Resolution 63-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: November 2, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Re: Resolution 63-21 – Acceptance of a Preliminary Plat of approximately 23.09 acres
for the Wright Way Corporate Park establishing a developable lot, two open space
reserves, public right-of-way, and necessary easements located at the northeast
corner of Emerald Parkway and Riverside Drive (Case #21-102PP).
Summary
This is a request, as recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, for
acceptance of a Preliminary Plat to subdivide ±23.09 acres into one 7.35-acre lot for economic
development, two reserves (one for Ferris-Wright Park), a cul-de-sac bulb right-of-way for Wright
Way, two No Disturb Zones, and a landscape easement. The site has not previously been
subdivided, so this process is being undertaken to create a development-ready lot, create
additional public right-of-way to complete the cul-de-sac for Wright Way, memorialize agreements
made with adjacent neighbors, and formalize the park site.
Process
The platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines,
establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site
layout, architectural character, and open space design for any future development are approved
separately by the required reviewing bodies.
Background
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval for the Preliminary
Plat request on October 7, 2021, finding that the proposal meets the review criteria. This
application was reviewed in conjunction with a Rezoning request for the southern portion of this
site, which was introduced at City Council on October 25, 2021 (Ordinance 70-21).
Details
The 23.09-acre plat has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along Emerald Parkway and 500 feet
of frontage along Riverside Drive. Access to the site is only via Wright Way, a public street.
Additionally, the Ferris-Wright Park portion of the request has approximately 550 feet of frontage
on Bright Road. The site is comprised of numerous parcels totaling 23.09 acres.
The platting requests create one lot for development purposes at 7.35 acres and two open space
reserves: Reserve A at 1.66 acres to preserve a sensitive wooded and steeply sloped area, and
Reserve B for the existing Ferris-Wright Park is 13.33 acres. Additionally, a cul-de-sac right-of-way
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re: Resolution 63-21 – Preliminary Plat – Wright Way Corporate Park
Monday, November 8, 2021
Page 2 of 2
(.253 acres) for the terminus of Wright Way is to be dedicated. Two No Disturb Zones are created
to protect sensitive stream habitat along the north edge of the development lot. Finally, a
landscape easement on Wright Way, as previously negotiated with adjacent residential neighbors,
is created to finalize that agreement.
The Subdivision Regulations require the provision of .46 acres of open space. A total of 14.99
acres of open space is proposed in the two reserves. Reserve A and additional No Disturb Zones
were created in conjunction with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Division of Wildlife,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all coordinated through the City’s consultant, Hull and
Associates, who conducted the environmental survey and research. Additionally, City staff also
surveyed the site to further assist in the location of the Reserve A line, which coincides with the
tree line and the start of the slope that descends to Riverside Drive.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of the
Preliminary Plat at the October 7, 2021 meeting with one standard condition:
Preliminary Plat
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
The applicant has met the condition for the plat.
Recommendation
Staff recommends acceptance of the Resolution for the Preliminary Plat.
