Ordinance 35-22
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana McDaniel, City Manager
Date: September 6, 2022
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Re: Ordinance 35-22 – Rezoning +/- 6.67 acres from MUR-4, Mixed Use
Regional 4 - Llewellyn Farms District to a PUD, Planned Unit
Development District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Vista
Community Church to permit a religious or public assembly. The site is
located on the east side of Frantz Road, north of Parkcenter Avenue
(Case 22-099Z/PDP).
Summary
This Ordinance is a request for review and approval of a rezoning to establish a PUD, Planned
Unit Development District (Vista Community Church) to permit an existing building and
associated parking area for a religious or public assembly and accessory uses. On August 18,
2022, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) recommended approval with no conditions to
City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) also approved a Final Development
Plan with two conditions, as PZC is the final authority for the FDP.
Background
The site is a 6.67-acre parcel located on the east side of Frantz Road, north of Parkcenter
Avenue. The site is developed with a two-story, 43,384-square-foot building and approximately
445 parking spaces. Presently the building is vacant. The site has right-in, right-out access on
Frantz Road and a full access point on Bradenton Avenue. A sidewalk extends along the east
side of Frantz Road and west side of Bradenton Avenue. The applicant is not proposing any
modifications to the site with this application. A future removal of parking spaces, dedication of
additional parkland to the City for the expansion of Llewellyn Farms Park, and the installation of
a sign will be reviewed with a future Amended Final Development Plan application.
The site was previously reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on June 16,
2022 for a Concept Plan. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposed religious
use and had inquiries regarding whether storm water management would be required and
requested that the applicant eliminate any excessive parking.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re. Ord. 35-22 – Vista Community Church
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
September 6, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Community Plan
http://communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov/
The Community Plan is a key policy document adopted by City Council to guide decision-making
for the future of Dublin’s natural and built environments. When a rezoning is under
consideration it is important to consider the Community Plan recommendations. The Community
Plan includes Future Land Use recommendations, Special Area Plans, and the Thoroughfare
Plan. Details that are contemplated within the Community Plan include the appropriate location,
density, and intensity of residential and commercial uses; the general alignment, character, and
connectivity of roadways; and general recommendations for parks and open space.
Future Land Use
http://communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov/future-land-use-map/
When a rezoning application is under consideration it is important to consider the Community
Plan and the Future Land Use recommendations. As the property was recently rezoned to
MUR-4, the existing zoning aligns with the recommended Future Land Use (FTU) of Mixed Use
Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office.
Proposal
The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing building and associated parking area to
accommodate the Vista Church. The use is a religious or public assembly that is proposing
operations within the City of Dublin.
Site Layout
The property contains a building sited along Frantz Road with parking located to the rear
(north, west and south) of the building. The site has capacity to serve a large user based on the
size of property, existing two-story building, and the abundance of parking. There are no
proposed modifications to the exterior of the building or the site with this application.
Traffic Generation Memo
Engineering has reviewed the Traffic Generation Memo and has requested that the Permitted
Uses include all uses permitted in MUR-4 District, as well as “religious or public assembly and
related accessory uses”. Engineering has requested that the accessory uses be limited to uses
permitted in either MUR-4 or as a religious facility so the uses are more definitive. The proposed
Development Text clarifies this language and has incorporated for City Council review for the
first reading.
Development Text
The development text is the regulating zoning document that outlines the development
standards including uses, lot requirements, and architecture and materials.
Uses
The proposed text retains the uses permitted in the MUR-4 District, as outlined in Dublin Code
Section 153.046, and adds “religious or public assembly and related accessory uses”. At the
Concept Plan in June 2022, the accessory uses that were contemplated included day care,
counseling services, and a food pantry. These accessory uses are intended to complement the
Memo re. Ord. 35-22 – Vista Community Church
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
September 6, 2022
Page 3 of 3
community service and public outreach, which are commonly associated with religious
organizations.
Operational Details
The applicant statement provides operational details of the religious use including the size of
their location in Worthington, which is 250 people, and projections that their Dublin location will
have a congregation size of 350 to 500 people. The description of the operations include two
services for Vista Church on Sundays, one of which would be the Dublin location. Peak traffic
volumes will occur at this time with occasional mid-week gathering. Two of the uses previously
described at the Concept Plan, specifically day care services and counseling services, would be
permitted under the MUR-4 District. The applicant has stated that the accessory uses would be
complementary uses to a religious organization and intended to serve the community.
Development Standards
Development standards provided include setbacks, building coverage, lot coverage, and building
height. The standards proposed by the Development Text are the standards of the MUR-4
District.
Parking and Open Space/Landscaping
The site has approximately 445 parking spaces which exceeds the needs of the church. The
agent has stated that the church would dedicate 0.75 acres of their property to the adjacent
Llewellyn Farms Park for additional park land. The Development Text states that this will
require review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) as an Amended Final
Development Plan. This AFDP will review the modified parking to the church site, the exact
acreage and description of the site to be donated, and confirmation that the land will be
dedicated to the adjacent land owner. The Development Text states that the AFDP will be filed
within four (4) months of the applicant’s purchasing the land at 5626 Frantz Road and will
transfer ownership of the parkland within three (3) months of the approval of the AFDP.
Planning has confirmed with our Parks and Recreation Division that they would be accepting of
the land.
Signs
The development text states that when the final design of a sign is determined, the proposal
will be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission as an Amended Final Development Plan.
The details of the sign and overall design of the sign have not been determined at this time.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan to City Council on August 18, 2022 with no conditions.
Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 35-22 at the second reading/public
hearing on September 26, 2022.
