deemed unnecessary by the Director based on the nature and scale of the
proposed development. No application shall be accepted and processed by
the City until it is deemed complete by the Director. If found to be
incomplete, the Director shall inform the applicant of any additional
materials required to certify that the application is complete.
(c) After acceptance of a complete application, the Director and/or required
reviewing body may request additional materials if deemed necessary to
evaluate the proposal.
(d) No application for a FDP that has been denied by the PZC shall be
resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of the decision, unless
permitted by the Director after a demonstration by the applicant of a
change of circumstances from the previous application that may reasonably
result in a different decision.
(e) The Director may approve the simultaneous review of applications required
by this Chapter and/or a subdivision plat required by the Code, if the
Director determines that simultaneous review will not adversely impact the
achievement of the purpose and intent of this Chapter. The provisions of
§153.066(F)(2)(b) and (G)(2)(b) govern relative to the filing of a combined
PDP and FDP.
(f) Where public reviews are required by this Chapter, a written notice of the
public meeting shall be sent, not less than ten days prior to the meeting,
to the applicant, property owner, and owners of parcels of land within 300
feet of the subject parcel(s), as listed on the County Auditor's current tax
list. The notice shall, at a minimum, indicate the property that is the subject
of the request, describe the nature of the request, the time, date and
location of the meeting at which the application will be considered, and
indicate when and where written comments will be received concerning the
request.
(2) Decisions.
(a) Any application required to be reviewed under this section shall be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the required reviewing
body based on the applicable review criteria as provided in this section and
other applicable provisions of this Chapter. The recommending body and
required reviewing body shall state the reasons for their decisions in the
minutes and provide a written record of the decision.
(b) Prior to reaching a decision, if the required reviewing body determines that
an application does not meet the applicable review criteria as provided in
this section and other applicable provisions of this Chapter, but determines
that the application could meet those criteria with modifications that could
not be reasonably conditioned, the applicant may request that the decision
on the application be postponed to provide the opportunity to make those
modifications.
(c) Following the approval of a FDP or MP, the applicant may proceed with the
process for obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval (CZPA) and
Building Permit (BP), consistent with the approval as granted. All
construction and development under any BP shall comply with the
23
approved FDP and MP, and any other approval, as applicable.
(3) Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval. A CZPA issued by the Director verifying
compliance with all applicable zoning requirements is required prior to
modification, extension, or alteration of sites and structures, and/or change of use
in BSD.
(4) Code Administration. The PZC may evaluate and monitor the application of the
requirements and standards of §153.057 through §153.066 by the Director. The
PZC may advise the Director as to whether it finds that the requirements or
standards (including requests for an AA) are being applied correctly, and
recommend to City Council any changes needed in the BSD district standards and
requirements to better implement the Community Plan, BSD Special Area Plan,
BSD Design Guidelines, and other related policy and regulatory documents
adopted by the City.
(5) Duration of Approvals.
(a) Because the review of an Informal application is non-binding on the City
and does not result in a decision by the PZC, the comments made during
the Informal application review do not expire. However, if the applicant
makes any material change in the Informal application following the
review, the applicant should not assume that the previous Informal review
comments remain applicable to the revised application.
(b) An approved CP shall be valid for a period of no more than one year. If an
application has not been filed for a PDP for at least a portion of the site
within that one-year period, then the CP shall no longer be valid. A new CP
application shall be required in accordance with the requirements of this
Chapter.
(c) An approved PDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If
a FDP application for at least a portion of the site has not been filed within
that two-year period, then the PDP shall no longer be valid. A new PDP
application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(d) An approved FDP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If
a Building Permit and/or CZPA has not been filed for at least a portion of
the project within the two-year period, the FDP shall no longer be valid. A
new FDP application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(e) An approved MP shall be valid for a period of no more than two years. If a
Building Permit and/or CZPA for at least one portion of the site has not
been filed within that two-year period, then the MP shall no longer be valid.
A new MP application shall be required in accordance with this Chapter.
(f) Abandonment.
1. Once a final approval is granted by the required reviewing body, if
the Director of Building Standards determines that work has been
abandoned for a continuous period of six months, the approval shall
lapse and cease to be in effect.
2. The Director of Building Standards shall make the determination of
abandonment based on the presence of one or more of the
following conditions:
24
a. Removal of construction equipment or supplies;
b. Expiration of an active building permit issued by the City;
C. Evidence of a failure to maintain the property, such as
overgrown weeds, failure to secure buildings, broken
windows, or other evidence of lack of maintenance;
d. Other actions documented by the Director of Building
Standards and/or Director evidencing an intent to abandon
the construction of the project.
Once the Director of Building Standards makes a determination of
abandonment, if a new BSD application is not submitted within 90
days from the date of the determination, the owner shall restore
the site to its previous condition, and/or remove any structures or
other evidence of work on the site, within 180 days from the date
of the determination of abandonment. If the owner fails to restore
the site to its previous condition within 180 days, the City may take
any and all actions necessary to restore the site to its previous
condition, including removing any structures or other evidence of
work, and the costs of removal shall be assessed against the
property.
(6) Architectural Review Board Authority. Until otherwise amended, the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) shall be the required reviewing body for the
following districts: BSC Historic Core, Historic Residential, Historic South, and
Historic Transition Neighborhood, as outlined in §153.170 through §153.180 in the
Codified Ordinances. The ARB shall be sole authority for Waivers and Master Sign
Plans in the above noted zoning districts, pursuant to the standards and criteria in
§153.066.
(7) Single -Family Detached Home. A single-family detached home and additions
thereto are not subject to the submittal of a CP, PDP, nor FDP. A single-family
home and additions there to shall submit a Building Permit as required by code
and issuance of a CZPA as provided for in §153.233. Any proposed modifications
to zoning standards of the BSD Code associated with a proposed single-family
home and any additions thereto shall be subject to review and approval of a
Waiver, AA, and/or AD provided for in this Chapter. A single-family home is not
subject to MP provisions of this Chapter.
(Ord. 07-12, passed 3-26-12; Am. Ord. 84-13, passed 11-4-13; Am. Ord. 114- 14, passed 12-8-
14)
25
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, February 4, 2019 — 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Minutes of Meeting
Mr. Reiner, Chair called the meeting to order.
Committee members present: Mr. Reiner, Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, Ms. De Rosa
Staff members present: Ms. Goss, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Husak.
Other Council member present: Jane Fox
Consultant present: Don Elliott, Clarion Associates
Approval of Minutes of 10-31-18 meeting
Ms. De Rosa moved approval of the minutes.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
Review of Proposed Amendment to the Bridge Street District Review and
Approval Process (Section 153.066)
Mr. Papsidero noted that Don Elliott of Clarion Associates is present this evening. He has been
assisting with this process, and a stakeholder meeting is scheduled tomorrow for this major
Code update and the guidelines.
Tonight, he will present an overview of the proposal before Council. It focuses on the
administrative chapter of the Bridge Street Code. There have been numerous meetings on this
with Council, Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. They are looking to
have the proposed amendments to the Code adopted in the near term.
The goals of this project were to simplify the Bridge Street review and approval process without
compromising City standards; and create some consistency among submittal requirements,
specifically ways to have consistency with the PUD district. The methodology was to learn
from seven years of administering the Code. Mr. Elliott spent a good deal of time interviewing
stakeholders and connecting his own independent analysis. There was a key stakeholder
committee (comprised of users of the Code) who they worked with earlier in the process, and
there has been some public review with the development community in the process. Now, the
hope is to move toward adoption.
Background
The consultant team consists of Don Elliott of Clarion; Leslie Oberholzer of Codametrics who
helped specifically with the Historic District a year ago; and Landplan Studio who did some
analysis and graphic design.
The process piece has been drafted and there have been two Council work sessions and three
joint work sessions of PZC and ARB for review. On October 11, 2018, PZC recommended
approval of the proposed amendments.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if all of the PZC changes have been incorporated in the
redlined version provided to the Committee.
Mr. Papsidero responded affirmatively. The key provisions relates to the Informal and codifying
that process.
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 2 of 17
In a June 2018 Council work session, staff shared a timeline for the process that they had
hoped would be completed by the end of 2018. Staff was ready to present this proposed
amendment to Council in November of 2018, but the City Manager directed staff to have this
reviewed by CDC prior to sending it to the full Council. They are looking forward to input from
the Committee tonight so that this project can move forward in the near term.
Findings
Mr. Papsidero stated that the findings to date are the review process is too lengthy; too much
detail is required too early in the process; and there are too few administrative approvals. The
recommendations are to shorten the process without compromising standards and outcomes,
while ensuring appropriate flexibility for applicants; to adjust submittal requirements
accordingly; and make no changes to administrative approvals.
Recommendations for Process Changes
The proposal for process changes are divided into two pieces: one process when there is a
development agreement, and one where there is not a development agreement.
Without Development Agreement
Currently, when there is no development agreement, Planning staff conducts its analysis and
makes recommendation; the Administrative Review Team meets and makes a recommendation,
which often requires two or three meetings; and then the proposal is reviewed by Planning
Commission. The submittal requirements are Basic Plan, Development Plan and Site Plan.
The proposal is to eliminate ART's role in providing a recommendation. Planning staff would
provide a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission, who would approve the individual
pieces.
With Development Agreement
When there is a development agreement involved, under the current Code the required
reviewing body must be identified. The process involves Planning staff making a
recommendation, Planning Commission making a recommendation, ART making a
recommendation and Council taking the final action. The proposal is to eliminate the ART
review and have Council just reviewing the concept plan. Currently, if Council chooses, it can be
the designated required reviewing body for all the steps. What is being suggested is Council be
the reviewing body for the concept plan.
At the last work session, discussion took place about what material should accompany a
development agreement. There was some conversation that enough was needed to define the
project, but not more than that. After more consideration, staffs recommendation is that the
action for a development agreement should still be part of the zoning process. Therefore, what
makes the most sense is to have this review be the Concept Plan. Staff is seeking direction from
the Committee about whether that seems adequate. This would still provide a lot of information
at the conceptual level and would be an important piece of the process. It is important as it
would give Planning Commission clear direction from Council in terms of how to deal with the
preliminary development plan and, eventually, the final development plan.
For the most part, then, Planning Commission becomes the required reviewing body; ART no
longer provides a recommendation; and the informal review is added as a codified step. The
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 3 of 17
informal review is optional — the applicant can request that. Staff will encourage it, depending
on the type of project being proposed. Waivers can only be approved by the Planning
Commission as is currently provided. There are no other major administrative changes in that
part of the process.
Minor Projects
Mr. Papsidero stated that the Code allows for Minor Projects — small projects that do not have
significant community impacts. There is a list of eligible items in the current Code and that list is
proposed to be significantly reduced. Items such as single-family homes, multi -family (four unit
buildings), and a lot of new construction that the ART could review have been eliminated from
the Minor Project list. The list has been reduced to, principally, expansions to existing structures
that are limited and in a smaller scale; and small accessory structures. Those would continue to
go to the ART, which would help to expedite minor projects. There is in the Code a kick -up
provision, where if ART finds that there are impacts — even if the project falls into these two
categories — the ART can and would kick up the project to Planning Commission. An example
would be a small addition to Bob Evans to accommodate their paper goods, which would not be
a good use of Planning Commission's time. This would be handled by ART.
Administrative Departures
The other approval step is Administrative Departures, which are minor deviations of Code that
can exceed 10 percent — such as building dimensions, lot dimensions, lot coverage, open space,
landscaping, etc. The basis to approve these has to be that it is unusual site or development
conditions or conditions unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that require
reasonable adjustments, but must remain consistent with the intent of this chapter. Staff is not
suggesting any changes to this. Code currently allows administrative departures to be approved
by ART, with a kick -up provision that if it does not meet that 10 percent, it becomes a waiver.
A common example is transparency, where the Code requires the fagade to be 60 percent
transparent, yet the proposed development has 58 percent.
Master Sign Plan
While the Code allows Master Sign plans, it was very minimal in terms of guidance. This
guidance has been expanded, as staff believed that Planning Commission, in particular, was
seeking more guidance. Staff built upon existing Code provisions, but provides clear review
criteria that ties back to the intent of the Bridge Street District. These continue to be
approvable only by Planning Commission.
Administrative Approvals
These were formerly called "Minor Modifications." These are extremely limited in scope and can
be approved by the Planning Director. These tend to be items that need to be addressed during
construction because of undetected errors or omissions, conditions discovered during permitting
or construction, more than anything else. Staff is not suggesting any changes because of the
minor nature of these approvals that occur during the construction process. Examples might be
switching out materials on site. The Code requires that any change of building material must be
equal than or better than what was approved. Staff has been strict in this interpretation, and
has kicked up a proposal to the Planning Commission when warranted.
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 4 of 17
General Provisions
For the appeals process, the current Code provides that appeals of a final development plan go
directly to City Council. Staff is suggesting returning to the standard process that applies in all
other zoning districts — that an appeal goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals for purposes of
consistency.
Section 7, Architectural Review Board was added as a stop -gap regulation to handle
applications in the interim until the new Code for the ARB and Historic District is adopted. At
that time, Section 7 will be deleted. All of the ARB references are removed in other portions of
this Chapter, but this is needed in the interim.
In response to a question regarding timeframes, Mr. Papsidero stated that this work is expected
to be completed by year end.
Regarding Single -Family Detached Homes, under the current Code, if someone wants to build a
house, it is treated as a Minor Project and goes through ART. Staff is suggesting that single-
family detached homes are not treated as a Minor Project and can go straight to permitting,
which would include a zoning review relative to this Code and the City's appearance standards
for single-family residential. There have not been any single-family homes proposed in the BSD,
but there is a potential project from M/I Homes that is all single-family and could be triggered
by this provision.
Ms. De Rosa stated that staff does not therefore mean a single owner — they mean single-family
homes in general. Could this M/I project referenced be a proposed development for single-
family homes?
Mr. Papsidero responded it could not be a development. M/I Homes could seek zoning for a
development of homes and each single-family home would be permitted. The current Code calls
for each of those individual homes to be reviewed by ART.
Ms. De Rosa stated that clarity on this point is important -- whether this is a specialty home
builder constructing a single-family home or a large developer proposing a housing
development. A housing development should be subject to a larger set of reviews. This was
not clear in the language and should be tweaked.
Mr. Papsidero responded that the intent was that a development — whether single-family or a
large builder/developer — would have to go through a review process — not by ART.
Mr. Reiner stated that the City does not have high architectural standards for single-family
housing in the current Code.
Mr. Papsidero responded that the Appearance Code applies citywide, and in the Design
Guidelines for the BSD, there is language speaking to single-family home exterior materials,
roofs, etc. A review process has not been established, however.
Mr. Reiner stated that he raises this issue, as a large developer a few years ago proposed a
development in Muirfield; however, the Muirfield architectural design review group indicated the
housing proposed was very substandard architecturally. After three years, the developer sold
the land to a higher quality home builder, due to frustration with the Muirfield Association
approval process. The question is should an architecture review board be established for single-
family homes; should we retain an architect to review these? What can be done to assure the
City that the outcome is a high quality development? Dublin's Code is weak and allows for less
than desirable finishes and architecture. His concern is that minimal standards exist currently,
and how can the City have better quality architecture and finishes in single-family homes going
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 5 of 17
forward? He cited examples of recent housing developments built in the City and their quality
levels.