0 250125Feet F
SITE
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1R-1
R-1
Hanna H illsD r
Jenmar Ct
Tuller Rd
Dale DrMooneyStWright
WayB r i g h t R d
GrandeeCliffsDrRiversideDrE m e r a l d P k w y
UV257
UV270
SITE
21-103FPFinal Plat4420 Emerald Parkway F0360180
Feet
The Grand
SciotoRiver
LOT 1
7.354 ACRES
320,322.65 SQ. FT
EMERALD PARKWAY 0.498 ACRESJENMAR
COURTGRANDEE CLIFFS ESTATES NO. 2PLAT BOOK 33, PAGE 123LOT 8
LOT 9
LOT 11
LOT 12
LOT 13
RIVERSIDE DRIVEWRIGHT WAYCurve Table
Curve #Length Radius Delta CH. BEARING CH. LENGTH
I-270
RESERVE "A"
1.662 ACRES
72,402.27 SQ. FT
0.253 ACRES
WRIGHT WAY
0.253 ACRES OF PARCEL 273-008414-00
0.498 ACRES OF PARCEL 273-013013-00
TOTAL ARCES IN R/W 0.751
RESERVE "B"
13.332 ACRES
580,741.92 SQ. FT
PRELIMINARY PLAT2/4
N
DUB027DUBLIN, OHIOEnvironment / Energy / Infrastructurewww.hullinc.comPhone: (740) 344-545159 Grant StreetHull & Associates, Inc.Newark, OH 43055PRELIMINARY PLAT
WRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARKWRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARK
LEGEND
MATCH LINE
LOT 1
7.354 ACRES
320,322.65 SQ. FT
EMERALD PARKWAY 0.498 ACRESJENMAR
COURTGRANDEE CLIFFS ESTATES NO. 2PLAT BOOK 33, PAGE 123LOT 8
LOT 9
LOT 11
LOT 12
LOT 13
RIVERSIDE DRIVEWRIGHT WAYI-270
RESERVE "A"
1.662 ACRES
72,402.27 SQ. FT
0.253 ACRES
WRIGHT WAY
0.253 ACRES OF PARCEL 273-008414-00
0.498 ACRES OF PARCEL 273-013013-00
TOTAL ARCES IN R/W 0.751
RESERVE "B"
13.332 ACRES
580,741.92 SQ. FT
PRELIMINARY PLAT3/4
N
DUB027DUBLIN, OHIOEnvironment / Energy / Infrastructurewww.hullinc.comPhone: (740) 344-545159 Grant StreetHull & Associates, Inc.Newark, OH 43055LEGEND
WRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARKWRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARK
PRELIMINARY PLAT
MATCH LINE
LOT 14
LOT 8
LOT 7
LOT 6
LOT 5
GRANDEE CLIFFS ESTATESPLAT BOOK 25, PAGE 8BRIGHT ROAD
RESERVE "B"
13.332 ACRES
580,741.92 SQ. FT
DUB027DUBLIN, OHIOEnvironment / Energy / Infrastructurewww.hullinc.comPhone: (740) 344-545159 Grant StreetHull & Associates, Inc.Newark, OH 43055PRELIMINARY PLAT4/4
NPRELIMINARY PLAT
WRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARKWRIGHT WAY CORPORATE PARK
LEGEND
MATCH LINE
RECORD OF ACTION DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 7, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
5. Wright Way Corporate Park at 4420 Emerald Parkway
21-102PP/21-103FP Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
Proposal: Subdivision of a ±7.35-acre lot to establish two open space reserves and
one public right-of-way.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Emerald Parkway with Riverside Drive.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary
Plat and a Final Plat under the provisions of Zoning Code §152.000.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Sarah T. Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4662, sholt@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-102 and 21-103
MOTION 1: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Scheiner seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
Preliminary Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
VOTE: 3 – 2 – 1
RESULT: The recommendation of approval to City Council for the Preliminary Plat passed.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Abstain
Warren Fishman No
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Absent
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way No
MOTION 2: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Scheiner seconded seconded, to recommend approval to City Council
for the Final Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
VOTE: 3 – 2 – 1
Page 1 of 2
5. Wright Way Corporate Park at 4420 Emerald Parkway
21-102PP/21-103FP Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
RESULT: The recommendation of approval to City Council for the Final Plat passed.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Abstain
Warren Fishman No
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Absent
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way No
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA,
Senior Planner
Page 2 of 2
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 11 of 16
Mr. Supelak stated that the next two cases concern the same property and would be heard together.
4. Wright Way Corporate Park at 4420 Emerald Parkway, 21-101Z Rezoning
A request for the Rezoning of two parcels from Restricted Suburban Residential District to Suburban Office
and Institutional District. The 9.01-acre site is northwest of the intersection of Emerald Parkway with Riverside
Drive.
5. Wright Way Corporate Park at 4420 Emerald Parkway, 21-102PP/21-103FP,
Preliminary/Final Plat
A request for a subdivision of a +/- 7.35-acre lot to establish two open space reserves and one public right-
of-way. The site is northwest of the intersection of Emerald Parkway with Riverside Drive
Staff Presentation
Ms. Holt stated that this is a request for rezoning of two parcels from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential to
SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District and subdivision of a +/- 7.35-acre lot to establish two open
space reserves and one public right-of-way. The 9.01-acre site is located northeast of the intersection of
Emerald Parkway with Riverside Drive. The applicant is the City of Dublin Economic Development Department.