Page 1 of 3
Vista Community Church
Concept Plan – 5626 Frantz Road
Development Statement
Vista Community Church seeks the review of a concept plan application in further of its
desire to file a future rezoning application for a PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning
designation for property located at 5626 Frantz Road (the “Property”). The church is in contract
to purchase the Property, contingent upon approval of a rezoning to allow a church use to be
operated thereon. The Property consists of +/-6.633 acres zoned in the City of Dublin’s MUR-4
zoning district. It is improved with a building containing +/-43,384 square feet of gross floor
area and related improvements such as paved parking lots and landscaped areas. The rezoning
request would accomplish a single objective, which is to add a church as a permitted use on the
site. All uses and development standards that are applicable to the MUR-4 zoning category
would continue to apply to the Property, and the PUD text that will accompany the application
will incorporate those standards and requirements by reference. No additions or enlargements to
the building are being sought, and the existing condition of the site will remain largely the same
as it is today, subject to typical modifications that typically apply when a new occupant comes to
a site (such as a change of signage).
Therefore, this Concept Plan review presents a simple question: Is a church an
appropriate use for this site? The applicant submits that this is clearly the case. Banks, general
and medical offices, research and development, training facilities, and day cares are some of the
permitted uses in the MUR-4 district provisions under City Code. In comparison to these
permitted uses, a church use is less intensive and friendlier to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
As opposed to office uses, for instance, which will have traffic and activity 5 days per week (and
maybe six days per week if there is medical office), a church will have its peak traffic on
Sundays when other traffic volumes are relatively low. Use of the church during other days of
the week will include much less traffic in comparison to Sundays and to businesses that have a
steady flow of employees and visitors coming and going during weekdays.
Churches are often located within or close to residential communities, as they are
compatible with such areas. Impacts on the community are light, and the relatively slow activity
that comes with such uses for a large majority of the time make them great neighbors. In fact, all
of the codified residential districts under the Dublin City Code allow religious uses as
conditional uses. Moreover, the City’s Suburban Office and Institutional District allows
religious uses as permitted uses. That zoning district is very similar to the use rights in the
MUR-4 district. In fact, prior to the adoption of the MUR portion of the zoning code, suburban
office and institutional uses were permitted to be operated on the Property and therefore religious
uses could operate as of right. Given the Property’s proximity to the Llewellyn Farms
neighborhood, and the fact that an existing office building would be used by the church, the
proposed use is very appropriate and will have little to no impact on the area.
Page 2 of 3
Church Background
Formed out of an initiative of Heritage Christian Church (Westerville, OH), Vista
Community Church has been a part of the Dublin community since January 2007. The
congregation began meeting at the City’s Rec Center on Sunday evenings, moved to Coffman
High School in 2008, and to Jerome High School in 2010, but has been without a consistent
meeting place since the pandemic dislocated it from Jerome High School in 2020. Since then the
church has enjoyed thousands of participants, baptized and dedicated over 1,000 adults and
children, contributed thousands of community service hours, granted over $100,000 to local
community organizations and benevolent needs, and invested $957,000 in high school and Rec
Center rental fees.
Post-pandemic, and without a permanent space in Dublin, it is difficult to numerically
gauge the size of the church’s congregation. Pre-pandemic it was approximately 500 people.
Currently, about 250 people gather at a facility in the Worthington area. The
Dublin congregation is not likely grow without a permanent site. While churches continue to
face headwinds as to growth, Vista’s target size is 350-500 members, at which point it would
look to originate a new congregation. With a permanent facility, the church intends to host
two services every Sunday, one in Dublin and one in the Worthington area.
The use will have its busiest operations on Sundays. Some office use will occur
throughout the week. Occasional midweek small or midsize gatherings will occur. Other church-
related outreach and uses which are typically accessory to a church will be present here over
time.
Site History
As early as 2019, as the church was searching Dublin for potential permanent space, it
became aware of the property at 5626 Frantz Road and confirmed with City staff that the then-
current zoning allowed “religious institutions” as a permitted use. The pandemic arrived and
caused the church to pause its search for a permanent home.
Coming out of the pandemic in July 2021, the Property became available for lease. The
zoning remained the same and the church use was permitted. After reviewing a proposed lease,
it was determined that the capital improvements to the building which would be required did not
make a lease financially viable. Vista then began searching for purchase options throughout the
City and evaluated a number of other properties, each of which were not zoned to allow religious
uses. The church began meeting with the City staff in July and discussed plans with them. The
City encouraged the church to look at the Property again, considering that the use was allowed
there. In November Vista determined that a purchase was not viable at the price required by the
seller.
However, in late December 2021, the seller came back and offered to sell the property at
a price that was acceptable to the church, provided that Vista could close on the purchase
relatively quickly. A purchase contract was signed in February 2022 and Vista continued to
refine its remodeling plans. As part of final due diligence, Vista again made an inquiry with the
Page 3 of 3
City and it was confirmed on March 17th that the zoning of the Property continued to permit
religious uses. Until late March, the City’s website also showed the Property as still being zoned
to allow for the operation of a church. Then on March 28th, an email was received from the City
correcting the e-mail from March 17th and explaining that the Property had been rezoned as of
December 2021 into the MUR-4 category. That category does not list religious uses as being
permitted.
It is Vista’s contention that the new zoning category was not intentionally focused on
excluding religious institutions but rather focused on the type of office that is desired for this
corridor in the future. City staff has been unable to identify in its records any specific discussion
as to excluding these types of uses. Given the fact that a similar zoning district in the City (SO,
Suburban Office and Institutional District) allows religious uses, the City obviously has had a
long-standing view that religious uses are appropriate in office districts. The use of an existing
building by the church also does not foreclose the future use of the building for offices, and even
leaves open the possibility that it could be subleased in part for those uses. Given the fact that a
church use is less impactful to an area than other uses that are presently permitted on the
Property, Vista Community Church respectfully requests approval to move forward with a
rezoning of the Property as described herein.