Mr. Papsidero stated that using the M/I proposal as an example that came through for zoning, it
would have a concept plan, preliminary development plan and final development plan approved
by Planning Commission, and standards would be included to be met by the individual homes.
That provides a guarantee of quality as part of that action.
Ms. De Rosa clarified that this is only for one single-family where a lot is purchased and the
existing house demolished to construct a new home.
Mr. Papsidero responded the process would apply to any single-family home, whether it is in a
development or a single lot. Even with the M/I example, the zoning would have standards
established as part of the development plan. When the builder came through for building
permit, the standards would have to be met as part of the permit and zoning process.
Ms. De Rosa stated that this does not address Mr. Reiner's concerns.
Mr. Reiner stated that the standards to be met would be the City's.
Mr. Papsidero responded that an approved development plan would have the standards in it as
desired by Planning Commission. Maybe the larger concern is the individual single-family home
— perhaps an empty lot at Indian Run for example, where someone wants to build a house.
There is no design review for those unless something new is created. ART was intended to play
that role, originally, and could still do so. The other option would be to have that proposed
home reviewed at Planning Commission or create some other body to do the review. There is
nothing else currently that exists.
Ms. Husak added that the Historic Guidelines will have a single-family detached housing type
that has those criteria.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the regulations can be as tight as desired, but from a process
standpoint, a zoning review would be needed at the staff level as part of the building permit
review to ensure that the established standards and guidelines were met.
Mr. Reiner stated that his issue is that the City's standards are low, and if a developer is
meeting Dublin's standards, this is the result. Muirfield has its own architectural design review
board, which has higher standards and therefore results in a better product.
Mr. Elliott asked for clarification about this discussion. If it is an individual house on an
individual lot — not subject to concept plan and final development plan review in the BSD, then
the fallback is the appearance standards. Mr. Reiner has indicated that he believes those are
not adequate. This Code change is not intended to address that. In this case, the issue is that
the development would be taken through concept, preliminary and final plan review. At that
point, negotiating would take place regarding the quality standards to apply to all the houses in
this development. That is part of the zoning approval. Everyone who does this must
demonstrate it complies with the plan. It is not a PUD, but must comply with the Code and the
Design Guidelines. For example, for an eight -house development of single-family homes, the
developer/builder is subject to an approved final development plan that sets the quality
standards that are established in the design standards and guidelines. Based on Mr. Reiner's
comments, the design standards and guidelines will be higher than the current ones. The draft
Code design standards and guidelines are significantly higher than what exists in the
appearance code. The eight -house development would be approved, based on its consistency
with the standards and guidelines applicable in the Bridge Street Corridor. Once this approval is
obtained, the developer seeks builders. Must the builders do a concept plan or preliminary plan
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 6 of 17
for each house? The answer is "no" — the building permit staff and Planning staff review it to
make certain it meets the higher standards approved for this eight -lot development.
Mr. Reiner stated he understands this, but the appearance code standards are low.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if it makes sense to draft a new Appearance Code for the
District
Mr. Reiner suggested a new Appearance Code for the entire City.
Mr. Elliott stated that the Appearance Code serves as a backstop for development without
negotiated approval standards.
Ms. Husak noted that the single-family detached housing type and its requirements is not being
eliminated from the Guidelines.
Ms. De Rosa asked what the intention is then. This language is not clear.
Mr. Elliott responded that the language is intended to state that once the quality standards and
layout are approved for the multi -house single-family development, one does not need to go
through the process again to pull a building permit for an individual house. That is the intent.
Ms. De Rosa stated that makes sense to her.
Mr. Papsidero clarified that there are two components being discussed. One is specific to
Bridge Street and the Design Guidelines that speak to development standards. Those can be
reviewed to ensure they are satisfactory. The other issue is with the remainder of the City and
the residential Appearance standards, which are not to Mr. Reiner's satisfaction and need to be
reviewed. Finally, there are individual development standards set through text that cannot be
changed.
Ms. De Rosa stated that for this Bridge Street District, for single-family homes, there should be
some upgraded criteria — that is what she understands from the discussion.
Mr. Elliott responded that is the discussion that will begin tomorrow with the stakeholder group.
Work continues on this draft and determining what is fixed in stone and what is negotiable to
create a variety and allow creative development. The standards will be significantly above the
existing residential appearance standards.
Mr. Reiner stated that a good example of this is the City zoned an 18 -lot subdivision. A builder
purchases it and proposes two -car garages for all houses. Even though this involved a national
corporation, there were no architects on the corporate staff. A new owner comes along and has
an architect and hires more, and they decide to have three -car garages, which will make them
much higher in value. The surrounding neighborhoods did not object, so the problem was
resolved.
Submittal Reguirements
Mr. Papsidero noted that the findings were there were too many submittal requirements, too
much detail required too early in the process, and too much variation among the different
processes throughout the City, i.e. Bridge Street District (BSD) vs. Planned Unit Development
(PUD) vs. West Innovation District (WID).
The goal is to provide consistency among other districts; simplify the submittal process without
compromising standards and outcomes, while ensuring appropriate flexibility; and establish a
framework for updating processes in the WID and Metro -Blazer District to ensure consistency
within business districts.
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 7 of 17
The current BSD Code provides for a Basic Plan, Development Plan and Site Plan. What is
proposed is to mirror what is in the PUD with a concept plan, preliminary development plan and
final development plan. The informal review has been added as a codified step. The
preliminary and final development plans can be combined at the request of the applicant, at the
direction of the Commission or based on the recommendation of the Planning Director. The
Planning Commission supported the concept of flexibility for smaller, less complicated projects.
But with a typical Bridge Street District project, this will not happen as the project would be too
complex.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if this should be codified — perhaps a trigger included if a
project is over 40,000 square feet, etc.
Mr. Papsidero responded it was debated, but no conclusion was reached. Originally, there were
some suggestions for such trigger language, but the language was removed.
Mr. Elliott noted that most Codes leave this to the discretion of whether it blends or not.
Planning staff will know which ones to combine and which ones are not okay to combine.
Basically, if they are combined and do not get approval, the process must begin again. It is
difficult to define objectively which ones could and could not be combined. Much of Bridge
Street is being built now, but over time, there will be redevelopment that will involve
redeveloping a portion of a project or a small portion of it. It is desirable to have the discretion
to combine them for redevelopment at a later date.
Mr. Reiner asked if Mr. Elliott has viewed all of the progress made on the Bridge Street District.
Mr. Elliott responded he was in Dublin six months ago, and he has observed all of the progress.
Mr. Papsidero commented that Mr. Elliott was brought back on this Code update based on his
history with the Code, and because he has national expertise in this field.
Mr. Elliott reiterated that it is difficult to codify exactly when the City should allow applicants to
combine preliminary and final plans. It does not tend to go wrong, because if too much is
attempted in one step, there is a significant financial risk to the applicant if it is wrong, as the
work will have to be done again. It tends to occur when the developer and the Director
collectively agree that it is very unlikely the plan will not be adopted.
Ms. De Rosa stated -- using Bridge Park as an example --almost everything in Bridge Park is of
a fairly large scale. In thinking about redevelopment there, it would be a substantial unit within
that. It is also part of a development agreement that spans 30 years. If the intent is to make
this easier on the developer by combining projects, it may be best to have a concept plan
review. Anything being redeveloped in Bridge Park is going to have an impact, given the sheer
size of the Bridge Park development.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that with everyone at the table and all having the context
of the conversations, those decisions are easy. But with changes on Council in the future, how
is this information shared with those who follow? She recalls many times at the Planning
Commission where two plans were combined — not necessarily in Bridge Street District — and it
becomes a little overwhelming. While reviewing and discussing the preliminary development
plan items and then going directly to the final, there is no opportunity for the applicant to
return to address items identified in the preliminary plan prior to the hearing on the final
development plan.
Mr. Elliott stated that if the Committee desires that objective standards be included in that
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 8 of 17
provision, it can be done
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that perhaps some intent language should be added -- not
necessarily specifying square footage measurements, but the intent.
Mr. Papsidero stated that an example for him would be a lot on SR161. There are two existing
ranch homes and some vacant lots in that area. For the lot near Lowe's, which has a storm
detention pond on it and restrictions, there has been discussion with some developers regarding
a Panera or City Egg restaurant use. If there are no access issues or stormwater issues that are
problematic, perhaps these examples could qualify for a combined submittal. That would be the
largest development application that staff would recommend for such a combined process in
the Bridge Street District.
Ms. De Rosa stated that there are therefore some parameters established for this process.
Mr. Elliott stated that this category of Minor Projects in this Code review has become really
small. If there were a 1,100 square foot accessory building, it would not be a Minor Project. He
believes there are many 1,100 square feet accessory buildings where the City would not want
them to do a preliminary and final development plan.
Mr. Reiner stated the applicant would not want to do this anyway, due to the expense that
could occur.
Mr. Elliott noted that it is hard to envision all of the items that come in over time, yet the trend
clearly is to have parameters within which the professional staff can make that call about a
combined process.
Discussion Points
Mr. Papsidero asked if staff has sufficiently simplified the process with the proposal. Is the
Committee comfortable with the idea of the concept plan as the key submittal tied to a
development agreement? Is the Committee comfortable with the submittal requirements as
outlined tonight? In regard to the appeals process, is staffs recommendation appropriate? Are
there any other questions the Committee might have or any concerns not addressed?
Ms. De Rosa asked about the concept plan under the submittal requirements on page 7. To
her, it was vague in terms of what is to be included.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that sometimes with a concept plan there is too much
information for some items and not adequate information for other items. In her experience in
reviewing concept plans, drive cuts are not included, and those are really important. She would
forgo a lot of items in lieu of receiving drive cut information in a concept plan. For the review
of the recent hotel across from the parking garage in Bridge Park, the circulation on the hotel
was not acceptable. If Council had known where the drive aisles were to be located, this would
have impacted the outcome. It is important to consider what the content of a concept plan
should be, and it may need to be adjusted. The circulation and navigation on the site is a
critical piece of information.
Ms. De Rosa stated that the language in submittal requirements indicates, "It is the intent of
these regulations that the Concept Plan shall indicate overall design of the proposed project."
This is a very broad statement. "Information submitted should be comprehensive enough to
enable the reviewing body to understand the existing site and concept for the proposed
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 9 of 17
development." This is followed by review criteria. The language does not speak to density or a
number of other items. It might be helpful to the Commission and to Council to have in a grid
form the list of what will come back in a Concept Plan, and add a few of these items not
mentioned. This is the opportunity to do so. Often, Council or the Commission asks questions
and they are told that the information would come later. She is not certain the feedback
provided to an applicant is clear enough, based on the information submitted. Having some
clarity around the Concept Plan would be very helpful.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes added that a checklist of what makes a good Concept Plan
submittal would be helpful — circulation, density, overall building height, etc. A footprint of the
building is not necessary required, although that is often what is submitted.
Mr. Papsidero summarized the placement of the building and setbacks would be provided. The
review criteria are intended to speak to what should be submitted so that a decision can be
made, based on that criteria. The other piece missing and not included in this is that there is a
very detailed checklist for the applications. It is purposely not codified so that there is flexibility
to change those as needed or as the Commission might direct. Staff can provide those
checklists to the Committee so that they have that perspective as well.
Ms. De Rosa stated that she believes the checklist should include the types of things discussed.
If there are items that are specifically desired, they need to be added to the checklist. This will
help everyone. Later in the process, whatever decisions are made become binding. She
struggled somewhat with that language.
Mr. Elliott noted that staff has a checklist. It currently indicates that enough data must be
shown to know what the lot and block layout is, the size and scale of the building, the location
of the open spaces, the infrastructure and the neighborhood standards. Appropriately sized
and scaled, it can be fleshed out to do that. The integration of the neighborhood can include
points of access and curb cuts. They are checking that. The question is how to reflect that in
the Code without making the Code the checklist.
Ms. De Rosa stated that this is the list that would come to Council and to the Planning
Commission, so it must have enough definition. If this will be the evaluation criteria for which
discussions will take place, there has to be enough definition in order to have these discussions.
Mr. Elliott suggested this be done by making the language in the review criteria or the submittal
requirements crisper as to the level of the showing required, but avoid putting the checklist in.
The bottom line around the country is — and it is a hard line to hold — that the intent of a
Concept Plan is one should not have had to hire an engineer, architect or designer in order to
have this conversation. Good developers will have hired these services, because they would
have instructed them to do certain portions appropriate for a Concept Plan. But the number one
complaint of builders/developers is that they must hire architects, engineers and stormwater
engineers on a speculative basis before knowing whether or not a layout is even acceptable. He
encouraged the Committee to modify the language to make it crisper, but not to make the
requirements such that an architect, engineer must be retained before knowing if a Concept
Plan is acceptable.
Ms. De Rosa stated that defining what the Concept Plan is a new thing. She tried to compare
this to the Basic Plan review and was left with the same questions that sometimes occur at an
informal review. She wants to make sure that, given all of this effort, the process will be
improved where it is lacking.
Mr. Elliott stated that the proposal has four steps. An applicant can request an extra informal
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 10 of 17
review to obtain a sense of whether a proposal is something that would even be considered.
Secondly, the applicant can do a Concept Plan without significant investment. There would still
be two opportunities to work out the details with the preliminary and final development plans.
All of this is in response to complaints that the process is too complicated and requires too
much investment before knowing if it is acceptable and so there are two steps available prior to
making significant investment.
Ms. De Rosa noted that for projects that have a development agreement, all that Council will
review is the Concept Plan. She is not opposed to the process, but wants to make sure that
those items that are fundamental to the approval should be outlined to provide clarity. Absent
this clarity, there will likely be problems at the Concept Plan review.
Mr. Elliott stated that what she is saying is that if the process is not tightened up as suggested
so that enough information is available at the Concept Plan to make Council comfortable, then
there will be pushback to go beyond the Concept Plan and bring additional information to
Council. Is that accurate?
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated as an example that the Basic Plan was reviewed by
Council for the Springhill Suites hotel application in Bridge Park. There were many issues raised
at that point.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the issues were, for the most part, addressed so that staff was
comfortable moving forward to PZC with it.
Ms. Husak added that the PZC is the required reviewing body for this item.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes recalled this was a difficult process in terms of the information
Council received, and now the Basic Plan will become the Concept Plan going forward. The
information at the Basic Plan for this application was minimal to obtain the approval needed.
Mr. Elliott commented that as this Code is fleshed out, the Committee should consider the
issues that arose during that Basic Plan review process — items for which more detail is needed.
Ms. De Rosa stated she appreciated that several times, the question is posed whether the
Concept Plan is in agreement with the Community Plan or Area Plans. The question that arose
for her is how often are the Community/Area Plans updated, and what are the rules for that?
The Community Plan can become outdated quickly, given the rate of change. Her question is if
the Plan update is part of this process, or is that a policy decision?
Mr. Papsidero responded that the reference is specific to the 2010 Vision Plan that Council
adopted for the Bridge Street District. That is the policy document underlying all of Bridge
Street. The questions for Council are whether they believe it is appropriate now or at some
point in the future to update that BSD Vision Plan. It has existed for nine years, and the first
phase plus some smaller projects have now been built in the BSD. What does Council believe is
appropriate for the balance of this 1,000 acres moving forward? Is it the same vision or
something different?
Ms. De Rosa noted that community input is also needed, as the BSD went from conceptual to
reality in a very short time. Now may be the time to revisit this Vision Plan, based upon what
has been built.