The intent of the rezoning and platting applications is to create one developable lot for economic development
purposes. The two lots on the south side of the acreage are the lots intended for rezoning. Ferris Wright Park
extends north to Bright Road. The current zoning is R1, Restric ted Suburban Residential. The rezoning request
is for the 9.016 acres to be rezoned to SO, Standard Office and Institutional District for the Wright Way
Corporate Park. The rezoning request conforms with both the Future Land Use Map and the Thoroughfare
Plan, components of the Community Plan. The rezoning application meets the criteria for a Standard Zoning
District, and staff recommends the Commission provide a recommendation of approval to City Council. In
addition to the area intended for development, also created will be Reserve A, a landscape easement, a cul-
de-sac right-of-way, and Reserve B for Ferris Wright Park. Reserve A located on the western portion of the
site will preserve woods and steep slopes. There is a no disturb area to accommodate a stream that runs
immediately off site. The lot intended for development is in the center of the site. A cul-de-sac right-of-way
will be created for Wright Way. On the east side of the site is a landscape easement, which will create a slight
buffer between the residential area to the east. All Preliminary and Final Plat criteria have been met, and staff
recommends approval with one condition.
Commission Questions
Ms. Fox requested clarification of the site width. The GIS map on Dubscovery does not depict Reserve A as
encompassing most of the woods and slope. She would like clarification of the area of Reserve A and its width
from Riverside Drive to the lot line. She is having difficulty comprehending the extent of the woods, specifically,
where the tree line starts and stops and if it is part of Reserve A.
Ms. Holt stated that on the drawing, there is a distinct line 1 /5th the distance of the southern portion anticipated
to be rezoned, which coincides with Reserve A. It is approximately 230 feet wide.
Ms. Fox stated that she measures the widest width at approximately 280 feet. Is that is at the tree line?
Mr. Hendershot stated that the dimensions shown on the Plat are correct. The 96 feet listed is the bearing for
the tangent along the right-of-way. In the table on the top left of the plat, in the curve, a length is added to
the 96 feet; therefore, the length of Reserve A is wider than 96 feet.
Ms. Fox stated that if that is at the tree line, she is satisfied.
Mr. Hendershot clarified the Reserve line on the plat.
Mr. Way stated that he would like to pose a larger question: does the City really need to put office space on
this site? There is an existing park here, which contains an element of historical significance. There is a
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 12 of 16
residential subdivision to the east and an elementary school. On Emerald Parkway to the east, there is a
significant amount of land, which is already zoned for Office.
Ms. Rauch stated that it is currently zoned Residential but the Future Land Use map shows it as Office, as it
does for this site, as well.
Mr. Way inquired what the zoning is of the property north of the stream.
Ms. Holt responded that the area is zoned R-1, and it is identified as Parks and Open Space in the Community
Plan.
Mr. Way stated that this corner of Emerald Parkway and Riverside is very precious, and he is happy that it will
be reserved and not built upon. The stream is an interesting open space connection that leads to the river,
and there are many important environmental components. There is also the historic park and the parking for
the park. The investment for that park was relatively recent. This small piece of 7 acres seems to have
become an island. Is that precious 7 acres really needed for additional Office Space, or could we preserve the
entire site as open space based on the historic nature of the Indian Mounds at Ferris Wright Park?
Applicant Presentation
Colleen Gilger, City Economic Development Director, stated that the City does need office space. When the
City purchased the land, it also considered the Future Land Use Plan. We were aware of the Indian Mounds
located north of the stream and knew that maintaining that stream was very important to City Council. There
are several caves and falls within that area. When the City purchased the site further to the west, it was with
the intent for an office site. As a reminder, the purpose of the construction of Emerald Parkway was to create
an artery for future office development.
Mr. Way pointed out that there are also 1,000 acres available within the West Innovation District. This area is
a precious part of the City along the river, a gateway at Emerald Parkway and Riverside Drive. He is aware
that Emerald Parkway was constructed to open up the area for development, but given all that exists here,
including the school, he would like to ask his fellow Commissioners if what is proposed is the right thing to
do.