Vista Community Church Planned Unit Development District
Page 1 of 2
MODIFIED LANGUAGE-RED FONT
OMITTED LANGUAGE-STRIKETHROUGH
VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
JULY 7, 2022
AUGUST 29,
2022
I. INTRODUCTION: The Vista Community Church Planned Unit Development District
(the “Zoning District”) consists of 6.533+/- acres located at 5626 Frantz Road. The applicant,
Vista Community Church, is in contract to purchase the subject property from its current owner.
Prior to the approval of this text, the subject property is zoned MUR-4 under Dublin’s Codified
Ordinances (“City Code”). The intent of this rezoning is to add religious uses as a permitted use
on the Property while continuing to apply the MUR-4 development standards and requirements
in accordance with City Code. Existing improvements on the Property include, among others, a
building containing +/-43,384 square feet of gross floor area and related improvements such as a
paved parking lot and landscaped areas. No changes to the improved condition of the property
are being proposed, other than a future dedication of additional parkland to the City for the
expansion of Llewellyn Farms Park, the installation and operation of signage to identify the use
of the building as a church, and the possible restriping and relocation of parking spaces to
accommodate the parkland dedication.
II. PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in this Zoning District:
A. Those uses which are permitted in the MUR-4 District pursuant to Section
153.046 of the City Code.
B. Religious or public assembly facilities and related accessory uses. Accessory Uses
are limited to uses permitted in MUR-4 or as a religious or public assembly.
III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The development standards and requirements that
shall be applicable to this Zoning District are those which apply to the MUR-4 District under
City Code Sections 153.045 through 153.047, inclusive, and other relevant provisions of the City
Code. Regulations in this Zoning District shall be administered as if it were in the MUR-4
District, also applying other rights, commitments, and obligations as provided in this text.
IV. EXISTING BUILDINGS AND USES; OTHER PROCEDURES: The rights,
requirements, and procedures relating to expansions or modifications to existing improvements
and/or the construction of new improvements in this Zoning District shall be governed by those
which apply to the MUR-4 District under Sections 153.045 through 153.047, inclusive. The
approved preliminary development plan and final development plan for this Zoning District shall
be deemed to include all as-built development plans that are on file with the City for the subject
property prior to the filing of the preliminary development plan application to which this zoning
text applies.
V. NEW PARKLAND. Llewellyn Farms Park is an existing public park located to the
Vista Community Church Planned Unit Development District
Page 2 of 2
MODIFIED LANGUAGE-RED FONT
OMITTED LANGUAGE-STRIKETHROUGH
southeast of and adjacent to this Zoning District. The applicant desires to (and shall) dedicate to
the City of Dublin, at no charge, at least 0.75 acres of real property located in the southeastern
portion of the Zoning District that is adjacent to Llewellyn Farms Park. This obligation will be
contingent upon the applicant having acquired ownership of the property that is the subject of
this zoning text. In other words, the requirement to make the parkland dedication contemplated
in this section is intended to apply only in the event that the subject property is operated or is
anticipated to be operated in whole or in part with religious uses. Within four (4) calendar
months following the applicant’s purchase of the property within this Zoning District, it shall file
an amended final development plan with the City for review and approval of the Planning
Commission, which application shall identify the dimensions and specific configuration of the
parkland to be dedicated to the City and adjustments and modifications to the existing paved
parking lot that will result from the conversion of the of relevant portion of the property to
parkland. Within three (3) calendar months following the legally effective approval of this
amended final development plan, the applicant shall transfer ownership of the parkland to the
City as approved thereby.
VI. SIGNAGE. Signage in this Zoning District shall be presented to the Planning
Commission for review as part of an amended final development plan. Signage shall be required
to conform with the applicable requirements of the City Code unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
.
The data on this map was originally compiled at 1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate System,
North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
Planimetric Legend
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Centerlines
Railroad Centerlines
Building Footprints
Building Under Construction
Creeks, Streams, Ditches
Rivers & Ponds
Source: 2021 Aerial Photography
Topographic Legend
Index Contour
Intermediate Contour
)O Spot Elevation
Source: OSIP - 2019 LiDAR Collection
Appraisal Legend
Parcel Dimensions
Lot Numbers
Site Address
Parcel Boundary
Subdivision Boundary
Parcel IDs
Condominium Boundary
XXX-XXXXXX
100
100
123 Main St
County Boundary
City or Village Boundary
School District Boundary
Zip Code Boundary
Tax District Boundary
Source: Franklin County Auditor & Engineer
ª
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within the county.
It is compiled from record deeds, survey plats, and other public records
and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information
sources should be considered for verification of the information contained
on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal
responsibility for the information contained on this map. Please notify the
Franklin County Auditor's GIS Department of any discrepancies.
Map Produced July 7, 2022
Franklin County
Auditor's Office
Auditor
Michael Stinziano
The data on this map was originally compiled at
1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate
System, North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours
based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
0 210105
ft
The data on this map was originally compiled at 1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate System,
North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
Planimetric Legend
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Centerlines
Railroad Centerlines
Building Footprints
Building Under Construction
Creeks, Streams, Ditches
Rivers & Ponds
Source: 2021 Aerial Photography
Topographic Legend
Index Contour
Intermediate Contour
)O Spot Elevation
Source: OSIP - 2019 LiDAR Collection
Appraisal Legend
Parcel Dimensions
Lot Numbers
Site Address
Parcel Boundary
Subdivision Boundary
Parcel IDs
Condominium Boundary
XXX-XXXXXX
100
100
123 Main St
County Boundary
City or Village Boundary
School District Boundary
Zip Code Boundary
Tax District Boundary
Source: Franklin County Auditor & Engineer
ª
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within the county.
