Loading...
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.