Mr. Fishman stated that although Emerald Parkway was constructe d in anticipation of future office, due to the
proximity of I-270, it was intended to have limited access. The access to the proposed office development
cannot be from the park or Riverside Drive, so the only access will have to be from Emerald Parkway.
Ms. Gilger clarified that the development would share the park driveway; there would not be another curbcut.
Creating another curbcut would require extensive blasting, due to the slope of the land, which would sacrifice
too much of the acreage. Because of the limited acreage, nothing exceeding 50,000 square feet will fit on the
site. The site will be marketed to small office users requiring 50,000 square feet or less. This is consistent
with the Community Plan, which indicates small office development here.
Mr. Fishman noted that factors have changed since the Community Plan was adopted. He is happy, however,
that no additional access would be created.
Ms. Fox inquired the anticipated height of the buildings.
Ms. Gilger stated that the buildings would be no more than two stories.
Ms. Fox inquired what percent of the site a 50,000 square foot building would encompass.
Ms. Holt responded that the maximum lot coverage is 70 percent, including parking.
Ms. Fox stated that Mr. Way has posed some very important points. If there were to be any development
here, it would need to be extremely sensitive to the stream, which has historical significance. The Community
Plan’s Future Land Use Plan calls for all of the area to the north to be preserved as park and open space and
not be developed. The Community Plan also provides for pedestrian connectivity from Riverside Drive along
that stream bed, throughout this area and to the historic park. If this site were to be rezoned, it would be
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 13 of 16
extremely important to understand that the sensitivity of the site must be preserved. Typically, visibility of
commercial properties is anticipated. However, instead of this site being a focal point, it should be cradled
within the surrounding beautiful landscape. The surroundings should remain the focal point.
Ms. Gilger responded that, interestingly, previous projects that had some interest in this site desired that their
buildings be located further to the west, tucked more into the landscaping. Because this property is City-
owned, it would be necessary to seek an economic development agreement from City Council before selling,
transferring or incentivizing the land.
Mr. Fishman stated that when Emerald Parkway was developed, other than Cardinal Health, the intent was
that there would not be accesses off the roadway. Buildings would be located back from the roadway, but
would be tall ensuring visibility from I-270. The land was considered very valuable due to its proximity to I-
270. Now, factors are different and this area is very sensitive. He believes further study is warranted before
making a decision.
Ms. Gilger stated that it was anticipated that building heights would gradually increase from Riverside Drive
to Bright Road and toward Sawmill Road. The Community Plan shows small, one to two-story office next to
residential, and this site and the school are the only uses adjacent to the residential neighborhood. Buildings
constructed east of the school will be taller.
Ms. Fox inquired if Suburban Office Institutional zoning permitted no height greater than two stories or if it
was designated by the Community Plan for this area.
Ms. Gilger responded that it reflects the City’s agreement with the surrounding neighborhood. A 3-story project
was previously approved, to which the neighborhood objected. Consequently, a decision was made that any
future development proposals would not exceed two stories.
Mr. Supelak inquired if the development would be a PUD.
Ms. Rauch responded that, as currently proposed, it would be a standard district. Staff has engaged the
neighborhood in discussions regarding the City’s plans.
Ms. Gilger noted that because it is a City-owned site, the City has discretion concerning the end user.
Mr. Boggs stated that, as previously noted, any economic development agreement, whether it be for sale or
lease of the property, must be considered by City Council. In that circumstance, Council would act as the
property owner and be able to impose restrictions. There would not be the same due process considerations
inherent with the City’s zoning authority.
Ms. Fox inquired if the Commission has concerns due to the sensitivity of this site, what would be the
appropriate method to ensure Council was made aware of those concerns.
Mr. Boggs responded that this discussion will be reflected in the history that Council will be provided with the
application. There is an able representative of the Commission who sits on Council, who can relay those
concerns. The Commission is a recommending body for rezonings. If the Commission were to put conditions
on its recommendation, and Council were to disagree with those conditions or consider them to be too
restrictive, per the City Charter, five votes of Council would be required to remove the condition recommended
by the Commission. A super majority vote of Council could overturn a condition.