It is compiled from record deeds, survey plats, and other public records
and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information
sources should be considered for verification of the information contained
on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal
responsibility for the information contained on this map. Please notify the
Franklin County Auditor's GIS Department of any discrepancies.
Map Produced July 7, 2022
Franklin County
Auditor's Office
Auditor
Michael Stinziano
The data on this map was originally compiled at
1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate
System, North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours
based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
0 210105
ft
The data on this map was originally compiled at 1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate System,
North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
Planimetric Legend
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Centerlines
Railroad Centerlines
Building Footprints
Building Under Construction
Creeks, Streams, Ditches
Rivers & Ponds
Source: 2021 Aerial Photography
Topographic Legend
Index Contour
Intermediate Contour
)O Spot Elevation
Source: OSIP - 2019 LiDAR Collection
Appraisal Legend
Parcel Dimensions
Lot Numbers
Site Address
Parcel Boundary
Subdivision Boundary
Parcel IDs
Condominium Boundary
XXX-XXXXXX
100
100
123 Main St
County Boundary
City or Village Boundary
School District Boundary
Zip Code Boundary
Tax District Boundary
Source: Franklin County Auditor & Engineer
ª
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within the county.
It is compiled from record deeds, survey plats, and other public records
and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information
sources should be considered for verification of the information contained
on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal
responsibility for the information contained on this map. Please notify the
Franklin County Auditor's GIS Department of any discrepancies.
Map Produced July 7, 2022
Franklin County
Auditor's Office
Auditor
Michael Stinziano
The data on this map was originally compiled at
1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate
System, North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours
based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
0 860430
ft
The data on this map was originally compiled at 1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate System,
North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
Planimetric Legend
Edge of Pavement
Roadway Centerlines
Railroad Centerlines
Building Footprints
Building Under Construction
Creeks, Streams, Ditches
Rivers & Ponds
Source: 2021 Aerial Photography
Topographic Legend
Index Contour
Intermediate Contour
)O Spot Elevation
Source: OSIP - 2019 LiDAR Collection
Appraisal Legend
Parcel Dimensions
Lot Numbers
Site Address
Parcel Boundary
Subdivision Boundary
Parcel IDs
Condominium Boundary
XXX-XXXXXX
100
100
123 Main St
County Boundary
City or Village Boundary
School District Boundary
Zip Code Boundary
Tax District Boundary
Source: Franklin County Auditor & Engineer
ª
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within the county.
It is compiled from record deeds, survey plats, and other public records
and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information
sources should be considered for verification of the information contained
on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal
responsibility for the information contained on this map. Please notify the
Franklin County Auditor's GIS Department of any discrepancies.
Map Produced July 7, 2022
Franklin County
Auditor's Office
Auditor
Michael Stinziano
The data on this map was originally compiled at
1"=100' based on the Ohio State Plane South Coordinate
System, North American Datum 1983 with 2’ contours
based on the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (when displayed).
0 860430
ft
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes August 18, 2022
Ms. Call stated that the next two cases would be heard together.
2. Vista Community Church at 5626 Frantz Road, 22-099Z/PDP, Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
A request for approval of a Rezoning of ±6.7 acres from Mixed-Use Regional 4 - Llewellyn Farms Office
District to a Planned Unit Development District, on a site located northeast of the intersection of Parkcenter
Avenue with Frantz Road.
3. Vista Community Church at 5626 Frantz Road, 22-100FDP, Final Development Plan
A request for approval of a Final Development Plan for the operation of a Religious/Public Assembly use on
a 6.7-acre site proposed to be zoned Planned Unit Development D istrict located northeast of the intersection
of Parkcenter Avenue with Frantz Road.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble stated that this request includes applications for a rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan and
a Final Development Plan for a site located at 5626 Frantz Road. The site is currently zoned MUR-4, and
the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The exclusive
purpose of the rezoning is to allow a religious use to be a permitted use for the site and for accessory uses
associated with the church. Following a review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan will be forwarded to City Council for review
and approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) is the approving authority for the Final
Development Plan. The site is a 6-acre parcel located on the east side of Frantz Road, north of Parkcenter
Avenue. The surrounding land use, particularly along Frantz Road, isprimarily office. Residential uses exist
to the south and east of the site. The site is developed with a two-story, 43,384-square-foot building and
approximately 445 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing no modifications. They will be using the
existing infrastructure. At the time the applicant initially considered the site, the property was zoned PUD
- Llewellyn Farms, which permitted uses in the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District including
religious uses. However, in December 2021, City Council approved a rezoning of this area to MUR-4, Mixed
Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District. The MUR-4 District permits a limited range of uses primarily
focused on office uses, and does not include religious uses. This has prompted the applicant to pursue a
Rezoning and Preliminary and Final Development Plans to add religious uses for this site, including ancillary
uses that have previously been described as day care and counseling services. The Commission reviewed
a Concept Plan for the site on June 16, 2022 and was generally supportive of the proposed religious use.
The applicant is proposing to retain the uses permitted in the MUR-4 District, as outlined in Dublin Code
Section 153.046, and add “religious facilities and related accessory uses.” The applicant anticipates that
their Dublin location will have a congregation size of 350 to 500 people. Their operation will include a
church service on Sundays and a midweek service. The applicant has agreed to dedicate 0.75 acres in the
southeastern portion of the site to Llewellyn Farms Park. The terms of this dedication are outlined in the
Development Text, which states that the parkland dedication will be subject to the applicant acquiring
ownership of the site and will be formalized through an Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) within
four months of the purchase of the land. The AFDP will include the dimensions and configuration of the
dedicated parkland; any modifications to the existing parking area; and a Sign Plan, all of which must be
reviewed and approved by the Commission. Staff has reviewed the applications against the applicable
criteria and recommends the Commission recommend City Council approval of the Rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions, and approve the Final Development Plan with two (2)
conditions.