Mr. Papsidero clarified it is not part of this process, but a separate item. He believes Council
would need to provide direction to staff regarding when they would desire an update to be
done. This is a big undertaking and involves some significant stakeholders, including the
Stavroffs, OCLC, and the Schools.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes suggested that when this Code update is completed, which has
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 11 of 17
been underway since 2016, that issue can be taken up.
Ms. De Rosa indicated she is not suggesting that, but the question came to mind.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that direction regarding updating of the Vision Plan would
likely come from Council at the conclusion of this Code update process. Council would want to
take a look at the Vision Plan and make sure it is in alignment.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes added that she appreciates the fact that ART will no longer be
providing recommendations. People want to please, at the end of the day, and it is difficult for
Council not to support a recommendation that comes from ART. She always tries to read the
materials prior to reviewing the ART recommendation, and then see if her conclusion aligns with
that of the staff. It is important to have independent, critical thinking in all parts of the process.
In regard to the ten percent Administrative Departure number, this could be a very large
number given the size of a building in Bridge Park. Perhaps the Administrative Departure should
have a cap. She supported the language of 10 percent or 10,000SF — whichever is less — that
was part of a recent application. That seems a good way to frame this, and perhaps similar
thinking could be applied for Administrative Departures.
Ms. Husak stated that F1 had three Administrative Departures and 17 waivers.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that she is not suggesting any already approved have
not been appropriate; she is only suggesting that a cap be considered going forward.
Mr. Elliott responded that the value would not be compromised if a cap is included. The key is
in the criteria. An administrative departure must be caused by unique site conditions or
conditions on surrounding properties. There is nothing that would allow an applicant to request
10,000SF more or 10 percent higher because of a unique site condition. This relates to the
shape, the terrain, the way the site relates to its neighboring properties as the justifying
reasons for an administrative departure.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the terrain on this site is unusual. Secondly, she
wants the Code written with an eye toward future development.
Mr. Elliott stated that many people are uncomfortable with the administrative departure
concept. If a lower number is desired or a cap is desired, that is not a problem. The important
issue is that there is a reason unique to the site to defend such a departure.
Ms. De Rosa noted the reasons for Administrative Departures are well articulated, and that the
threshold must be met.
Mr. Papsidero commented that the justification is very narrowly defined.
Mr. Elliott stated that it is interesting that these have been increasingly incorporated in zoning
ordinances, over the 25 plus years of his experience. He has not observed anyone repealing
them. It does rely upon the professionalism of the staff to work.
Mr. Papsidero asked if the principal concern is with building volume — allowing a larger space.
Many of these things relate to walls, screening, lighting, and fencing -- something that would
inadvertently allow something larger to be constructed.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded not necessarily. She believes fencing can change the
architecture of a building. Ten percent can be a lot, and can change the entire character of a
building.
Mr. Papsidero stated he does not object to a cap, but wants to talk this through.
Mr. Elliott added that for size and height, a number can be included. Otherwise, review criteria
relating to its appearance and its relationship to the street and surrounding properties could be
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 12 of 17
added.
Mr. Papsidero stated there could be a kick -up provision to Planning Commission.
Ms. De Rosa brought up the topic of notification to the community when a change will be made.
The language in the Code reflects a 300 -foot rule. She reviewed the Charter in regard to zoning
public hearing notices, and it indicates the Clerk shall mail written notice of the public hearing
to the owners of property contiguous to and directly across the street from the affected parcels.
This is tighter than the 300 -foot requirement. She often hears from residents that they are not
aware of proposed changes. In today's electronic communication world, if changes are being
made, 300 feet is not adequate.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that could be more of a policy decision about what the
City shares through social media.
Ms. De Rosa stated that she hears from residents who are affected by a change, yet they are
not likely within the 300 feet specified. This should be addressed, as it is an easy item to fix.
We can communicate and share in a better way, given all the tools available. Having upset
residents who are not aware of changes will impact the process, and it would be wise to
address this and give them the opportunity to speak early in the process.
Mr. Elliott suggested it is a citywide notification policy that should be revisited, if Council
believes it is not adequate currently. His recommendation is not to have different notification
devices for different Districts of the City, as it is confusing. Three -hundred feet is a very
standard, common distance for this notification requirement. What should be avoided is a
requirement to do a lot of mailings to a very broad area. Most cities keep the mailing
requirement at 300 feet or adjacent/abutting properties. This is seldom codified as it relates to
City administration. The policy could be that notifications will be done through the web or
through electronic notifications for every application or for all in a broader area. Therefore,
those who are interested can follow up. Using the web sources avoids a huge mailing expense
and it is effective. The issue of whether a citizen has the opportunity to weigh in is a separate
issue of notification of the change or administrative decision. An example is a fence permit that
meets standards, and does not require a hearing. Notification can be made of this change, if
desired. In general, citizens can adapt to the fact that not every change has a hearing, but they
do appreciate being notified that it is happening.
Ms. De Rosa stated that often, through discussion, improvements happen — even for minor
changes. Taking the time to have the conversation results in a better outcome. It also allows
residents to understand the evaluation criteria. Understanding the criteria helps to make
residents more comfortable with a change.
Mr. Papsidero stated that staff will follow up on this discussion, as there are many things done
on a regular basis that may fall into this category — notification beyond what Code requires.
Mr. Elliott added that all of the notification regulations are changing as many state -mandated
notifications depend upon the existence of a daily newspaper. Those daily newspaper are going
away, and this allows an opportunity to explore other means of communication. Some cities
have agreed these are administrative decisions, but when comments are received, they are
forwarded to the applicant who may want to keep the neighbors happy.
Ms. De Rosa asked about conditional use process under this change.
Community Development Committee
Monday, February 4, 2019
Page 13 of 17
Mr. Papsidero responded the conditional use review stays with the Planning Commission.
There has been no change to that process.
Ms. De Rosa stated if there is a development agreement in place, and there is a conditional use
requirement for an item, would that go to PZC? There is a strikeout on the chart included.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the decision or administrative appeal for a conditional use is shown
under Council. There is a footnote referencing the conditional use provisions. He did not
research this, but as far as he knows, this has never been applied.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted these have always been reviewed by PZC.
Mr. Papsidero stated that staff will double check this item.
Ms. De Rosa stated that the redlined version was very helpful in reviewing the changes.
Mr. Reiner summarized that staff now has direction regarding next steps for Section 153.066
Mr. Papsidero asked if the Committee wants to review this at their next meeting with the edits
shown, or is this ready to move to Council?
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded this is ready to go to Council.
The Committee members agreed.
Ms. De Rosa asked if there should be communication back to PZC and other groups involved
regarding these changes. It seems appropriate to communicate what has taken place at the
Committee level, given their hard work and recommendations.
Mr. Papsidero responded that staff will do so.
Mr. Reiner thanked Mr. Elliott for his assistance with this process.
Mr. Elliott responded that he is aware that some are frustrated with the BSD process and some
are dissatisfied with the results, but many cities would be thrilled to have the quality of
development that Dublin has in the District.
Review of Code Section 152.086(C) of the Subdivision Regulations
(Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication)
Ms. Husak stated that this topic came from a Council meeting in November when the review of
the parkland appraisal was done. This is the basis for the parkland fee charged when land is not
donated by a developer who opts to pay a fee instead. Based on concerns expressed by Council
about the value of land reflected in the study, staff was asked to review options that could be
considered. As this provision is part of the Subdivision Regulations, staff has worked with the
Law Director on this item. Changes to the Subdivision Regulations do not require a
recommendation from PZC and can be considered directly by Council.
The options explored by staff to address the concerns include:
1) Continue enforcing the Subdivision Regulations Fee in Lieu of Dedication as was done
with the approval of Ordinance 76-18 (accepting the updated average per acre value)
2) Continue to evaluate parkland fees in lieu of dedication in accordance with an appraisal
for raw land value as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and specifically for land
within the Bridge Street District (leading to two different fees)
RECORD OF AMON
Clfvof
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
OHIG, USA Thursday, October 11, 2018 16:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the following proposal at this meeting
Bridge Street District, Phase I • Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18.00SADMC Administrative Request—Code Amendment
Proposal;
Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153,065 addressing the
Stephen Stidhem
procedures for development approval and the related submittal
Jane Fox
requirements to streamline the process and ensure submittal
Bob Miller
requirements are consistent with other Zoning Code provisions,
Request:
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for
Kristina Kennedy
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of
William Wilson
Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234,
Applicant;
Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin.
Planning Contact:
Vincent A, Papsidero, FAICP, Planning Director.
Contact Informabonl
614.410,4682, vpapslderoftblin.oh,us
Case Information
www.dubllnchiousagov/Pzc/18-D05
MOTION; Mr. Stldhem moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval W City Council for
Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153.066 addressing the procedures for development
approval and the related submittal requirements to streamline the process and ensure
submittal requirements are consistent with other Zoning Cade provisions.
VOTE. 6-0.
RESULT; The Amendments were recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council for Final
review,
RECORDED VOTES:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
Jane Fox
Yes
Bob Miller
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Kristina Kennedy
Yes
William Wilson
Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Vincent Papsidero, AICP
PlaMin (rector
PUNNING 5800Shier Rings Road Dublln,Ohio 13016 phone 614,410. O fax 614,410.4747 dublinohloura,gow
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 20
2. BSD, Phase I - Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18-OOSADMC Administrative — Code Amendment
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said this application is a proposal for Amendments to Zoning Code Section
153.066 addressing the procedures for development approval and the related submittal requirements to
streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with other Zoning Code
provisions. She said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for
proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234.
Vince Papsidero reported one section had been added to the proposal since the Commission last reviewed
this application, in response to the Commission's direction, to create an informal step in the process. He
stated that was the only change that was made. He said the proposal meets the review criteria for a
Zoning Code Amendment and the Administrative Review Team recommends approval to this Commission.
The Chair asked the Commission if they had any questions. Jane Fox asked about a scenario, from a
Council perspective - if an applicant wants an informal review, and they never presented a formal
application, what type of proposals come through Planning's door and get kicked out. She said that
process appears as a quality control measure. She said Planning is obtaining data by doing this and she
wanted to know how to capture that data as the data may cause the City to change a policy, if the
information was known. She thought it would be a Pre -Application Review. Mr. Papsidero explained a
Pre -Application Review occurs with an application that comes to the Commission. He said Planning
receives a lot of inquiries by phone with 'an idea' and Staff will provide an answer in the way of
advisement to proceed or answer the proposal would never be possible. He confirmed a Pre -Application is
part of a formal process so when those occur, the Commission will review them.
Steve Stidhem indicated Ms. Fox was asking about the proposals that are not fit for proceeding. Mr.
Papsidero said a good example of that would be inquiries on elderly housing facilities and the City
Manager was receiving those inquiries too so that generated a policy discussion in terms of the amount of
elderly care facilities that should be permitted in Dublin. He said usually these phone inquiries are about if
a land use is appropriate or not; not a type of inquiry that would lead to a policy change. He said if Staff
Ms
u
u
u
Mr Moller,
u
u
u u
44 That
the applirapt make
apy
other milcor terhAiral
adjustmepts
prior
to
Coupril
r@VWAW
2-) That
the plat include
the Fstate
Lot on the plat
as a
lot and
address
setback
requirements;
and
34 That
resewes
the applirapt will
Prior to review
Peed
by Gity
to revise the plat
GGUnr4_.
to ideptify
maiptepapre
res pops
ibi lities
for the IgA�p
Ms
u
u
u
Mr Moller,
u
2. BSD, Phase I - Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18-OOSADMC Administrative — Code Amendment
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said this application is a proposal for Amendments to Zoning Code Section
153.066 addressing the procedures for development approval and the related submittal requirements to
streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with other Zoning Code
provisions. She said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for
proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234.
Vince Papsidero reported one section had been added to the proposal since the Commission last reviewed
this application, in response to the Commission's direction, to create an informal step in the process. He
stated that was the only change that was made. He said the proposal meets the review criteria for a
Zoning Code Amendment and the Administrative Review Team recommends approval to this Commission.
The Chair asked the Commission if they had any questions. Jane Fox asked about a scenario, from a
Council perspective - if an applicant wants an informal review, and they never presented a formal
application, what type of proposals come through Planning's door and get kicked out. She said that
process appears as a quality control measure. She said Planning is obtaining data by doing this and she
wanted to know how to capture that data as the data may cause the City to change a policy, if the
information was known. She thought it would be a Pre -Application Review. Mr. Papsidero explained a
Pre -Application Review occurs with an application that comes to the Commission. He said Planning
receives a lot of inquiries by phone with 'an idea' and Staff will provide an answer in the way of
advisement to proceed or answer the proposal would never be possible. He confirmed a Pre -Application is
part of a formal process so when those occur, the Commission will review them.
Steve Stidhem indicated Ms. Fox was asking about the proposals that are not fit for proceeding. Mr.
Papsidero said a good example of that would be inquiries on elderly housing facilities and the City
Manager was receiving those inquiries too so that generated a policy discussion in terms of the amount of
elderly care facilities that should be permitted in Dublin. He said usually these phone inquiries are about if
a land use is appropriate or not; not a type of inquiry that would lead to a policy change. He said if Staff
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 20
was seeing a trend, they would share it with the Boards and Commission. Ms. Fox affirmed that was what
she was asking about. Mr. Papsidero said a lot of these calls are fishing expeditions and Staff never
knows the legitimacy with these calls and that can be a challenge.
Ms. Fox said she was happy the Commission has the opportunity for the Informal Review first because
the Concept Plan is binding.
Ms. Fox referred to submittal requirements and the verbiage of "being comprehensive enough". She
indicated a general checklist under a concept to provide a standard that the Commission could review like
Staff goes through with criteria but more general. She asked if the past request for a checklist ever went
anywhere. She indicated "being comprehensive enough" is very vague. Mr. Papsidero explained that was
its purpose. He said the criteria is the Commission's checklist in terms of decision-making. He said Staff
has a very detailed application submittal form that is several pages in length. He said Staff has to make a
judgement call, professionally, when an application is submitted to make that determination based on the
uniqueness of the proposal, the site, and any kind of issues that may be raised. He indicated it is written
as a statement and allows Staff to react to the specifics. Ms. Fox asked to see a submittal form.
Ms. Newell reiterated the submittal form is very specific. She said when she submits an application to any
municipality, she tries to follow the requirements to the letter. She said sometimes the checklists are
intentionally used to stop a project of which that municipality does not want in their area. She indicated it
is good when Staff has a little bit of flexibility. Claudia Husak said Staff appreciates applicants like Ms.
Newell that provide everything that is on the submittal checklist.
Ms. Fox said she is glad the Guidelines are going to become developed enough to refer back to them.
She said, to her, coming on as a new Commissioner, and not being familiar with all the details, the
parameters that should be used to review against are ones that are broad enough to get the desired
result but to not leave out the important details that create the environment that the Commission is
trying to create. She explained without the Guidelines at this point, everything else seems a little
subjective and vague to use for a review.
Ms. Newell asked Staff to present the submittal checklist. Logan Stang shared the example of submittal
forms that illustrate the level of detail needed for a submission from the website. He said individual
applications can be viewed on the website as well to see how the submittal form was used for a
particular type of proposal. Ms. Fox agreed the submittal forms were lengthy. Mr. Papsidero emphasized
the Commission has to use the review criteria to base their decision on; that is the legal stance, it is not
all of that other detail. He said the criteria are general but that is what the Commission should hone in
on; the other is just supporting information.