Mr. Supelak stated that there is unease on the Commission with this application. However, there are future
steps in the process, wherein this unease either can be assuaged or it be prohibited from going forward.
Provided the Commission can articulate its unease, he is not adverse to moving forward with the
recommendation. That would be with the understanding that the Commission will have future opportunities
to address the concerns, if desired.
Mr. Way stated that he will argue that there is a higher community purpose for this piece of land than what
has been proposed today. He would like this to be discussed and explored before moving forward with this
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 14 of 16
application. Due to the proximity of the Dublin Arts Council, perhaps the site might have an arts-related focus
in addition to its historic nature.
Mr. Supelak responded that he believes this site has the potential to be something remarkable for the City,
and Suburban Office may not be it. He is unsure how that plays into the Commission’s consideration tonight.
Mr. Boggs stated that he would presume that the reason the City is requesting to rezone the site to Suburban
Office at this point is to aid the City in marketing this property. Suburban Office may not necessarily be its
final zoning, once a suitor is selected by the City. Would that be a fair assumption?
Ms. Gilger responded that would be a fair assumption, although this use is considered the best fit.
Mr. Boggs stated that it is also entirely possible that, in addition to an economic development agreement,
which could attach some conditions and which would be considered by City Council, the eventual user of this
property could request a PUD approval from the Commission.
Ms. Gilger responded that is possible, also.
Mr. Boggs stated that the point is that this is not the last word on how this site will be used; it is the first step.
Mr. Way stated that if, however, the site were left in its current zoning, the Commission could receive a future
application proposing a use other than Suburban Office.
Mr. Boggs responded that its current zoning is Residential; the Future Land Use Plan identifies it as Suburban
Office. Other than re-opening the conversation concerning the Future Land Use for this site, which the
Commission might be suggesting, the reason City administration has submitted this application is that they
believed the use had already been determined.
Mr. Way responded that the reason for his suggestion that the Commission discuss the potential use of this
area further is that he believes the Future Land Use map for this site might be incorrect and should be
reconsidered.
Mr. Schneier stated that he has a process question. The City purchased this land and determined what the
highest and best use would be for the City, no doubt with Economic Development’s input. It is not necessarily
the intent that the Commission rubberstamp that, but if we substitute our judgment, would it be possible for
the City to request a zoning appeal, and ultimately take it to City Council? The end result could be the same
because, presumably, this is what City Council wants.
Mr. Boggs responded that property rezonings and plat approvals are legislative decisions with the final
decisions made by City Council. The Commission is a recommending body with respect to both rezonings and
plats.
Mr. Schneier stated that in the end, this is not the Commission’s decision; we provide only a recommendation.
In view of that, he would favor making a recommendation of approval.
Ms. Fox stated that she would like to re-assure the Commissioners of an important point. The Planning and
Zoning Commission is the citizens’ commission, and provides the citizens’ opinions as to what they would like
to see developed. They recommend their opinions to City Council. If the Commission disagrees or agrees with
a proposal, City Council considers that. They should not focus on Council’s ultimate decision. If the Commission
does not express its opinion, Council would not be aware of it. The Commission does not serve as a rubber
stamp. As representatives of the residents, their opinions make a difference. Their opinion may differ, but it
is important for Council to hear the Commission’s honest opinion.
Public Comment
Linda Paulsen, 4158 Bright Road, Dublin, OH, stated that she and her husband recently moved from Houston
to Dublin, and are happy with that decision. She did not anticipate the late hour of this meeting, but she has
learned a great deal in the process. One of the most significant things she has learned is that this Commission
is very thorough and considers every detail. She is hopeful that they also look at the issue of greenspace with
the same level of detail. It is easy to look at business and tax revenue as progress. It is, and she has no
objection to business. She does not yet know Dublin as well as the Commission. Perhaps the City goes need
more business space, but she would ask the Commission to consider very carefully what she heard Mr. Way,
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 15 of 16
Ms. Fox and others say – that this parcel is very special. She requests that not only because she lives nearby,
but because this site is special to the Dublin. She would urge the Commissioners to do as Ms. Fox encouraged
-- give your voice to City Council. Let them know that this is a very special greenspace, and that there is ample
space elsewhere for more business. It does not appear that this site offers much space for business, anyway.