Applicant Presentation
Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, stated that he represents
the applicant, Vista Community Church. There have been no modifications to the plan since the previous
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes August 18, 2022
review. With the future AFDP, they will be presenting details on the parkland and parking area
modifications. They believe the site is currently over parked for their needs. Typically, a Suburban Office
Zoning permits religious uses, and they believe that use not being included in the recent rezoning and Code
revision was an oversight. This application would simply add a religious use to the MUR-4 zoning for this
site. They also anticipate bringing back a sign proposal with the AFDP.
Commission Questions
Ms. Call inquired if the Amended Final Development Plan (AFDP) could be brought back to the Commission
only under certain conditions or at any time.
Ms. Noble responded that an AFDP application could be brought to the Commission at any time.
Ms. Call inquired the reason for conditioning this approval on the applicant later bringing back an AFDP.
Ms. Noble responded that it would be a requirement regardless of whether it was made a condition.
However, staff believed the anticipated modifications to the site warranted a condition, in particular, the
parkland dedication. The condition essentially clarifies the applicant’s intent.
Public Comment
There were no public comments.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Fishman stated that he visited the site today and found the building and grounds in disrepair. He
assumes the applicant would be required to address those conditions.
Mr. Underhill responded that as soon as the applicant assumes ownership, it will be in their interest to clean
up the site and make it as attractive as possible.
Mr. Chinnock inquired if in the future, the applicant should desire to add a school, that use would be
covered by this rezoning.
Ms. Noble responded that would be an accessory use, and any proposed accessory use would need to be
permitted by the MUR-4 District.
Mr. Chinnock inquired if there would be any limitations on outdoor gatherings.
Ms. Noble stated that there would be no regulations on outdoor activities. Typically, churches have
associated accessory uses, and activities associated with religious services would be accommodated.
Ms. Harter stated that she believes this was an excellent example of the City and the applicant working
together.
There was no additional discussion.
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Chinnock seconded approval of a recommendation to City Council for approval of
the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Harter,
yes; Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objection to the proposed conditions for the Final Development
Plan approval.
Mr. Underhill indicated they had no objections.
Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Harter seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with two (2) conditions:
1) That the applicant submit an Amended Final Development Plan for the reduced parking area,
creation of open space, and future sign modifications; and
2) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering on traffic analysis for the proposed uses,
including a Traffic Generation analysis or Traffic Impact Study, prior to final occupancy.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes August 18, 2022
Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Chinnock, yes; Ms. Harter, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call,
yes; Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0.]
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
PLANNING REPORT
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 18, 2022
VISTA COMMUNITY CHURCH
22-099Z/PDP & 22-100FDP
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-099
https://dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-100
Case Summary
Address
5626 Frantz Rd, Dublin, OH 43016
Proposal Rezoning approximately 6.67-acres from MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional 4 -
Llewellyn Farms Office District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
Request
Review and approval for Rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final
Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section § 153.055
Zoning
MUR-4 - Mixed Use Regional 4 – Llewellyn Farms Office District
Planning
Recommendation
Approval of Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/Final Development Plan
Planning recommends approval with conditions.
Next Steps
Following a review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan will be forwarded
to City Council for review and determination. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the final determination for the Final Development Plan.
Applicant
Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Case Manager
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
tnoble@dublin.oh.us
(614) 410-4649
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 2 of 10
Site Location Map
1
1
Existing Llewellyn
Farms
Neighborhood
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 3 of 10
1. Background
Site Summary
The site is a 6-acre parcel located on the east side of Frantz Road, north of Parkcenter Avenue.
The site is developed with a two-story, 43,384-square-foot building and approximately 445
parking spaces. Presently the building is vacant. The site has a right-in, right-out access point
on Frantz Road and a full access point on Bradenton Avenue. A sidewalk extends along the east
side of Frantz Road and west side of Bradenton Avenue. The applicant is not proposing any
modifications to the site with this application. A future removal of parking spaces, dedication of
additional parkland to the City for the expansion of Llewellyn Farms Park, and the installation of
a sign will be reviewed with a future Amended Final Development Plan application.
The site was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on June 16, 2022 for a
Concept Plan. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposed religious use and had
inquiries regarding whether storm water management would be required and requested that
the applicant eliminate any excessive parking.
Development History
In December 2021, City Council approved a rezoning to MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn
Farms Office District. This rezoning implemented the long term objectives of the Dublin
Corporate Area Plan (DCAP). DCAP focuses on investing in and revitalizing legacy office
complexes that are a vital part of Dublin’s tax base.
At the time the applicant initially considered the site, the property was zoned PUD - Llewellyn
Farms, which permitted uses in the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District including
religious uses. In contrast, the MUR-4 District permits a limited range of uses primarily focused
on office uses, specifically, banks, offices, professional training facilities, day cares, tutoring
services and governmental uses. The applicant is pursuing the proposed Rezoning and
Preliminary and Final Development Plans to add religious uses on the site, including ancillary
uses that have previously been described as day care and counseling services. The applicants
have intentionally pursued a PUD to limit the uses on this site.
Process
Establishing a PUD is a three-step process with public engagement at every step.
1) Concept Plan
2) Preliminary Development Plan (PDP)/Rezoning
3) Final Development Plan (FDP)
2. Community Plan and/or Zoning Code
http://communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov/
When a rezoning is under consideration it is important to consider the Community Plan
recommendations. As the property was recently rezoned to MUR-4, the existing zoning aligns
with the recommended Future Land Use (FLU) of Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office.