Mr. Stidhem indicated he had a counter point. He said he would rather not make it as formulaic as there
needs to be judgement calls allowed in there. Mr. Papsidero said there is a very detailed checklist that
New Albany and Columbus use whereas the applicant receives a grade. He explained New Albany and
Columbus have a scoring system; if the applicant meets a certain score, they are approved. He said it
allows the applicant to work with that in a limited way and he did not think that would ever work in
Dublin because the subjectivity disappears along with the qualitative aspect. Ms. Fox said all the
architecture looks the same in New Albany.
Thad Boggs said, for an Informal Review, there has to be a legally defensible framework of criteria while
also allowing the Commission to make judgement calls in the gray areas. He said that is what the
Commission is here for. He suggested, if the Commission hears several informal plans and says to Vince
or Claudia, we would really like to have more information about this in the future, Vince can hop on
Microsoft Word and change it like that and not have to repeat the whole process.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 18 of 20
Ms. Fox said the Guidelines help the Commissioners determine if they are meeting the intent of the
Community Plan.
Ms. Fox said the Code states "...the design of the internal circulation systems, driveways and any
connections to the public realm and would only allow for pedestrian, bicycles, and emergency services..."
She said transit is never included. She suggested if we never think about it, we will never allow for it. Mr.
Papsidero said Staff certainly factored in transit in Bridge Park applications. He suggested there needs to
be a joint effort with COTA to expand service into the City.
The Chair asked if anyone had any further questions or comments. [Hearing none.] She called for a
motion.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for Amendments to
Zoning Code Section 153.066 addressing the procedures for development approval and the related
submittal requirements to streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with
other Zoning Code provisions. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Fox, yes;
Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes. (Recommended for Approval 6 - 0)
- ■ .. -
- -� ,
-- - -
City of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018
18-OOSADMC - BSD CODE AMENDMEW
Site Location Summary
Bridge Street District An amendment to Section 153.066 of the Bridge Street
Proposal District Code to streamline the development application
Administrative Request — Code Amendment (ADMCO review and approval process, and to improve consistency
to amend Section 153.066 Review and Approval among application submittal types.
Procedures and Criteria.
Property Owners
Various owners of the ±1,000 acres in the district
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Bridge Street District, Section 153.066
Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234
ART Recommendation
A. Approval to City Council
Contents
1. Overview....................................................... 2
2. Details.........................................................3
3. Criteria Analysis.............................................4
4. Recommendation...........................................5
Case Manager
Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
(614) 410-4682
voaosideroCd)dublin.oh. us
Zoning Map
Next Steps
Upon the review and recommendation of the proposed
amendment by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
amendment will be scheduled for review and adoption by
City Council. The amendment will require two readings
before Council and will be in effect after the 30 -day
referendum period following the second reading.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 18-005ADMC I Bridge Street District Code Amendment
Thursday, October 11, 2018 1 Page 2 of 5
1. Overview
A. Background
In late 2016, the City initiated a project to update the Bridge Street District (BSD) zoning
code, based on five years of experience administering the code. The City hired Clarion
Associates to assist with this project, supported by Codametrics (both assisted with drafting
of the original BSD code).
As part of the analysis phase, Clarion interviewed stakeholders and city staff to identify
issues related to the code and the Bridge Street development process. This resulted in a
February 20, 2017 memo that provided a record of the feedback. As a follow up to that
task, Clarion prepared an independent assessment of the code and city procedures, issuing
a March 2, 2017 memo.
Taken together, these tasks concluded that the administrative process for the BSD Code
was too cumbersome and would benefit from certain efficiencies. In addition, there was a
desire to streamline the application types, because of confusion that was generated
between unique BSD applications and the "typical" applications required under the PUD
district (aligning these documents would also serve as the basis for alignment with revisions
to the West Innovation District and the proposed Metro -Blazer District).
Staff and consultants presented these findings to a joint work session of City Council and
the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 2017. General support was voiced for the
proposed direction. Two initial priorities of this update were completed (sign code
amendment affecting pre-existing commercial development and the Historic South District).
The project was placed on hold due to other pressing projects through the fall of 2017.
Beginning in 2018, staff and the consultants restarted the project and drafted this
amendment, which was the subject of a Council work session and three joint sessions of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Board. At the June 20, 2018
work session, City Council directed staff to remove the Historic District from the BSD code.
This separate project is underway.
B. Proposal
The proposed amendment seeks to streamline the development review and approval
process, while promoting consistency among application types. Among the changes are the
following, which are described in more detail in the next section.
• Formalization of a non-binding Informal review step, at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
• Creation of a Concept Plan submittal that replaces the Basic Plan, which is reviewed
and approved by the PZC unless it is accompanied by a development agreement, then
the CP is approved by City Council (PZC provides a recommendation).
• Creation of a Preliminary Development Plan that replaces the Development Plan, which
is reviewed and approved by PZC. It may be combined with the Final Development
Plan.
• Creation of a Final Development Plan that replaces the Site Plan, which is reviewed and
approved by PZC.
• The role of the Administrative Review Team (ART) is reduced to review and approval of
Minor Projects (which was also reduced in scope).
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 18-005ADMC I Bridge Street District Code Amendment
Thursday, October 11, 2018 1 Page 3 of 5
2. Detail;
The following provides a detailed review of the proposed changes. Both a "clean" and a
redlined" version of the proposed amendment is included with the staff report.
1) Section A. Intent
Minor edits are proposed to clarify the text.
2) Section B. Required Reviews
Major changes are presented on Table 153.066-A Summary Procedure Table, which
reflect the core changes to the BSD process. The major revisions are the following
(details are provided in subsequent subsections):
• Planning Director has been added to reflect the staff review and recommendation
function, while the Architectural Review Board has been removed per Council
direction.
• The Informal review has been introduced as recommended by the Commission at
their informal review of this proposal.
• The former Basic Plan has been replaced with the Concept Plan, which is
reviewed and approved by PZC, except when projects are proposing a
development agreement; in those cases PZC will provide a recommendation and
City Council will review and approve the CP.
• The former Development Plan is replaced with a Preliminary Development Plan,
which is reviewed and approved by PZC. The PDP may be combined with the
Final Development Plan, as discussed further.
• The former Site Plan is replaced with a Final Development Plan, which is
reviewed and approved by PZC. Again, it may be combined with a PDP.
3) Section C. Pre -Application
Clarifications are proposed relative to purpose and applicability, and review
procedure.
4) Section E. Informal Review
As requested by the PZC, an applicant may request a non-binding Informal review of
a development concept. The submittal is to include material sufficient to describe the
concept, as determined by the applicant. The intent is to provide feedback by PZC to
the applicant, prior to submitting a formal Concept Plan. Staff will provide a brief
analysis.
5) Section D. Concept Plan
The Concept Plan (CP) provides a detailed conceptual overview of a proposed
project. The submittal requirements incorporate the former Basic Plan and additional
clarity is provided regarding submittal requirements and review criteria. The CP is a
mandatory requirement. The Planning Director issues a staff report with a
recommendation. The PZC is the required reviewing body, unless a development
agreement is associated with a CP. In those cases, City Council is the required
reviewing body and the PZC provides a recommendation.
6) Section E. Preliminary Development Plan
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 18-005ADMC I Bridge Street District Code Amendment
Thursday, October 11, 2018 1 Page 4 of 5
The Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) presents preliminary development,
architecture, landscaping and engineering information regarding a proposal. It
replaces the former Development Plan. The PDP is a mandatory requirement. The
Planning Director issues a staff report with a recommendation. The PZC is the
required reviewing body. The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of
the applicant, at the recommendation of the Planning Director, or at the
recommendation of the PZC at the time of CP approval.
7) Section F. Final Development Plan
The Final Development Plan (FDP) presents final development, architecture,
landscaping and engineering information regarding a proposal. It replaces the
former Site Plan. The FDP is a mandatory requirement. The Planning Director issues
a staff report with a recommendation. The PZC is the required reviewing body. The
FDP may be combined with the PDP, as noted earlier.
8) Section G. Minor Project
The Minor Project (MP) process is not proposed to change, but the list of eligible
projects has been reduced to eliminate all new construction, other than accessory
structures that are 1,000 square feet or smaller (the MP list retains additions to
existing buildings). The Administrative Review Team (ART) remains the required
reviewing body. ART may forward a MP to PZC in cases where there is a need for
new infrastructure or in cases of community wide impact.
9) Section H. Administrative Departures
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
10) Section I. Waiver
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
11) Section J. Master Sign Plan
This is a new section that provides much more detail relative to Master Sign Plans
(MSP) relative to purpose and applicability, review procedure, submittal
requirements, and review criteria. PZC is the required reviewing body.
12) Section K. Administrative Approval
Formerly called Minor Modifications, there are no substantive changes proposed to
this section.
13) Section L. Other Approvals
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
14) Section M. General Provisions
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section other than some
restructuring. Also, Appeals was moved to this section and simplified to the standard
appeals provisions of the zoning code (Board of Zoning Appeals).
3. Crit#c,,a „naly__.
A. Review Considerations
The Zoning Code does not provide for specific review standards for Zoning Code text
amendments. However, there are certain considerations that are appropriate when
considering an application for these amendments. These are provided below, along with
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 18-005ADMC I Bridge Street District Code Amendment
Thursday, October 11, 2018 1 Page 5 of 5
relevant analysis. The Administrative Review Team is not limited to these considerations,
and may choose to give each its weight as part of the deliberations for a recommendation
to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. Zoning Code Amendment Analysis
1) Intent and Purpose: Whether amendment is consistent with the intent and
purpose of this Chapter and the Community Plan.
Criteria Met. The amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of this
Chapter and the Community Plan, including the Bridge Street District Special Area
Plan.
2) Error or Omission: Whether the change is the result of an error or omission
in the original text.
Criteria Met. The amendment was not the result of errors or omissions, but reflects
changes in policy.
3) Area Effects: The potential effects on the areas that are most likely to be
directly affected by the change.
Criteria Met. By adopting the language, the processes will reflect changes in policy
as directed by City Council, in consultation with the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
4) Creation of Non conformities: Whether the change might result in the
creation of significant nonconformities on properties in the city.
Criteria Met. The amendment does not create any nonconformities, as it modifies
processes that have yet to be applied. All existing legally approved uses, buildings,
and structures are not impacted by this amendment.
4. Recomn,=,,u
ART Recommendation
The proposed amendment is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria. Approval
is recommended.
RECORD OF DETERMINATION
city of
Dublin Administrative Review Team
ONlaasA Thursday, September 20, 2018
The Administrative Review Team made the following determination at this meeting:
Bridge Street District, Phase I • Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18•OOSADMC Administrative Request—Code Amendment
Proposal:
Amendments to Section 153.066 addressing the procedures for
development approval and the related submittal requirements to
streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent
with other Zoning Code provisions.
Request;
Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed
amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code
Sections 153,232 and 153.234.
Applicant,
Dana L McDaniel, qty Manager, qty of Duldin.
Planning Contact:
VinceA Papsidero, FAICP, Planning Director
Contact Information:
614,410,4682, vpapsideroVublin,oh,us
Case Information
www.dublinchlousa,gov/pzc/18. 05
REQUEST: Recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an Administrative
Request — Code Amendment to address the procedures for development approval and the related submittal
requirements to streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with other Zoning
Code provisions,
Determination: This application was forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a
recommendation of approval to be forwarded for review and approval by qty Council.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Y
Vin A Papsldero, FpICP
Direda of Planning
PLANNING 5800Sher Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614,410.4600 in 614.410,4141 dubllnohlousa,gov
Administrative Review Team - Minutes
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Page 8 of 13
.f�!ie7117�R-SilZ1t'�f7TS1^.1^.T- ---E------
•.-.=.
Tn7l�E�f7.�7:T-7.R�C1t7-'TS711'L_1r•7-'i�R-1R�e74T1.ST.Ti7R-7+T-�I:�R1R.S
i
u
u
. u
u11r .__.11 nr. --Und f.rt'.n. _ .. Vn_ ... .._.. _ .. _ •.-. r_ _
--------
S. Bridge
Street District, Phase Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
Administrative
Request „ _ Amendment
... - . ' • . M. .- -.. OWN. NOON'. . -.
Administrative Review Team — Minutes
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Page 9 of 13
the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with other Zoning Code provisions. He said
this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed amendments to
the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234.
Claudia Husak said the ART has authority to review and provide recommendations for Code Amendments.
Mr. Papsidero said there are provisions that allow for alteration of any existing Zoning Code Section or to
establish new requirements within the Zoning Code but it requires the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation to City Council who will review the request through two required public hearings and final
action before going into effect after the 30 -day referendum period.
Mr. Papsidero presented the proposed process changes as follows; first, the Planning and Zoning
Commission will be the Required Reviewing Body for all steps except Concept Plan's when a development
agreement is associated in which case City Council will become the Required Reviewing Body. He stated
second, the Administrative Review Team will no longer make recommendations to other boards and
commissions. Third, he said, that no other major administrative changes are proposed.
Mr. Papsidero illustrated the specific steps for the process with and without a development agreement. He
presented the existing submittal requirement steps compared to those proposed. He presented additional
changes such as Minor Projects eligibility being reduced to eliminate all new construction, except for
accessory structures less than or equal to 1,000 square feet, Master Sign Plans containing more detailed
criteria and requirements, Minor Modifications being retitled to Administrative Approvals, and the Appeals
section being replaced with the "standard" Board of Zoning Appeals process.
Ms. Husak said Council is currently reviewing the fee schedule for 2019. She said this will impact concurrent
application reviews as applicants would be charged for all applicable fees as opposed to the greatest of the
application types. She said this aligns with the new process being put into place and will improve record
keeping moving forward.
Mr. Papsidero said the application meets all the criteria and staff recommends approval of the amendment.
Ms. Husak said the ART will make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission today and the
intention is for the PZC to review in October and City Council to review in November.
Aaron Stanford asked if concurrent applications were at Staff's discretion. He stated that an applicant could
propose concurrent applications and Staff could then determine whether or not it was appropriate given the
size of the project. Ms. Husak said that could be reviewed further with the adoption of the fees ordinance.
Mr. Papsidero said Staff held a Stakeholders meeting to discuss the proposed amendments and none of the
stakeholders were present.
Mr. Papsidero reported that on June 20"' of this year, Council removed the Architectural Review Board from
the BSD Code; they no longer have to abide by a Form -based code. He said that change is on a parallel
track to the changes being proposed today. He said Staff is in the process of writing Code for the ARB and
it will be very similar to the previous Code.
The Chair asked if there were any comments from the public. James Peltier, EMH&T, asked if there was a
preliminary time line of when this amendment goes into effect. Ms. Husak answered based on the current
schedule it will go into effect on January 3, 2019.
Administrative Review Team - Minutes
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Page 10 of 13
Mr. Papsidero asked if there were any other questions or concerns for this proposal by the ART. [Hearing
none.] A vote was taken and passed so the result is the Administrative Request for a Code Amendment is
recommended for approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission with final authority given to City Council.
18-053ADMC Administrative Request — Code AmenAmen
Claudia Husak said this is ap appliratiop for a proposal for appeAdmepts to 70piAg Code Figure 153 06
Bridge Street District Street Netmork Map to address street connections bared on recent developments
the Bridge Street District She raid thir is a request for a redew and recommendation of approval to Got
Council for proposed amendments to the Community Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections
and 1 cz �za
nraems��.r.�emr-errt�n7arr�lar.�r..rrisrrrms�rsrrri7�rrx��s.me�rrta:si�r��+r7:sser77:ssa.