If you are familiar with this site at all, you are aware that the parking lot at Ferris Wright Park is very small,
accommodating only 20 vehicles. If the City adds a business in there, people from that business will be using
this parking lot, particularly if the access to the business is through the parking lot. She agrees that the best
use of this land is not business. It provides a wonderful, beautiful greenspace for Dublin, and she requests
the City to preserve it as such.
Mr. Supelak inquired if the approval of the plats is contingent upon the approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Boggs responded that the approval of the plats does not necessarily hinge upon the recommendation of
approval for the rezoning.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded a recommendation of approval of the rezoning.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Way, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, no; Ms.
Fox abstained, noting that this vote should be an opinion of the citizens, and she will have a final vote on the
application.
[Motion failed 2-3 with 1 abstention.]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat with one
condition:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Way, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms.
Fox abstained.
[Motion passed 3-2 with 1 abstention.]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Schneier seconded a recommendation of approval of the Final Plat with one condition:
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. Way, no; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms.
Fox abstained.
[Motion passed 3-2 with 1 abstention.]
Mr. Grimes noted that the current time is past 10:30 p.m. Does the Commission proceed with case reviews?
Mr. Boggs responded that, according to the Planning and Zoning Commission Rules of Order, no new items
are to be heard after 10:30 pm. However, that rule can be waived by an affirmative vote of 5 to suspend the
rules.
Consensus of the Commission was not to waive the rules. The additional case will be rescheduled to a future
agenda.
OTHER ACTIONS
Ms. Martin noted the need to schedule an additional meeting in November to accommodate the case
load. Commission members were requested to consider the date of Tuesday, November 16, 2021.
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Way seconded a motion to schedule a Special Meeting for Tuesday, November 16, at
6:30 p.m.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes;
Mr. Way, yes.
[Motion passed 6-0.]
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2021
Page 16 of 16
Ms. Martin noted that there is a need to reschedule the Thursday, December 9 regular PZC meeting
due to a special City event occurring on that date.
Mr. Schneier moved, Mr. Way seconded a motion to re-schedule the Thursday, December 9 regular PZC
meeting to Wednesday, December 8, at 6:30 p.m.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Grimes; yes; Mr.
Supelak, yes.
[Motion passed 6-0.]
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Martin stated that the developer of the northeast corner of Bright Road/Emerald Parkway site has
requested a Commission site review preceding the November 4 consideration of a revised Concept Plan
for senior housing. This site has a number of natural features and is significantly wooded. Per the
Commission’s Rules of Order permitting a 24-hour Special Meeting notice, staff will contact
Commissioners via email with an a proposed date within the upcoming week. The previous Concept
Plan considered by the Commission in 2020 has been emailed to Commissioners to facilitate their site
review. Although the revised Concept Plan for the November 4 meeting is not yet finalized, they
anticipate providing it early next week. Printed copies will be provided to the members to have in hand
when they tour the site.
The next regular PZC meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 14, 2021.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Assistant Clerk of Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 7, 2021
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
21-102PP/21-103FP – WRIGHT WAY
CORPORATE PARK
Summary Zoning Map
This is a request for review and
recommendation of approval for Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat applications for the creation
of one developable lot, one reserve area, a
dedicated public street, and to plat an adjacent,
existing City park.
Site Location
Northeast of the intersection of Riverview Drive
and Emerald Parkway.
Current Zoning
R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District
Proposed Zoning
SO, Suburban Office and Institutional (via
separate, concurrent request)
Property Owners
City of Dublin
Applicant/Representative
Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 152.000
Case Managers
Sarah Tresouthick Holt, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner
(614) 410-4662
sholt@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
Following a review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the preliminary
plat and final plat applications will be forwarded to City Council for review and determination.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 21-101PP and 21-102FP| Wright Way Corporate Park
Thursday, October 7, 2021 | Page 2 of 5
1. Context Map
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 21-101PP and 21-102FP| Wright Way Corporate Park
Thursday, October 7, 2021 | Page 3 of 5
2. Overview
Background
These requests create one lot for economic development, two reserves (one for Ferris-
Wright Park), a cul-de-sac right-of-way (.253 acres), and a landscape easement on Wright
Way. The total acreage is for all parcels is 23.093 acres including the Ferris-Wright Park.