A detailed description of the FLU is available at http://communityplan.dublinohiousa.gov/future-
land-use-map/.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 4 of 10
3. Project
Site Layout
The property contains a building sited along Frantz Road with parking located to the rear
(north, west and south) of the building. The site has capacity to serve a large user based on the
size of property, existing two-story building, and the abundance of parking. There are no
proposed modifications to the exterior of the building or the site with this application. A future
application will be required to modify the site signage. The site contains approximately 445
parking spaces, which exceed the needs of the church. The applicant plans to bring a future
application forward to modify the parking area and reduce impervious surface. The removal of
the parking will allow for the creation of additional green space. Staff will work with the
applicant at such time to ensure the required number of parking spaces are retained on site.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate 0.75 acres in the southeastern portion of the site to
Llewellyn Farms Park. The terms of this dedication is outlined in the Development Text and
states that this will be subject to the applicant acquiring ownership of the site and will be
formalized through an Amended FDP within four months of the purchase of the land. This will
include the dimensions and specific configuration of the dedicated park space and will include
any comments from the City of Dublin. It will also allow any modifications to the existing site,
specifically the parking area, to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. The
Development Text further states that three months following the Amended FDP, the applicant
will transfer ownership.
Uses
The applicant is proposing to retain the uses permitted in the MUR-4 District, as outlined in
Dublin Code Section 153.046, and add “religious facilities and related accessory uses”. At the
Concept Plan in June 2022, the accessory uses included day care, counseling services, and a
food pantry. These accessory uses are intended to complement the community service and
public outreach, which are commonly associated with religious organizations.
Operational Details
The applicant statement provides operational details of the religious use including the size of
their location in Worthington, which is 250 people, and projections that their Dublin location will
have a congregation size of 350 to 500 people. The description of the operations include two
services for Vista Church on Sundays, one of which would be the Dublin location. Peak traffic
volumes will occur at this time with occasional mid-week gathering. Two of the uses previously
described at the Concept Plan, specifically day care services and counseling services, would be
permitted under the MUR-4 District. The applicant has stated that the accessory uses would be
complementary uses to a religious organization and intended to serve the community.
4. Plan Review
Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan
Criteria Review
1. The proposed
development is consistent
with the purpose, intent
Criteria Met: The proposed uses are consistent with the
intent and purpose of the standards of the Zoning Code and
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 5 of 10
and applicable standards
of the Zoning Code.
allow the use to be sensitive to the surrounding residential
community.
2. The proposed
development is in
conformity with
Community Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan,
Bikeway Plan, and other
adopted plans or portions
thereof as they may apply
and will not unreasonably
burden the existing
network.
Criteria Met: The Community Plan and Special Area Plan
promote low intensity uses that are sensitive to the
surrounding area. This use is compatible with those
objectives and will provide services commonly associated with
residential areas.
3. The proposed
development advances
the general welfare of the
city and immediate vicinity
and will not impede the
normal orderly
development and
improvement of the
surrounding area.
Criteria Met: The site and its associated use are appropriate
and can be accommodated with the existing building and
associated infrastructure. The use will not impede the orderly
development of the area.
4. The proposed uses are
appropriately located in
the city so that the use
and value of the property
within and adjacent to the
area will be safeguarded.
Criteria Met: Religious uses are often located within
residential communities to provide necessary resources and
services. This site will provide the services and will also
enhance open space commonly enjoyed by the community.
5. Proposed residential
development will have
sufficient open space
areas that meet the
objectives of the
Community Plan.
Criteria Met: The applicant is maintaining necessary open
space needed for their intended uses and will enhance the
park space available for Llewellyn Farms, as well as the
surrounding community with the future dedication of
parkland.
6. The proposed
development respects the
unique characteristic of
the natural features and
protects the natural
resources of the site.
Criteria Met: The location has been developed in a manner
that is respectful of the characteristics of the site, and no
additional modifications are proposed.
7. Adequate utilities, access
roads, drainage, retention,
Criteria Met: The site has adequate services and will not
require additional drainage or retention facilities.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 6 of 10
and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being
provided.
8. Adequate measures have
been or will be taken to
provide ingress and egress
designed to minimize
traffic congestion on the
surrounding public streets
and to maximize public
safety and to
accommodate adequate
pedestrian and bike
circulation systems so that
the proposed development
provides for a safe,
convenient and non-
conflicting circulation
system for motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
Criteria Met with Condition: The site will continue to have
limited access to Frantz Road and full access to Bradenton
Avenue. The applicant has provided a Traffic Generation
Memo that analyzes the uses and their impact to the
surrounding community. The applicant should continue to
work with Transportation and Mobility to ensure all traffic and
access requirements are met.
9. The relationship of
buildings and structures to
each other and to such
other facilities provides for
the coordination and
integration of this
development within the
PUD and the larger
community and maintains
the image of Dublin as a
quality community.
10. The density, building
gross floor area, building
heights, setbacks,
distances between
buildings and structures,
yard space, design and
layout of open space
systems and parking
areas, traffic accessibility
and other elements
having a bearing on the
overall acceptability of the
development plans
contribute to the orderly
Criteria Met: The existing building will accommodate the
uses proposed in this application. A future application will be
required to approve site modifications to accommodate a
future expansion of the Llewellyn Farms Park and reduction of
parking. The applicant should continue to work with staff to
ensure compliance with all landscaping regulations.
Criteria Met: No building modifications are proposed, and
the existing site promotes visibility from the existing
roadways, allows the parking areas to be located to the rear
of the buildings, and has adequate open space to serve its
needs.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 7 of 10
development of land
within the city.
11. Adequate provision is
made for storm drainage
within and through the
site so as to maintain, as
far as practicable, usual
and normal swales, water
courses and drainage
areas.
12. The design, site
arrangement, and
anticipated benefits of the
proposed development
justify any deviations
from the standard
development regulations
included in the Zoning
Code or Subdivision
Regulation, and that any
such deviations are
consistent with the intent
of the Planned
Development District
regulations.