- - -
u
- -
- - -- --- -
-. .u_. _
■
■
- - - - --
u..
- - -
■
u
- --
_
- -
u_ .
■
.. .........
- -
.... .. . _ -_
.._ -. _._..-
- -
-
-
-
■
■
M r
Won
City of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
Administrative Review Team
118-OOSADMC - BSD AMENDMENT
Reviewing Board
Administrative Review Team
Site Location
Bridge Street District
Proposal
To amend Section 153.066 Review and Approval
Procedures and Criteria
Property Owners
Various owners of the 1,000 acres in the district
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Bridge Street District, Section 153.066
Staff Recommendation
Review and recommendation by the Administrative
Review Team for amendments to Section 153.066 of
the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Contents
1. 1 Cover TOC........
2. 1 Cover TOC .......
3. 1 Cover TOC........
Case Manager
Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
614-410-4682
voaosideroCa)dublin.oh. us
.2
.3
.4
September 20, 2018
Summary
An amendment to Section 153.066 of the Bridge Street
District Code to streamline the development application
review and approval process, and to improve consistency
among application submittal types.
Zoning Map
INSERT MAP
Next Steps
Upon the review and recommendation of the proposed
amendment by the Administrative Review Team, a request
for review and recommendation will be scheduled with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Following a
recommendation by the Commission, the amendment will
be scheduling for review and adoption by City Council. The
amendment will require two readings before Council and
will be in effect after the 30 -day referendum period
following the second reading.
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov
City of Dublin Administrative Review Team
Case 18-005ADMT I Bridge Street Code Amendment
Thursday September 20, 2018 1 Page x of x
1. Overview
A. Background
In late 2016, the City initiated a project to update the Bridge Street District (BSD) zoning
code, based on five years of experience administering the code. The City hired Clarion
Associates to assist with this project, supported by Codametrics (both assisted with drafting
of the original BSD code).
As part of the analysis phase, Clarion interviewed stakeholders and city staff to identify
issues related to the code and the Bridge Street development process. This resulted in a
February 20, 2017 memo that provided a record of the feedback. As a follow up to that
task, Clarion prepared an independent assessment of the code and city procedures, issuing
a March 2, 2017 memo.
Taken together, these tasks concluded that the administrative process for the BSD Code
was too cumbersome and would benefit from certain efficiencies. In addition, there was a
desire to streamline the application types, because of confusion that was generated
between unique BSD applications and the "typical" applications required under the PUD
district (aligning these documents would also serve as the basis for alignment with revisions
to the West Innovation District and the proposed Metro -Blazer District).
Staff and consultants presented these findings to a joint work session of City Council and
the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 2017. General support was voiced for the
proposed direction. Two initial priorities of this update were completed (sign code
amendment affecting pre-existing commercial development and the Historic South District).
The project was placed on hold due to other pressing projects through the fall of 2017.
Beginning in 2018, staff and the consultants restarted the project and drafted this
amendment, which was the subject of a Council work session and three joint sessions of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Architectural Review Board. At the June 20, 2018
work session, City Council directed staff to remove the Historic District from the BSD code.
This separate project is underway.
B. Proposal
The proposed amendment seeks to streamline the development review and approval
process, while promoting consistency among application types. Among the changes are the
following, which are described in more detail in the next section.
• Formalization of a non-binding Informal review step, at the request of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
• Creation of a Concept Plan submittal that replaces the Basic Plan, which is reviewed
and approved by the PZC unless it is accompanied by a development agreement, then
the CP is approved by City Council (PZC provides a recommendation).
• Creation of a Preliminary Development Plan that replaces the Development Plan, which
is reviewed and approved by PZC. It may be combined with the Final Development
Plan.
Creation of a Final Development Plan that replaces the Site Plan, which is reviewed and
approved by PZC.
City of Dublin Administrative Review Team
Case 18-005ADMT I Bridge Street Code Amendment
Thursday September 20, 2018 1 Page x of x
The role of the Administrative Review Team (ART) is reduced to review and approval of
Minor Projects (which was also reduced in scope).
2. Details
The following provides a detailed review of the proposed changes. Both a "clean" and a
'redlined" version of the proposed amendment is included with the staff report.
1) Section A. Intent
Minor edits are proposed to clarify the text.
2) Section B. Required Reviews
Major changes are presented on Table 153.066-A Summary Procedure Table, which
reflect the core changes to the BSD process. The major revisions are the following
(details are provided in subsequent subsections):
Planning Director has been added to reflect the staff review and recommendation
function, while the Architectural Review Board has been removed per Council
direction.
• The Informal review has been introduced as recommended by the Commission at
their informal review of this proposal.
• The former Basic Plan has been replaced with the Concept Plan, which is
reviewed and approved by PZC, except when projects are proposing a
development agreement; in those cases PZC will provide a recommendation and
City Council will review and approve the CP.
• The former Development Plan is replaced with a Preliminary Development Plan,
which is reviewed and approved by PZC. The PDP may be combined with the
Final Development Plan, as discussed further.
The former Site Plan is replaced with a Final Development Plan, which is
reviewed and approved by PZC. Again, it can be combined with a PDP.
3) Section C. Pre -Application
Clarifications are proposed relative to purpose and applicability, and review
procedure.
4) Section E. Informal Review
As requested by the PZC, an applicant may request a non-binding Informal review of
a development concept. The submittal is to include material sufficient to describe the
concept, as determined by the applicant. The intent is to provide feedback by PZC to
the applicant, prior to submitting a formal Concept Plan. Staff will provide a brief
analysis.
5) Section D. Concept Plan
The Concept Plan (CP) provides a detailed conceptual overview of a proposed
project. The submittal requirements incorporate the former Basic Plan and additional
clarity is provided regarding submittal requirements and review criteria. The CP is a
mandatory requirement. The Planning Director issues a staff report with a
recommendation. The PZC is the required reviewing body, unless a development
City of Dublin Administrative Review Team
Case 18-005ADMT I Bridge Street Code Amendment
Thursday September 20, 2018 1 Page x of x
agreement is associated with a CP. In those cases, City Council is the required
reviewing body and the PZC provides a recommendation.
6) Section E. Preliminary Development Plan
The Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) presents preliminary development,
architecture, landscaping and engineering information regarding a proposal. It
replaces the former Development Plan. The PDP is a mandatory requirement. The
Planning Director issues a staff report with a recommendation. The PZC is the
required reviewing body. The PDP may be combined with the FDP at the request of
the applicant, at the recommendation of the Planning Director, or at the
recommendation of the PZC at the time of CP approval.
7) Section F. Final Development Plan
The Final Development Plan (FDP) presents final development, architecture,
landscaping and engineering information regarding a proposal. It replaces the
former Site Plan. The FDP is a mandatory requirement. The Planning Director issues
a staff report with a recommendation. The PZC is the required reviewing body. The
FDP may be combined with the PDP, as noted earlier.
8) Section G. Minor Project
The Minor Project (MP) process is not proposed to change, but the list of eligible
projects has been reduced to eliminate all new construction, other than accessory
structures that are 1,000 square feet or smaller (the MP list retains additions to
existing buildings). The Administrative Review Team (ART) remains the required
reviewing body. ART may forward a MP to PZC in cases where there is a need for
new infrastructure or in cases of community wide impact.
9) Section H. Administrative Departures
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
10) Section I. Waiver
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
11) Section J. Master Sign Plan
This is a new section that provides much more detail relative to Master Sign Plans
(MSP) relative to purpose and applicability, review procedure, submittal
requirements, and review criteria. PZC is the required reviewing body.
12) Section K. Administrative Approval
Formerly called Minor Modifications, there are no substantive changes proposed to
this section.
13) Section L. Other Approvals
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section.
14) Section M. General Provisions
There are no substantive changes proposed to this section other than some
restructuring. Also, Appeals was moved to this section and simplified to the standard
appeals provisions of the zoning code (Board of Zoning Appeals).
City of Dublin Administrative Review Team
Case 18-005ADMT I Bridge Street Code Amendment
Thursday September 20, 2018 1 Page x of x
3. Criteria Analysis
A. Review Considerations
The Zoning Code does not provide for specific review standards for Zoning Code text
amendments. However, there are certain considerations that are appropriate when
considering an application for these amendments. These are provided below, along with
relevant analysis. The Administrative Review Team is not limited to these considerations,
and may choose to give each its weight as part of the deliberations for a recommendation
to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
B. Zoning Code Amendment Analysis
1) Intent and Purpose: Whether amendment is consistent with the intent and
purpose of this Chapter and the Community Plan.
The amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Chapter and the
Community Plan, including the Bridge Street District Special Area Plan.
Criteria Met.
2) Error or Omission: Whether the change is the result of an error or omission
in the original text.
The amendment was not the result of errors or omissions, but reflects changes in
policy.
Criteria Met.
3) Area Effects: The potential effects on the areas that are most likely to be
directly affected by the change.
By adopting the language, the processes will reflect changes in policy as directed by
City Council, in consultation with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Criteria Met.
4) Creation of Nonconformities: Whether the change might result in the
creation of significant nonconformities on properties in the city.
The amendment does not create any nonconformities, as it modifies processes that
have yet to be applied. All existing legally approved uses, buildings, and structures
are not impacted by this amendment.
Criteria Met.
4. Recomn,�,,. ation
Staff Recommendation
The amendment is introduced to the Administrative Review Team for review and
recommendation. Following a recommendation by the Team, the amendment will be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation. Following that
action, the amendment will be scheduled for public hearing and final action by City Council.
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
lity of
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
01110. USA Thursday, August 23, 2019 16:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission toakthe following acdon at this meeting;
3, Bridge Street District Code Amendment, Phase I
§153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18.005ADMC Administrative Request — Code Amendment
Proposal. Amendments to Zoning Code Section 153,066 addressing the
procedures for development approval and the related submital
requirements to streamline the process and ensure submittal
requirements are consistent with other Zoning Code provisions.
Request, Introduction and discussion for proposed amendments prior to a
future request for review and recommendab'on of approval to City
Council for proposed amendments to the Zoning Code under the
provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153,232 and 153.234.
Applicant Dana L McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin,
Planning Contact; Vince A, Papsiderc, FAICP, Planning Director
Contact Information: 614,410,4682,yDaosidioh,
Caselnformabom www,dublinohiousa& r!p I2 BOOS
RESULT; The Commission reviewed and provided feedback on the proposed code amendment to
the Bridge Street District Review and Approval Procedures. Commission members commented on the
intent of the Concept Plan for informal feedback and ensuring the review process encourages
collaborat'on between the developers and Commission. The Commission was generally supportive of the
proposed amendment with minor revisions requested to the review Intent and level of detail for each
application type,
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
Jane For
Yes
Bob Miller
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Kristina Kennedy
Yes
William Wilson
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
toga Stang, PI nner I
PUNNING 5600 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.46DO far 614A10.4741 iiuhllnohinuo,gov
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 4 of 12
• . 17}5:7 /-7 �T.CT. Ci}1. 77�!T7�7�7T771'1
• •-
�R----------'i1RST.TJL7\ICER..IlS1.1----7.11R1RIRT.iT.t.IRSS7R1:f[iTt71T.TS1---- W-11001W"I 10
W-1
1 IN
_ , -6_
iii
u' a ■-
_ __
11 u u u
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
3. Bridge Street District Code Amendment, Phase I
§153.066 Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria
18-OO5ADMC Administrative Request — Code Amendment
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for amendments to Zoning Code
Section 153.066 addressing the procedures for development approval and the related submittal
requirements to streamline the process and ensure submittal requirements are consistent with other
Zoning Code provisions. She said this is a request for an introduction and discussion for proposed
amendments prior to a future request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for
proposed amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and
153.234.
Vince Papsidero said this is the first step in updating the Bridge Street District Code administrative
process. He said he intended to provide a brief summary of the proposed major changes, all of which
have been discussed in the past, except for a minor change regarding development agreements. He
noted there is a public meeting scheduled with stakeholders next week. The goal is a shorter and more
efficient process. Stakeholders were not concerned about submittal requirement changes. He reported
Staff has had support from the Commission, the Architectural Review Board, and City Council on the
direction Staff has been taking.
Mr. Papsidero noted that the Commission will become the required reviewing body for all major steps in
this process except for when there is a development agreement, which will always be determined by
Council with recommendations from the Commission. He stated the Administrative Review Team (ART)
will no longer provide a recommendation to any of the reviewing bodies, shortening the process, which is
a major change. He said there are no other major administrative changes proposed but will note any
administrative changes that are of some consequence.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 5 of 12
Mr. Papsidero presented a flow chart representing the process changes and identified the changes
between the current and proposed process. He said currently, if a development agreement is not
required, Staff provides a recommendation to the ART who then provides a recommendation to the PZC
on all applications. He said similarly, if a development agreement is required, then Staff provides an
informal review for the PZC who then provide a recommendation to the ART, who then provide a formal
recommendation to Council for final approval.
Mr. Papsidero noted that support was expressed during the work sessions for a non-binding Concept
Plan. However, he noted that with Council retaining their authority to approve development agreements,
Staff felt that the Concept Plan had to be likewise approved as a part of that decision-making process. As
a result, staff is recommending that the Concept Plan likewise be a formal submittal and approved by the
Commission, when a project does not require a development agreement. Formalizing the Concept Plan
puts an onus on all parties to negotiate an approval that would lead to a Preliminary Development Plan.
Steve Stidhem asked if that change would put more of a burden on the applicant. Mr. Papsidero
answered it would require the applicant to do more work ahead of time but the way the Concept Plan is
written, it is not really any different than what is being done today, in some respects. He reported Mr.
Stang drilled into the actual submittal requirements to restructure those so they would align with the
intent.
Mr. Stang said the intent of the Concept Plan is for it to be very illustrative. He said it would detail what
the Commission would be looking for and it is actually supposed to be less defined than the Basic Plan.
He explained Staff has been experiencing developers bringing in an already "baked plan", which creates
challenges in negotiating revisions. He said the Concept Plan should be more general and similar to an
Informal Review.
Mr. Papsidero affirmed that change was consistent with the Commission's direction as well as Council's
direction of what the first step ought to be. He added Staff would administratively limit the amount of
information in a Concept Plan. He explained that when too much information is provided by the applicant
so early, it almost locks the Commission in from a negotiation standpoint and that is not beneficial to the
process.
Jane Fox indicated she would want to see things early on to ensure the plans are appropriate and meet
guidelines, intent, and principles. She said it appears Staff has removed the days in which the applicant
would expect to obtain an answer about their project. She asked Mr. Papsidero if this will provide a true
efficiency, make things go faster, and be more predictable. Mr. Papsidero answered the process will go
faster because Staff is proposing to remove the ART step, saving a month or two. He said, in general,
this is an improvement, particularly if we stay disciplined in terms of what each submittal truly should
include. As proposed, aspirational architecture is submitted with the Preliminary Development Plan. He
said some people will push renderings on Staff in order to get them pushed onto the Commission. He
explained one step should be taken at a time by working through an application efficiently. In some
respects, he noted, that creates a longer process because if the details need to be negotiated, the
applicant has to redesign their plans. He said renderings should not be shown until the final step, along
with the applicant's material specifications.