The economic development lot is 9.016 acres in size, 7.354 acres of which is developable. A
concurrent rezoning request is also proposed to align with the Community Plan, which
requests the 9.016 acres to be rezoned to SO, Standard Office and Institutional District.
Case History
Since the property, including the park, has been previously subdivided as a lot split, but
not formally platted, all of this land is included with this plat request. This allows
clarification of old lot lines, dedication of ROW, and formalization of the final configuration
of Ferris-Wright Park.
Site Characteristics
Natural Features
The western portion of the site, adjacent to Riverside Drive, is steeply sloped and has
significant tree cover. The northern boundary of the development side has an off-site
stream. The northern “flag lot” of the property is Ferris-Wright Park, which is an
archaeological park that is owned by the City of Dublin. Access to all lots is via Wright
Way, which has formal landscaping along it as an entry feature.
Surrounding Land Use and Development Character
North: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential (Ferris-Wright Park and agriculture)
East: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential (Single Family Residential)
South: Emerald Parkway/I-270
West: Riverside Drive and R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential (Single Family Residential)
Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The parcel has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage along Emerald Parkway and 500
feet of frontage on Riverside Drive. Access is provided via Wright Way, a dead end that
will serve both this parcel and Ferris-Wright Park. As part of the platting process, a cul-
de-sac bulb, in the form of public right-of-way, will be created on Wright Way. A
shared-use-path currently exists along both Emerald Parkway and Wright Way.
Utilities
Utilities are adjacent to the site on Emerald Parkway and will be further extended to the site
when a developer is identified.
Process
A Preliminary Plat and Final Plat are proposed concurrently with a Rezoning request. Platting
establishes legal lots, dedicates public rights-of-way, and identifies necessary
easements/build zones.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 21-101PP and 21-102FP| Wright Way Corporate Park
Thursday, October 7, 2021 | Page 4 of 5
Open Space Areas
The proposal includes two open space reserves. Reserve A is approximately 1.66 acres in size
and is located at the west end of the development lot. It includes steep slopes and heavily
treed land, not suitable for development. Reserve B is the Ferris-Wright Park at 13.326 acres,
and is being formally reserved as a public park. The required minimum open space dedication
for this request is .46 acres, using the calculation requirements in Section 152.086 of the City’s
Code.
Additionally, to address required stream setbacks for a creek that runs just north of the
development property, No Disturb Zones are created on the northern part of this proposed lot.
Together with the property to the north, a 75’ setback will be created to preserve wooded areas
and maintain water quality.
Entry Feature
The existing landscaped entry feature for Ferris-Wright Park will remain through an identified
easement. The easement ensures that the City’s investment in plantings and signage will
remain.
Utilities
Sanitary
The site is served by the 15-inch public sanitary sewer located along the north side of Emerald
Parkway.
Water
The site is served by the 12-inch public water main located along the south side of emerald
Parkway and the 6-inch public water main located along the west side of Wright Way.
Stormwater Management
An existing dry detention basin is located on the site to accommodate the Ferris-Wright Park
stormwater management and will be fully contained within the created reserve for the park.
Development will be subject to stormwater management requirements in accordance with
Chapter 53 of the City of Dublin Code of Ordinances.
3. Criteria Analysis
Preliminary and Final Plat
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements
Criteria Met. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations. The applicant and staff have worked closely to ensure that all review
comments have been fully addressed.
2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike Path Standards
Criteria Met. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bike path
standards of the Subdivision Regulations.
3) Utilities
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 21-101PP and 21-102FP| Wright Way Corporate Park
Thursday, October 7, 2021 | Page 5 of 5
Criteria Met. Existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat. Development will be
subject to stormwater management requirements in accordance with Chapter 53 of
the City of Dublin Code of Ordinances.
4) Open Space Requirements
Criteria Met. The proposed open space provision, through reserves, landscape
easement, and no disturb zones, meets all requirements.
4. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat.
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
1) The applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.