13. The proposed building
design meets or exceeds
the quality of the building
designs in the
surrounding area and all
applicable appearance
standards of the city.
14. The proposed phasing of
the development is
appropriate for the
existing and proposed
infrastructure and is
sufficiently coordinated
among the various phases
to ultimately yield the
intended overall
development.
Criteria Met: The applicant is not proposing additional
hardscape and intends to reduce parking; therefore, no
additional modification will be necessary to meet the
regulatory requirement for storm water management. This
includes minimum standards for quantity and quality
standards.
Criteria Met: No deviations from the standard zoning
regulations are proposed, and the use, and it associated
services, are intended to benefit the surrounding community.
Criteria Met: The existing building will not be modified with
this application.
Criteria Met: A future Amended FDP will be required for the
parking reduction, open space creation, and sign alterations.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 8 of 10
Final Development Plan
15. The proposed
development can be
adequately serviced by
existing or planned public
improvements and not
impair the existing public
service system for the
area.
16. The applicant’s
contributions to the public
infrastructure are
consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan and
are sufficient to service
the new development.
Criteria Met: The proposed uses can be adequately serviced
by existing infrastructure.
Criteria Met: The applicant is not proposing any additional
roadways or access points from existing roadways. The
existing infrastructure provides adequate services, circulation,
and safety as promoted by the Thoroughfare Plan.
Criteria Review
1. The plan conforms in all
pertinent aspects to the
approved Preliminary
Development Plan.
Criteria Met:
The applicant is not proposing to make minor modifications to
the site and is not including expansion or modifications to the
existing building or general layout of the site with this
application.
2. Adequate provision is
made for safe and
efficient pedestrian and
vehicular circulations
within the site and to the
adjacent property.
Criteria Met:
The site will continue to have a right-in, right-out access point
on Frantz Road and a full access point on Bradenton Avenue
to ensure proper vehicular circulation. There is also a sidewalk
along the east side of Frantz Road and west side of Bradenton
Avenue to ensure safe and efficient pedestrian movement.
3. The development has
adequate public services
and open spaces.
Criteria Met with Condition:
The site has adequate public services and open space. The
applicant is proposing to dedicate a portion of their site as
public open space for Llewellyn Farms with a future
application.
4. The development
preserves and is sensitive
to the natural
characteristics of the site
in a manner that
complies with the
Criteria Met:
The applicant has been sensitive to the existing conditions of
the site and is proposing to reduce the existing parking area,
to the extent necessary to provide efficient operations of their
uses.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 9 of 10
applicable regulations set
forth in the Code.
5. The development
provides adequate
lighting for safe and
convenient use of the
streets, walkways,
driveways, and parking
areas without
unnecessarily spilling or
emitting light onto
adjacent properties or
the general vicinity.
Criteria Met:
The existing building and associated parking area has lighting
that allows for safe maneuverability throughout the site. No
modifications are proposed.
6. The proposed signs are
coordinated within the
PUD and with adjacent
development.
Criteria Met with Condition: The applicant will be
required to submit an Amended FDP for review and approval
for any proposed signs changes.
7. The landscape plan will
adequately enhance the
principle building and
site; maintain the
existing trees to the
extent possible; buffer
adjacent incompatible
uses; break up large
expanses of pavement
with natural material;
and provide appropriate
plant materials for the
buildings, site, and
climate.
8. Adequate provision is
made for storm drainage
within and through the
site which complies with
the applicable regulations
in the Code and any
other design criteria
established by the City or
any other government
entity which may have
jurisdiction over such
matters.
Criteria Met: The existing owner has been working with the
City of Dublin to replace on-site trees that have protected
status and are in need of replacement. The City of Dublin will
continue to work with the applicants to ensure these
compliance issues are resolved and the site is brought into
compliance.
Criteria Met with Condition: No changes are proposed
with this application. The applicant will be required to submit
a future Amended FDP to review any changes to the parking
area and storm water considerations for quantity or quality
standards.
City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
22-099Z/PDP/22-100FDP | Vista Community Church
Thursday, September 18, 2022
Page 10 of 10
Planning Recommendation: Approval of a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan to a
Planned Unit Development with no conditions.
Planning Recommendation: Approval of a Final Development Plan with conditions:
1) The applicant submit an Amended Final Development Plan for the reduced parking area,
creation of open space, and future sign modifications.
2) The applicant continue to work with Engineering on traffic analysis for the proposed
uses, including a Traffic Generation analysis or Traffic Impact Study prior to final
occupancy.
9. If the project is to be
carried out in progressive
stages, each stage shall
be so planned that the
foregoing conditions are
complied with at the
completion of each
stage.
10. The proposed
development is compliant
with other laws and
regulations.
Criteria Met: There are no stages or phases to the
proposed project.
Criteria Met: The proposed development is compliant with
all other laws and regulations.
Reccomendation
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, June 16, 2022 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Vista Church at 5626 Frantz Road
22-082CP Concept Plan
Proposal: Request to permit Religious or Public Assembly and associated uses within
an existing commercial building. The 6.67-acre site is zoned Mixed Use
Regional 4 – Llewellyn Farms Office District.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Parkcenter Avenue with Frantz Road
Request: Informal review and non-binding feedback of a Concept Plan under the
provisions of Zoning Code §153.050.