Ms. Fox said she would love to hear from the architects on this Commission about what makes the
process the best from their view. Ms. Newell said, as an architect, she said she likes the non-binding,
preliminary review process. She explained if she has a client that asks her to design a building, she
comes up with a concept for that building fairly quickly. She said she can even generate a 3-D model of
that quickly so that there is something to show without having a lot of detail. She restated she likes
having the feedback to know if she is going in the right direction before spending a lot of time within that
design process.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 6 of 12
Ms. Fox asked if architectural concepts would be appropriate for the Concept Plan - details and
architectural styles, etc. Ms. Newell answered, most of the time, an architect wants to look at the building
floor plan arrangement with some concept of the elevation that could be as simple as one sample
elevation, not something that is completely thought through that included all four sides. She said she
would anticipate the plans might change as they went forward.
Ms. Newell asked Mr. Papsidero if he is going to provide suggestions of what someone might want to
present for each of the phases. Ms. Newell said some commissions have expected, when an application is
submitted, there will be a very lengthy list of items all delineated. She said the City has done that in the
past. She said sometimes the lengthy checklist was also used to keep the applicant from coming in front
of the PZC because the list for the City of Dublin was at one time, very extensive. She said it is good to
have some guidelines but not to have significantly detailed types of requirements; the checklist would
truly be a "suggestion" of what could be included in the application and presentation.
Mr. Papsidero said there are detailed checklists Staff uses for application forms; they were developed
three or four years ago for Bridge Street and refined over time. The checklists, he said, have been very
useful but they need to be modified for this proposed amendment. He said the revised lists will be
presented to the Commission to obtain feedback before they are completed. He indicated judgement is
used to determine if an application is complete or not and Staff is allowed flexibility as appropriate.
Mr. Papsidero said, in terms of the Concept Plan, Staffs initial direction was an informal submittal. He
said they wrote it that way but during the work session where they briefed Council on the direction Staff
was taking, Council was clear in terms of what their role should be relative to development agreements.
He said Council wanted the Concept Plan to be even simpler but because Staff is trying to keep the
zoning process efficient, it made sense to use the same submittal regardless of the review stream. He
said this can be discussed further if the Commission is not comfortable with having the Concept Plan
approved whether it stays with the Commission or not.
Mr. Stidhem said he was concerned about the Commission approving the Concept Plan, as that could
potentially put more burden on the applicant. He said if the applicant is expecting an approval, it locks
them in and he did not know what level of detail is being considered. He said he agreed that the
Commission has seen more than one application early on that have been way too detailed. He said he is
concerned if the informal is being changed into something that the Commission actually votes on, if it is
making the submittal tighter.
Mr. Papsidero said regardless, Staff would always recommend an informal submittal when a project is
complicated. He said it is not written in the Code, it is more of a practice but Staff would never abandon
that. He said Staff did not write that in because then a formal piece to a process would be written in for
every single application and that would lengthen the process.
Ms. Newell noted that Crawford Hoying has come before the Commission at least twice with an informal
review. She said applicants should be encouraged and allowed to bring something in, informally, just to
obtain feedback without the Commission voting. She said that would be very beneficial and it could be
optional, it would not have to be mandatory.
Mr. Papsidero said Staff can add an informal step to the administrative process and the City may not
charge a fee. Ms. Newell said she thought that would clear up the issue of the Concept Plan and having
to vote so that applicants can know that they can truly bring something in, informally.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 7 of 12
Ms. Fox asked if that was not the Pre -Application Review. Mr. Papsidero said a Pre -Application Review
was only with Staff. He explained before filing a formal application, an applicant can come in and sit with
Staff prior to submitting a formal application, which almost everyone has done.
Ms. Fox said she agreed with Ms. Newell. She said the applicant should have the opportunity to come
before the Commission and get some good ideas and thought that was the original intent. She said the
reason Council wanted to be involved in that early piece was because plans were coming to the
Commission fully baked' not having met the principles or intent, which should have happened. She said
there was no other way Council could control it from the beginning unless they had an opportunity to see
it early. She indicated Council feels more strongly that the PZC is the body that will do most of the heavy
lifting when it comes to these things. She reported Council's fear was that somehow we had the kind of
plans where 'the train got so far down the track' that we had no recourse.
Ms. Newell said, from City Council's standpoint, there is financial burden that is not the Commission's
responsibility. She said she has always understood that with Council's interest in seeing a development.
She said it is not the same as a Planned Unit Development.
Warren Fishman said he agreed with Ms. Newell - at an informal review, Staff and the Commission should
also require as little detail as possible because it works both ways. He said he has seen where a
developer comes in for an informal and states they are going to use a specific brick but then maybe the
brick is not available or they want to use something else and the developer comes back and the
Commission has already made a determination. He said if the developer comes in and the Commission
supports the concept' and then the developer returns later with intended materials, there is no extra
burden. He concluded an informal review should really be an informal - this concept looks good to the
Commission and the Commission will not make the developer make all these detailed commitments for
the brick, or other items.
Ms. Newell indicated, as an architect, not very often in an informal review would she bring in the specific
materials unless she had one selected because she was concerned it might not get accepted. In that
instance, she said, she would bring in the materials. She suggested that should be at the discretion of the
applicant of what they are going to submit at that informal. She noted this Commission has come across
that situation in the past.
Mr. Fishman said that is okay but sometimes the Commission commits to details such as the shape of a
cupola and then at the next stage of the review, the Commission changes its mind and says it's not
appropriate.
Mr. Stidhem highly encouraged not charging a fee to provide informal feedback on a project. He said that
would make it easier for small businesses to be successful and that is important.
William Wilson said it is a great idea to have an informal review but there has to be some kind of outline
for the applicant to follow so that everyone is on the same page. He said as the Commission explains this
to all the applicants, they have to be with the mindset to be open and receptive to what the Commission
provides. He indicated people want to know what they can do in a specific area and having this dialogue
is a good venue to have that conversation.
Kristina Kennedy said from the engineering world, there are design checklists and she appreciates that
the City provides checklists to meet basic requirements. She asked if the City shares winning examples of
projects as the applicant works through this process, projects that have come to our Council that have
passed on the first try or if that was a matter of public record. She asked if she was a new applicant
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 8 of 12
coming in, would the City be able to provide her with an example of a project that went through on the
first try or if not, what type of feedback Staff would provide.
Mr. Papsidero said one good example is the Master Sign Plan (MSP) for Bridge Park. He said Staff has
used it as an example with other applicants for a submittal because of the document's depth of
knowledge and detail. He added that there is an expanded section on Master Sign Plans in the proposal
to provide depth and clarity.
Mr. Stang said usually Staff will explain the process that an applicant has to go through during the
discussion about their initial application and the concept. He added Staff will refer them to previous
applications on the website, if complementary to their proposal. He said Staff would also guide the
applicant towards a case where the applicant did a good job with the submittal requirements, they laid it
out very well, and it went very smoothly through the process. He noted all current active cases are
accessible to the public as well as archived cases going back to 2013.
Mr. Papsidero said when applicants are struggling to submit applications, Staff will work with them. Ms.
Kennedy said she was glad to hear the City was providing that service.
Ms. Fox requested a more definitive review criteria for Concept Plans. She said Council and the
Commission are looking for the general foundational purpose, scope and intent like found in the BSD
Code that could be the definitive standards. She said when the Concept Plans come forward, the
Commission is looking at the plans from an architectural standpoint (building mass and footprint) but
instead should be looking at foundational principles including the purpose of placemaking. The applicants
need to know exactly what Staff and the Commission are looking for so they can go forward in their
design because the design is not the end point, the end point is meeting the principle.
Mr. Papsidero continued with his presentation and noted that Staff is modifying the existing requirements
for the Basic Plan, Development Plan, Site Plan, the proposed Concept Plan, Preliminary Development
Plan, and Final Development Plan. He said this is consistent terminology with the PUD requirements and
will provide clarity.
Mr. Papsidero stated Minor Projects are reviewed by the ART but Staff has reduced the scope of the ART
and its authority by limiting the number of eligible items from the current list, mainly new construction,
which includes a new single-family home on a single lot or multi -family buildings or any units in one
building, etc. He stated a 20% change in an elevation and accessory structures were kept in their
purview, if the accessory structure is 1,000 square feet or less.
Mr. Papsidero said Minor Modifications have been renamed to Administrative Approvals for consistency.
Mr. Papsidero indicated Staff has suggested that the Appeals Section in the Code be changed and
replaced by our "standard" appeals process, which goes to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Newell
requested clarity regarding the appeals process because if PUDs are denied, the applicant can appeal to
City Council to vote. Mr. Papsidero said he would research PUD appeals further.
Mr. Papsidero concluded his presentation by stating the Public Open House was scheduled for August
28th (4-6 pm).
Mr. Papsidero said next steps are draft documents to be mailed to stakeholders and posted on the web;
stakeholder comments will be considered along with additional questions. He said the PZC
recommendation to City Council is scheduled for September 241 for Council's review and final action in
October/November.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 23, 2018 — Minutes
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Miller asked if the Concept Plan will be formal or informal as he did not think that was made clear.
Mr. Papsidero said the review will be formal but Staff has suggested amending the Code to allow an
informal submittal as an option prior to the Concept Plan. Ms. Newell said she thought that would be
advantageous to applicants.
Mr. Fishman said he would like the no -charge fee option for an informal review for non-binding feedback.
Ms. Newell thought a minimal fee should be established so the option privilege is not abused. Mr.
Papsidero indicated from a Staff perspective, they would only prepare a simple memo rather than a full
Planning Report to frame this correctly.
Ms. Fox restated purpose, principles, and intent are important for the Concept Plan and should be defined
as expectations. She believed the review criteria for Concept Plans is vaguer than she would like to see.
She wants the expectations to be clear for the applicant so they know what to concentrate on and have a
strong sense of direction so those points would not have to be argued each time. She said the current
language is for a big picture overview. She indicated some developers know this process backwards and
forwards but there are many that do not. She indicated architecture can come later because those
standards are all listed specifically in the Zoning Code.
Ms. Newell said she thought there was a good set of review criteria but thought what was confusing for
applicants is the ability to ask for Waivers along the process. She said there have been some legitimate
reasons for granting Waivers and requests should still be judged for appropriateness on a case by case
basis.
Mr. Papsidero said the direction of the Design Guidelines has a lot of language and detail that reiterates
what is in the Vision Plan. He indicated the Commission will find the draft to be a richer presentation and
the criteria always begins with references to the Community Plan, Bridge Street District Special Area Plan,
and the BSD Design Guidelines, as well as any other adopted plan. He said the new application forms
that are being developed will have a section where an applicant has to write a narrative explaining how
they are meeting the intent of the Design Guidelines and a similar narrative could be added for how the
applicant is meeting the intent of the Vision Plan. He said the applicant's own words can be taken into
account for the review. Ms. Fox said it would help the Commission to see the revised application forms.
She said process can be created but then if it is burdensome to implement, then nobody wants to follow
through. She indicated she has heard from developers that the City sometimes gets in their own way by
bogging the process down. She concluded she wanted clarity on these items.
Ms. Kennedy said she agreed with Ms. Fox. She recalled the common theme or line of questioning with
certain applicants tended to be walkability and green space. She indicated knowing there is a vision that
we are asking the applicants to tie to, but then have them say it in their own words as has been
suggested, will be very helpful for the Commission and she would love to see that added to the process.
Ms. Newell said a request for narration is common on some applications in other jurisdictions and not out
of the ordinary.
� � q. I �� n w. t � o � �
AMENDMENTS TO
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT SECTION 153.066
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
18-005ADMC
Community Development Committee
City Council
FEBRUARY 4, 2019
Case Manager: Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
Consultants: Don Elliott, FAICP, Clarion Associates
PROJECT GOALS
• Simplify the Bridge Street District review and approval process
without compromising standards
• Create consistency among submittal requirements
• Methodology:
• Learn from five years of administering the code
• Interview stakeholders
• Conduct independent analysis
• Conduct stakeholder committee review
• Public review
• Adoption process
City of
Dublin
...0' USA
PROCESS BACKGROUND
• Consultants were hired to work with staff (Clarion,
Codametrics, and LandPlan Studios)
• Consultants reviewed case histories; interviewed staff,
stakeholders and leadership; conducted an independent
analysis; and issued two background memos
• Code drafting process started
• Concepts discussed at four Council work sessions and three
joint work sessions of PZC and ARB
• Proposal reviewed and approved by PZC on 10/11/18
• Community Development Committee review on 02/04/19
/Dublin PROJECT STATUS: BSD CODE
OHIO, USA
emomi J11116 Iml
1 —PROCESS AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Draft Process/Submittal Requirements Proposal
Project on hold *
PZC-ARB Joint Work Sessions
Formal Code Amendment Preparation
ARB Review and Recommendation
PZC Review and Recommendation
Council Review and Adoption
'Library/Garage review, Signature Transition Element, additional public engagement (DCAP and WID)
iAll
it " iL 0
- l w
City of
Dublin
...0' USA
PROCESS CHANGES
Findings
• Process is too lengthy
• Too much detail is required too early in the process
• Too few administrative approvals
Recommendations
• Shorten the process without compromising standards and
outcomes, while ensuring appropriate flexibility
• Adjust submittal requirements accordingly
• No changes to administrative approvals
PROCESS CHANGES
CURRENT
1. Planning Staff
2. ART
3. PZC
Preliminary/Final:
• Basic Plan
• Development Plan
• Site Plan
PROPOSAL
1. Planning Staff
2. PZC
• Informal
• Concept Plan
• Preliminary Development Plan
• Final Development Plan
Preliminary and Final Development Plans
may be combined
PROCESS CHANGES
CURRENT
1.
Planning Staff
2.
PZC
3.
ART
4.
Council
Preliminary/Final:
• Basic Plan
• Development Plan
• Site Plan
PROPOSAL
1. Planning Staff
2. PZC
3. Council
• Concept Plan
PZC:
• Preliminary Development Plan
• Final Development Plan
Preliminary and Final Development Plans
may be combined
PROCESS CHANGES
• PZC is the Required Reviewing Body for Concept Plan,
Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
except...
• City Council is the Required Reviewing Body for a Concept Plan
when a Development Agreement is associated with a project
• Administrative Review Team no longer provides a
recommendation
• Informal review has been codified (optional step)
• Waivers can only be approved by PZC (no changes proposed)
• No other major administrative changes are proposed
PROCESS CHANGES
Minor Projects
• Smaller projects that do not have significant community
effects.
• List of eligible items has been reduced to eliminate all new
construction
• List includes expansions of existing structures (25% or 10,000
sf, whichever is less)
• List includes new accessory structures (1,000 sf or less).
• Approved by ART (kick -up provision)
City of
Dublin
...0' USA
PROCESS CHANGES
Administrative Departures
• Minor deviations of no more than 10% to a numeric zoning
standard (building dimensions, lot dimensions or coverage,
open space, landscaping, parking, fencing, walls, screening, or
exterior lighting)
• Due to unusual site or development conditions or conditions
unique to a particular use or other similar conditions that
require reasonable adjustments, but remain consistent with
the BSD Code
• No changes are proposed
• Approved by ART (kick -up provision)
PROCESS CHANGES
Master Sign Plan
• New, more detailed section.
• Builds upon existing code provisions in 156.035(H).
• New, clearer review criteria.
• Approved by PZC.
PROCESS CHANGES
Administrative Approvals (Minor Modifications)
• Limited in scope to correct undetected errors or omissions,
address conditions discovered during permitting or
construction, etc.
• New section created for Review Criteria, based upon language
in the definitions.
• Approved by PD.
Appeals
0 Section replaced with the ""standard" BZA appeals process.
Dublin PROCESS CHANGES
OHIO, USA
Architectural Review Board
• Provisions were included to continue ARB's authority as a
Required Reviewing Body in the HD zoning districts until the new
HD code is adopted.
• This includes MSP's and Waivers.
Single -Family Detached Homes
• New provision that excludes individual SF detached homes from
submittal of a Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and
Final Development Plan.
• Edits also excluded these as a Minor Project for ART review.
• Homeowners can go straight to Building Permit, which includes
CZPA (Waivers/Administrative Departures are still eligible if
1 jo NIM 1j�11
�� q 111t
1 Noll j �, +tellIt
NONNI lot
11114 MAIN
MIgl1 t ,,
Nikko kko iSUBMITTAL RE
loll,
POW
too 40
� l w
City of
Dublin
...0' USA
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Findings
• Too many submittal requirements
• Too much detail is required too early in the process
• Too much variations among various processes throughout the City
• BSD vs PUD vs WID
Recommendations
• Provide consistency
• Simplify the submittal process without compromising standards and
outcomes, while ensuring appropriate flexibility
• Establish a framework for updating processes in WID and DCAP to
ensure consistency within business districts
Prelimina
and Fina
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposed Application Types
• Consistency with PUD
a
a
hent Plan
rpinnmpnt N-JAP
May be
combined
449
IN
11141
111 ON �l1
Iilr t" ll
NINON
SIR,, t
r
mow••■ DISCU!
moll
crr�� ,isleRn
too 40
mpq., -- , 'ii C01 1
J L4 � l w
Dublin DISCUSSION
OHIO, USA
• Does the proposal sufficiently simplify the review and approval
process?
• Is a Concept Plan submittal tied to a Development Agreement
provide too much information?
• Does the committee support the changes to submittal
requirements?
• Is the recommended appeals process appropriate?
AMENDMENTS TO
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT SECTION 153.066
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
18-005ADMC
Community Development Committee
City Council
FEBRUARY 4, 2019
Case Manager: Vince Papsidero, FAICP, Director of Planning
Consultants: Clarion
R = Recommendation D = Decision RF = Review &
Type of Application
Conditional Use
Special Permit
Use Variance
Non -Use (Area)
g Code
Street
Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Minor Project
Administrative Departure
Waivers
Master Sign Plan
Administrative Approval
Parking Plan
Open Space Fee In Lieu
Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval
EVERYTHING GROWS HERE.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6220S
Ordinance No. 14-19
Passed
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND ACCEPT
NECESSARY CONVEYANCE DOCUMENTS AND CONTRACTS TO
ACQUIRE A 0.062 -ACRE FEE SIMPLE WARRANTY DEED FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITHOUT LIMITATION OF EXISTING ACCESS
RIGHTS; A 0.113 -ACRE STANDARD HIGHWAY EASEMENT; AND
A 0.007 -ACRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT FROM
GINGER SHEPHERD AND JAMES L. SHEPHERD, LOCATED AT
5556 AVERY ROAD, FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING A NEW ROADWAY WHICH SHALL BE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC WITHOUT CHARGE.
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin (the "City's is preparing to construct the Tuttle Crossing
Boulevard Extension and Avery Road Improvements project (the "Project'); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires that the City obtain a fee simple warranty deed for
public right-of-way, without limitation of existing access rights, a standard highway
easE',ment, and a temporary easement from the parcel identified as Franklin County
parcel number 274-000078, owned by Ginger Shepherd and James L. Shepherd (the
"Grantor', as described in the attached Exhibits A and depicted in the attached Exhibits
B; a n d
WHEREAS, the City, through its acquisition agent for the Project, and the Grantor
participated in good faith discussions and have come to mutually agreeable terms for
the acquisition of the necessary property interests for the sum of $30,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to execute and accept necessary documents to complete
the transaction between the City and the Grantors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
Delaware, Franklin, and Union Counties, State of Ohio, r7 of the elected members
concurring that:
Section 1, The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute and accept all
necessary documents to acquire a 0.062 -acre fee simple warranty deed for right-of-
way, without limitation of existing access rights; a 0.113 -acre standard highway
easement; and a 0.007 -acre temporary construction easement from Ginger Shepherd
and .✓lames L. Shepherd, for $30,000.00, said property interest located within the parcel
identified as Franklin County parcel number 274-000078, and more fully described in
the attached Exhibits A and B.
Sectio=2. Council further hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, the
Director of Law, the Director of Finance, the Clerk of Council, or other appropriate
officEirs of the City to take any other actions as may be appropriate to implement this
Ordinance without further legislation being required.
- -1.:! - -- A TI - i1 1 .
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
)rdance with 4.04(b) of the Dublin
2019.
Ask&
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway * Dublin, QH 43017-1090
..ffilwwb
Uityof Dublin Phone,: 614.410.4400 * Fax.- 614.410.4490 9KddSkAMk AWNRM
Cit M 11� MU
To: Members of Dublin City Council
oel�
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manag
Date. April 16, 2019
In'Itiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, Director of Engineering
Jean -Ellen Willis, PE, Engineering Manager — Transportation
Philip K. Hartmann, Assistant Law Director
Re,* Ordinance14-19 through 20-19
Acquisition of Right -of -Way and Easements
Tuttle Crossing Boulevard Extension and Avery Road
Improvements (13-013-CIP)
The Project requires the acquisition of property interests from multiple property owners on Tuttle
Crossing Boulevard, Avery Road, Wilcox Road, Rings Road, Cara Road, and Cara Court.
The City, through its acquisition agent, has come to mutually agreeable terms with multiple
property owners in connection with the Project. The property acquisitions from these owners
consist of the following property interests from the named property owners, as depicted in the
map attached hereto:
D
Ord. 14-19 through 20-19 — Acquisition of Right -of -Way and Easements for Tuttle Crossing Boulevard
Extension and Avery Road Improvements
April 16, 2019
Page 2 of 3
W er
0 il
P roper14 Inte d to
res -ft AU
W U Sib OW
P 611D
:a
P,
nm
N mu r
U be
Ord. 14-19
0.062 acre R/W
274-000078
$30f 000
Ginger Shepherd and James
L. 0.113 acre Standard
Shepherd
Highway Easement
(Parcel 46 —
0.007 acre Temporary
5556 .oad
1:5-19
Construction Easement
Ord.
cre nne,
�a Ch -a I
273-00
,6596
13 645
Tuftl[01' ers L td
Easement
(Parcel,23
5X C II, �Ebner irt!0
Ord. 16-19
0.044 acre R/W
274-000082
$295,450
Felicia Quinn and John J. Quinn 0.157 acre Standard
(price for
(Parcel 28 'mowHighway
Easement
acquisition of
5498 Avery Road)
Ofd*17 '19
0.449 acre_p�rcel_
.0.00+ acre:,WW,
274 000095
entire parcel)
$10 19
164
W 11, Ito m T omas and U nda
, A
0 051 acre, S. tanda rd
'Thomas:..:
Hi: h, ay Easement
w
(Pa'rtO[3
5494 C�, :C
Ord. -
40.021 acre Standard
274-000092
$4f 847
Charles Fry and Amy Fry
Highway Easement
(Parcel 40 —
5540 Cara Court)
O if ,19
rd19
0.016 acre'Standard
274 -000091
$3214
re
e n
Chri, t -p eman a
K N E
ig.: way..:zsemen
Michele, reeMan'..
(P rices 404 e
e
55.45 "Cera,, Cou
Ord. 20-19
0.009 acre Sewer
274-000161 to
$605
The Village of Balgriffin
Easement
274 -000170 -
Condominium
(Parcel 49 —
274-000228 to
274-000235;
Avery Road)
274-000346 to
274-000352f
274-000354 to
274 f
- 000365-
274-000369 to
274-000390
Ord. 14-19 through - — Acquisition of Right-of-WayEasements for Tuttle Crossing Boulevard
Extension and Avery load Improvements
April 16, 2019
Page 3 of 3
These Ordinances authorize the City Manager to execute and accept on behalf of the City all.
necessary
documents to airlly acquire necessary
. M ak interests
er► each
property owner.
StaN recommends adoption of Ordinance Nos. 14-19, 15-19, 16-19, 17-19,r 18-19, 19-19 and 20-
reading/public hearing on May 6,, 2019,ordinances
propertyManager to execute all necessary conveyance and contract documents to formally accept the
necessary interests
w. described 1rt rM
EXHIBIT A Page t of
LPA RX 871 SB Rev. 06/09
Ver. Date 10/24/2017
PARCEL 46 -SH
PB) 99815
TUTTLE CROSSING BOULEVARD AND AVERY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES
WITHOUT LIMITATION OF EXISTING ACCESS RIGHTS
IN THE NAME AND FOR THE USE OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, LOCATED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
An exclusive perpetual easement for public highway and road purposes, including, but not
limited to any utility construction, relocation and/or utility maintenance work deemed
appropriate by the City Of Dublin, Ohio, Located In Franklin County, Ohio, its successors and
assigns forever.
Grantor/Owner, for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,
reserves all existing rights of ingress and egress to and from any residual area (as used herein,
the expression "Grantor/Owner" includes the plural, and words in the masculine include the
feminine or neuter).
[Surveyor's description of the premises followsl
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, and being located in Virginia Military
Survey Number 3004, and being part of Lot 1 of Miller Estates, as recorded in Plat Book 43, Page 75, said Lot
I being described in a deed to Ginger Shepherd and James L. Shepherd, of record in Instrument Number
200903120035105, all records referenced herein are on file at the Office of the Recorder for Franklin County,
Ohio, being a parcel on the right side of the proposed centerline of construction for Avery Road, as delineated
on the centerline plat for Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and Avery Road Improvements, of record in Plat Book
Page , said parcel being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Commencing for reference at a point on the existing east right-of-way line for Avery Road, as established by
said Plat Book 43, Page 75, said point being at the southwest comer of said Lot 1, being the northwest comer
of Lot 2 of said Miller Estates, said Lot 2 being described in a deed to Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the Lynn M.
Gray Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated November 7, 2002, of record in Instrument Number
201210010146290, (reference a 3/4" iron pipe bearing North 55 degrees 09 minutes 26 seconds West at a
distance of 0.62 feet and a 1/2" von pipe bearing North 81 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West at a distance
of 0.50 feet), and said point being 40.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station
132+61.02;
Thence North 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot I and along the north
line of said Lot 2, a distance of 18.00 feet to an iron pin set at the southeast comer of a proposed right-of-way
parcel for Avery Road, said iron pin being 58.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction
Station 132+61.36, and said iron being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING for this description;
EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2
LPA RX 871 SH Rev. 06/09
Thence Notch 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West, across said Lot 1 and along the east line of said
proposed right-of-way parcel, a distance of 150.00 feet to an iron pin set on the north line of said Lot 1, being
on the south line of that 0.345 acre tract described in a deed to City of Dublin, Ohio, of record in Instrument
Number 201411210156370, said iron pin being at the northeast comer of said proposed right-of-way parcel,
and said iron pin being 58.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 134+11.36;
Thence North 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds East, along the north line of said Lot 1 and along the south
line of said 0.345 acre tract, a distance of 41.50 feet to an iron pin set, said iron pin being 99.50 feet right of
Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 134+12.15;
Thence South 03 degrees 30 minutes 02 seconds West, across said Lot 1, a distance of 76.92 feet to an iron
pin set, said 'von pin being 88.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station
133+36.09;
Thence South 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East, continuing across said Lot 1, a distance of 74.16 feet
to an iron pin set on the south line of said Lot 1, being on the north line of said Lot 2, said iron pin being 88.00
feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 132+61.93;
Thence South 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot 1 and along the north
line of said Lot 2, a distanceof 30.01 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING for this description.
The above described standard highway easement contains a total area of 0.113 acres located within Franklin
County Auditor's parcel number 274-000078.
The bearings described herein are based on Grid North as referenced to the Ohio State Plane Coordinate
System (South Zone) and the North American Datum of 1983 (2011 Adjustment), as established utilizing a
GPS survey and an NGS OPUS solution.
Iron pins set are 30" by 5/8" diameter rebar with caps stamped "ASI PS -8438".
The above described standard highway easement was prepared under the direct supervision of Brian P.
Bingham, Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8438 on October 24, 2017, is based on an actual survey
performed by American Structurepoint, Inc., and is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
American Stmcturepoint/, Inch
Brim P. PS
Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8,438
0 -It O' F
J•fa-tom g1le�srd
C1A`4-) C,, rnri.rz
i
ssspputu,q ,
`.•``p•(E OF Oy
BRIAN P.
BINGHAM =
A t 8438 ' ¢ =
: p :• O
'.,"ZONAL G\'Q,
r •
I lhvlzli7
Date
m
•i.P.S. St cturiepolnt—PS 8438" cap t 'PjErOF��''
OLP.r. iron pipe found .J�( /Y
O
I hereby certify that: _ BRIAN P.
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey GINGHAM
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and - -a
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 8438
5'P li�2ol� 9Fpfs�PO�:
huam, P.S.
N . 8438 Date
American 85sO/VAL SVe.
lI
Exhibit "B"
-'a
Parcel
ore..n er:
'sv
PID: 274-000078
O
MM STRUCTUREPOINT
Tuttle Crossing
0.113 Ac.
46 -SH
cmcxea ey:
ays
City of Dublin, Ohio
0
U)
Boulevard Fat.
Standard
Sheet
■
a
and Avery Road
I.N. 2 009 031 200 351 05
Highway
r
0
ow:
,orzarzon
ffi
Improvemen
Improvements
2
Easement
�.r,s
Miller Estates
oft
(a
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
,u, no,,
swzoorea
Situated in the State
of Ohio
�
r
County
of Franklin, City
of Dublin
0 20' 40'
p
Virginia
Military Survey No. 3004
SCALE: 1"=40'
Basis of bl ring: I
I
I
W
Bearings shown hereon
3
OtK
are based on grid
north as referenced to
Or
o
the Ohio State Plane
in
Coordinate System
I
X PID: 274-000036
X
(South Zone) and the
W City of Dublin. Ohio
North American Datum
I
I.N. 201411210156370 N83'49'20'E
of 1983 (2011
I
0.345 Ac.
41.50'
�I 18.00
Adjustment), as
i
PID: 274=000079
I
established utilizing a
GPS NGS
I
5• y
Y
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of th,
PL
survey and
`4 PL
s
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Livin
OPUS solutipg,
N
m
•i.P.S. St cturiepolnt—PS 8438" cap t 'PjErOF��''
OLP.r. iron pipe found .J�( /Y
O
I hereby certify that: _ BRIAN P.
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey GINGHAM
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and - -a
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 8438
5'P li�2ol� 9Fpfs�PO�:
huam, P.S.
N . 8438 Date
American 85sO/VAL SVe.
lI
b�r
�g
o
3
c
PID: 274-000078
I
o
o
Ginger Shepherd and
o
m ;
0
U)
;o
James L Shepherd
o ;
a
y
I.N. 2 009 031 200 351 05
r
0
a
I
Lot 1
2
�.r,s
Miller Estates
(a
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
�
r
I
w
p
I
r^a
mgt
Z
W
OtK
o
in
X
LU
N8449
-20"E
N
PL
�I 18.00
♦ S
.p.y.,
PID: 274=000079
I
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of th,
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Livin
m
•i.P.S. St cturiepolnt—PS 8438" cap t 'PjErOF��''
OLP.r. iron pipe found .J�( /Y
O
I hereby certify that: _ BRIAN P.
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey GINGHAM
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and - -a
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 8438
5'P li�2ol� 9Fpfs�PO�:
huam, P.S.
N . 8438 Date
American 85sO/VAL SVe.
EXHIBIT A Page 1 oft
LPA RX 887 T Rev. 07/09
Ver. Date 1024/2017
PARCEL 46-T
PID 99815
TUTTLE CROSSING BOULEVARD AND AVERY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TEMPORARY EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PERFORMING THE WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT A DRIVE AND COMPLETE GRADING
FOR 24 MONTHS FROM DATE OF ENTRY BY THE
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, LOCATED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
[Surveyor's description of the premises follows]
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, and being located in Virginia
Military Survey Number 3004, and being part of Lot 1 of Miller Estates, as recorded in Plat Book 43,
Page 75, said Lot I being described in a deed to Ginger Shepherd and James L. Shepherd, of
record in Instrument Number 200903120035105, all records referenced herein are on file at the
Office of the Recorder for Franklin County, Ohio, being a parcel on the right side of the proposed
centerline of construction for Avery Road, as delineated on the centerline plat for Tuttle Crossing
Boulevard and Avery Road Improvements, of record in Plat Book , Page , said parcel
being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Commencing for reference at a point on the existing east right-of-way line for Avery Road, as
established by said Plat Book 43, Page 75, said point being at the southwest corner of said Lot 1,
being the northwest corner of Lot 2 of said Miller Estates, said Lot 2 being described in a deed to
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated November 7,
2002, of record in Instrument Number 201210010146290, (reference a 3/4" iron pipe bearing North
55 degrees 09 minutes 26 seconds West at a distance of 0.62 feet and a 1/2" iron pipe bearing North
81 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West at a distance of 0.50 feet), and said point being 40.00 feet
right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 132+61.02;
Thence North 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds East, along the south line of said Lot 1 and along
the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of 48.01 feet to an iron pin set at the southeast corner of a
proposed standard highway easement for Avery Road, said point being 88.00 feet right of Avery
Road proposed centerline of construction Station 132+61.93, and said iron pin being the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING for this description;
Thence across said Lot I along the following three (3) described courses:
1. North 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West, along the east line of said proposed
standard highway easement, a distance of 30.19 feet to a point, said point being 88.00 feet
right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 132+92.12;
EXHIBIT A Page 2 of
LPA RX 887 T Rev. 07/09
2. North 84 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds East, along a line perpendicular to the previous
course, a distance of 10.00 feet to a point, said point being 98.00 feet right of Avery Road
proposed centerline of construction Station 132+92.12;
3. South 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East, along a line perpendicular to the previous
course, a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 1, being on the north
line of said Lot 2, said point being 98.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of
construction Station 132+62.12;
Thence South 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of 10.00 feet to the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING for this description.
The above described temporary easement contains a total area of 0.007 acres located within Franklin
County Auditor's parcel number 274-000078.
The bearings described herein are based on Grid North as referenced to the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System (South Zone) and the North American Datum of 1983 (2011 Adjustment), as
established utilizing a GPS survey and an NGS OPUS solution.
Iron pins set are 30" by 5/8" diameter rebar with caps stamped "ASI PS -8438".
The above described temporary easement was prepared under the direct supervision of Brian P.
Bingham, Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8438 on October 24, 2017, is based on an actual
survey performed by American Stmcturepoint, Inc., and is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
American Stmcturepoint, Inc. �J•�pZE OF 0 10'4
BRIAN P. Z a zb17
rid an P. Bingham, PS ,o BINGHAM = Date
Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8438 1 A t 04.38 .n
1
Basis of bearing:
Bearings shown hereon
are based on grid
north as referenced to
the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System
(South Zone) and the
North American Datum
of 1983 (2011
Adjustment), as
established utilizing a
GPS survey and NGS
OPUS solution. i
We I
I(�6
it
I
I
1
1
.6 a
a 6
a
5.
PID: 274-0001
8
Ginger Shepherd and
James L. Shepherd
I.N. 200903120035105
Lot 1
Miller Estates
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
N05'05'40"W
30.19'
- 48.01'
PID: 274-000079
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living
Trust Agreement dated
November 7, 2002
I.N. 201210010146290
I Lot 2
Miller Estates
I
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
01.r.F. Iron pipe found
91 e s Jr Iron pin set w/
Structurepoint—PS 8438" cap
I hereby certify that:
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and
is trues 9V correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
9C /co5- %5/eebr✓?112677
rian P. Bingham, P.S. No. 8438 Date
American Structurepoint, Inc.
Parcel
46-T
Sheet
1 of 1
o to' 20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
osed Standard
way Easement
-N84'54'20"
10.00'
505'05'
30.00'
L PL
583'49'20"N
10.00'
v�puwngq
(EOF..
5: •.O
BRIAN P.
BINGHAM
:•• 8438 jO
o
SIRIICigB�01NT
TuNle Crossing
Exhibit "B"
City of Dublin, Ohio
Boulevard Ext.
0.007 Ac.
�
and Avery Road
Temporary
Improvements
Easement
"Situated
in the State of Ohio
County of Franklin, City
of Dublin
Virginia Military Survey
No. 3004
1
Basis of bearing:
Bearings shown hereon
are based on grid
north as referenced to
the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System
(South Zone) and the
North American Datum
of 1983 (2011
Adjustment), as
established utilizing a
GPS survey and NGS
OPUS solution. i
We I
I(�6
it
I
I
1
1
.6 a
a 6
a
5.
PID: 274-0001
8
Ginger Shepherd and
James L. Shepherd
I.N. 200903120035105
Lot 1
Miller Estates
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
N05'05'40"W
30.19'
- 48.01'
PID: 274-000079
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living
Trust Agreement dated
November 7, 2002
I.N. 201210010146290
I Lot 2
Miller Estates
I
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
01.r.F. Iron pipe found
91 e s Jr Iron pin set w/
Structurepoint—PS 8438" cap
I hereby certify that:
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and
is trues 9V correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
9C /co5- %5/eebr✓?112677
rian P. Bingham, P.S. No. 8438 Date
American Structurepoint, Inc.
Parcel
46-T
Sheet
1 of 1
o to' 20'
SCALE: 1"=20'
osed Standard
way Easement
-N84'54'20"
10.00'
505'05'
30.00'
L PL
583'49'20"N
10.00'
v�puwngq
(EOF..
5: •.O
BRIAN P.
BINGHAM
:•• 8438 jO
EXHIBIT A Page I of 3
LPA RX 851 WD Rev. 06/09
Ver. Date 10/24/2017
PARCEL 46 -WD
PID 99815
TUTTLE CROSSING BOULEVARD AND AVERY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN FEE SIMPLE
IN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY
WITHOUT LIMITATION OF EXISTING ACCESS RIGHTS
IN THE NAME AND FOR THE USE OF THE
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, LOCATED IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
Grantor/Owner, for himself and his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,
reserves all existing rights of ingress and egress to and from any residual area (as used herein,
the expression "Grantor/Owner" includes the plural, and words in the masculine include the
feminine or neuter).
[Sn eyor'a description of the premises follows]
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, and being located in Virginia
Military Survey Number 3004, and being part of Lot 1 of Miller Estates, as recorded in Plat
Book 43, Page 75, said Lot 1 being described in a deed to Ginger Shepherd and James L.
Shepherd, of record in Instrument Number 200903120035105, all records referenced herein are
on file at the Office of the Recorder for Franklin County, Ohio, being a parcel on the right side of
the proposed centerline of construction for Avery Road, as delineated on the centerline plat for
Tuttle Crossing Boulevard and Avery Road Improvements, of record in Plat Book Page
, said parcel being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Commencing for reference at Franklin County Geodetic Survey monument number 8847, said
monument being at the intersection of the existing centerline of right-of-way for Cara Road and
the existing centerline of right-of-way for Avery Road (North), and said monument being 61.66
feet left of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 126+41.19;
Thence North 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West, along the existing centerline of right-
of-way for Avery Road and along the west line of said Miller Estates, a distance of 626.18 feet to
a point, said point being on the east line of that 0.657 acre tract described in a deed to Karen
Mari Sharp and Michael R. Sharp, or record in Instrument Number 200404120080720, said point
being at Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 132+61.02;
EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 3
LPA RX 851 WD Rev. 06/09
Thence North 84 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds East, along a line perpendicular to the
previous course, a distance of 40.00 feet to a point on the existing east right-of-way line for
Avery Road, as established by said Plat Book 43, Page 75, said point being the southwest comer
of said Lot 1, being the northwest corner of Lot 2 of said Miller Estates, said Lot 2 being
described in a deed to Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living Trust
Agreement dated November 7, 2002, of record in Instrument Number 201210010146290,
(reference a 3/4" iron pipe bearing North 81 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds West at a distance of
0.50 feet and a 3/4" iron pipe bearing North 55 degrees 09 minutes 26 seconds West at a distance
of 0.62 feet), said point being 40.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction
Station 132+61.02, and said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING for this
description;
Thence North 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West, along the existing east right-of-way
line for said Avery Road and along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 150.00 feet to the
northwest comer of said Lot 1, (reference a bent 1/2" iron pipe bearing North 53 degrees 44
minutes 13 seconds West at a distance of 1.44 feet), said point being on the south line of that
0.345 acre tract described in a deed to City of Dublin, Ohio, of record in Instrument Number
201411210156370, and said point being 40.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of
construction Station 134+11.02;
Thence North 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds East, along the north line of said Lot 1 and
along the south line of said 0.345 acre tract, a distance of 18.00 feet to an iron pin set, said iron
pin being 58.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station 134+11.36;
Thence South 05 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East, across said Lot 1, a distance of 150.00
feet to an iron pin set on the south line of said Lot 1, being on the north line of said Lot 2, said
iron pin being 58.00 feet right of Avery Road proposed centerline of construction Station
132+61.36;
Thence South 83 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds West, along the south line of said Lot I and
along the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of 18.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING for this description.
The above described right-of-way parcel contains a total area of 0.062 acres (0.000 acres lies
within the present road occupied) located within Franklin County Auditor's parcel number 274-
000078.
74000078.
The bearings described herein are based on Grid North as referenced to the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System (South Zone) and the North American Datum of 1983 (2011 Adjustment), as
established utilizing a GPS survey and an NGS OPUS solution.
EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 3
LPA RX 851 WD Rev. 06/09
Iron pins set are 30" by 5/8" diameter rebar with caps stamped "ASI PS -8438".
The above described right-of-way parcel was prepared under the direct supervision of Brian P.
Bingham, Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8438 on October 24, 2017, is based on an actual
survey performed by American Structurepoint, Inc., and is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief �'..``�E OF 0"",
• �P .......... �r
American Structurepoint, Inc. :� 6; • •.�O
BRIAN P.,A-e- BINGHAM
Brim P. Bingham, PS = y 8438 0 z Date
Registered Professional Surveyor No. 8438 " p
City of Dublin, Ohio
Basis of bearing:
Bearings shown hereon
are based on grid
north as referenced to
the Ohio State Plane
Coordinate System
(South Zone) and the
North American
Datum of 1983 (2011
Adjustment), as
established utilizing a
GPS survey and NGS
OPUS solution. ,
PL
opepnp
pcNNQ
ur�pn
e on
�MaOCi 3
FL
a ori
Y
PL
N05'05'40"W
626.18'
F.
-0S
O
�� STRIICTIli01BI
Tuttle Crossing
Boulevard Ext.
and Avery Road
Exhib"AB"
0.062 Ac.
Warranty
Deed
W: r=w•
Parcel
46 -WD
Sheet
1 of 1
IXe 81 1-
a,wrr.a ey aPs
°01e� 10Y°0r`01
LI
I
W I
W
i
J
CL of R/W
Avory Road
Point of F.C.G.S. 6847
Reference
of R/W
C.G.S. 1934 -/Cara Road
S83"49'20"W
18.00'
I hereby certify that:
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
riaan P. Bin�gjfam, P.S. No. 8438 Date
American Structurepoint, Inc.
PID: 274-000078
Ginger Shepherd and
James L. Shepherd
I.N. 200903120035105
Lot 1
Miller Estates
P.B. 43, Pg. 75 a
PL
PID: 274-000079
rustee
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living
Trust Agreement dated
November 7, 2002
I.N. 2012Lot 2 146262
90
Lot 2
Miller Estates aJ.
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
y I
•I.P.S. g iron pin set w/
Structurepoint—PS 8438" cap
O I.P.F. iron pipe found
® F.C.G.S. Monument
"IS OF
O
BRIAN P.
BINGHAM
' 8438 . p
�sss/OVAL SJP,•
Situated in the State
of Ohio 0 25, so,
County
of Franklin, City
of Dublin
Virginia
Military Survey
No. 3004 SCALE: 1"=50'
WPID:
274-000036
City of Dublin, Ohio
„a
I.N. 201411210156370
0.345 Ac.
N8349'20"E
I "O'
18.00'
PL
LI
I
W I
W
i
J
CL of R/W
Avory Road
Point of F.C.G.S. 6847
Reference
of R/W
C.G.S. 1934 -/Cara Road
S83"49'20"W
18.00'
I hereby certify that:
This drawing represents the results of an actual field survey
of the premises performed by American Structurepoint. Inc., and
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
riaan P. Bin�gjfam, P.S. No. 8438 Date
American Structurepoint, Inc.
PID: 274-000078
Ginger Shepherd and
James L. Shepherd
I.N. 200903120035105
Lot 1
Miller Estates
P.B. 43, Pg. 75 a
PL
PID: 274-000079
rustee
Lynn M. Gray, Trustee of the
Lynn M. Gray Revocable Living
Trust Agreement dated
November 7, 2002
I.N. 2012Lot 2 146262
90
Lot 2
Miller Estates aJ.
P.B. 43, Pg. 75
y I
•I.P.S. g iron pin set w/
Structurepoint—PS 8438" cap
O I.P.F. iron pipe found
® F.C.G.S. Monument
"IS OF
O
BRIAN P.
BINGHAM
' 8438 . p
�sss/OVAL SJP,•
•55
Philip R. N ll
* and
Dianne W. Nolette
UL!
T
Orr-
Ug
9
■ Dublin
48
■ t The Village at
son no Balgriffin _
� City of
Comdominiu
v -
� r -
IN *&6wi Whim 0
-.
46
47 Inger Shephe
and 41 _
Karen Marie Sharp hepQrd
and Christopher R. Freeman 40
Michael R. Shar _ - and
Michele R. Freeman
Charles E. Fry, Jr.
42 and
L r Amy L. Fry
City of Dublin
T f 38
44 John D. Kormorak
42 Mary J.
and Reimann
City of Dublin Kelly Manard haron L. Kormorak
and _
_ oe MaynaLd._
37 36
Bo Tax Liens, 42 - Larry Edmund L. K n
LLC .and
City of Dublin P. Michae Kincaid Donna K. Kroh
and
60 Judy Faye Houser
Syed Salahul 28 n3O
and 42 V.Tadeshi William M.Thomas, Jr.
Ahmed Abdul � Felicia Quinn and
uabeer Qureshi Cit of Dublin an and Linda T. Thomas
Y J.D.Tadeshi
• John J. uin
r L
' h
..