Applicant: Aaron Underhill, Underhill and Hodge LLC
Planning Contact: Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
Contact Information: 614.410.4649, tnoble@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/22-082
RESULT: The Commission reviewed the Concept Plan and provided non-binding feedback on the
proposed religious, daycare, and counseling uses. The Commission discussed the amount of
paving, stormwater, and traffic requirements. It was discussed that a Traffic Impact Study or
Traffic Generation Analysis would be needed, prior to final occupancy. Llewellyn Farms HOA
Board did not express support for the rezoning of the site, as presented by the Board
president. The Commission concluded general support for the rezoning with some guidance
for removal of any extra paving, increase of green space, and the need for sign approval.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lance Schneier Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Kim Way Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Jamey Chinnock Yes
Kathy Harter Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Tammy Noble, Senior Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 185C4258-2B77-4A06-A4DE-86699A380D84
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 16 of 30
Ms. Call stated that she concurs with many of her fellow Commissioners’ comments. Global changes
have occurred during the last few years. There are potential uses other than office, such as civic,
health, school and daycare uses. Therefore, she would not be in favor of adopting a PUD for a
residential development in this area, unless it is stellar, conducive and complementary to the
surrounding neighborhood. We want Dublin to remain as appealing as it was 25 years ago. The
Commission shares all of the neighbors’ concerns. The proposed application is intense and dense.
Regardless of whether the interior of the units are luxurious, the development is not complementary
to the surrounding uses or to Dublin. In the Commission’s assessment, the proposed land use
density is too high for a residential use in this location and is not compatible with the surrounding
land use. The site layout is less imaginative than we would look for if we were considering a
residential PUD in this area. Due to open space and natural features, this site is a gem for whomever
develops it.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant requested any additional input from the Commission.
Mr. Sabatino indicated they did not.
Mr. Fishman noted that it is a tradition in Dublin that a developer meet with the neighbors to the
proposed development, as part of their process. Commissioners are influenced by the neighbors’
comments. He would recommend the developer do so before proceeding further.
Ms. Call reiterated his recommendation.
NEW CASES
3. Vista Church at 5626 Frantz Road, 22-082CP, Concept Plan
A request to permit Religious or Public Assembly and associated uses within an existing commercial
building on a 6.67-acre site, zoned Mixed Use Regional 4 – Llewellyn Farms Office District, located
northeast of the intersection of Parkcenter Avenue with Frantz Road.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Noble stated that the Concept Plan proposes a use that is not currently permitted in the District
in which the 5626 Frantz Road site is located. A Concept Plan is the first step of a potential
Rezoning, Preliminary and Final Development Plan. This is a proposal for a rezoning to
accommodate a religious organization and associated uses on a 6.67-acre site located on the east
side of Frantz Road, north of Parkcenter Avenue. The site is zoned MUR-4, Mixed Use Region. In
December 2021, City Council approved a rezoning to MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms
Office District. This site is located within that District. The surrounding uses are primarily Office to
the west, south and north, and Residential to the east and south. Staff and the applicant are
working with the surrounding residents regarding this proposal. The site currently is developed
with a two-story, 43,384-square-foot building and approximately 445 parking spaces. Presently,
the building is vacant. The site has a right-in-right-out access point off Frantz Road and a full
access point off Bradenton Avenue. Sidewalk extends along the east side of Frantz Road and west
side of Bradenton Avenue. The applicant has been working with staff for a considerable length of
time, even when it was zoned PUD. The site has since been rezoned to MUR-4. The applicant is
proposing a religious use for the site. Because that is not a permitted use, the applicant must
submit a rezoning application. The primary use of the site would be a religious use with ancillary
permitted uses that include day care, counseling services, and a food pantry, all of which would be
incorporated in the existing building. The applicant is not proposing any modifications to the site
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 17 of 30
other than modifications that occur with new users such as sign improvements. The anticipated
congregation for the church would be a maximum of 350-500, with services once on Sundays.
There would be a potential for mid-week gatherings. The daycare would accommodate 25-30
children. The food pantry is proposed as a temporary use on the site. The counseling service would
be provided in traditional office hours. The following questions are proposed for the Commission’s
discussion:
1) Do the proposed uses meet the objectives of the Community Plan including the Dublin
Corporate Area Plan?
2) Are the proposed uses compatible with the surrounding community?
3) Are there operational considerations or use specific standards that the Commission
recommends?
4) Is the Commission supportive of a rezoning for the property?
5) Any other considerations by the Commission.
Commission Questions
Mr. Way inquired if there was a reason a religious use was not included as a Permitted Use in the
MUR-4 District.
Ms. Noble responded that the use was not necessarily excluded. The Permitted Uses were
minimized. The Suburban Office District permits approximately 80 uses, while the MUR-4 District
permits 9 uses. The District focuses on the Office use, being conscious of the neighboring
communities it abuts.
Ms. Harter stated that there is a Montessori daycare use in the area. Is the applicant also interested
in potentially adding a daycare use in this facility?
Ms. Noble responded affirmatively.
Mr. Way inquired if staff has identified any potential challenges with the existing building for the
proposed uses.
Ms. Noble responded that all of the uses proposed are common for a religious use. A daycare would
need an outdoor space, but staff would work with the applicant to locate that in a sensitive manner.
Mr. Way inquired if there were any regulatory issues such as those related to amount of paving,
or impervious surfaces. The initial structure occurred in 1980 and many of the existing requirements
did not exist at that time. Would the current requirements be imposed, if the site were to be
rezoned?
Ms. Call noted that some of those requirements might be water quality and stormwater mitigation.
Mr. Hendershot stated that if the applicant is not making any site modifications, they are not subject
to stormwater management requirements.
Mr. Way stated that there would be changes to the flow of the traffic due to the hours of use.
Mr. Hendershot responded that if the project were to proceed, a traffic study would be required.
They would consult with the Traffic and Mobility division regarding the specific requirements for
this application.
Mr. Fishman inquired if this would be a permanent use. The associated uses might require play
equipment, which would impact the exterior of the building
Ms. Noble responded that the religious use would be a permanent use. There are some questions
regarding the potential ancillary uses. At this time, no site modifications are proposed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 18 of 30
Ms. Harter inquired if, with the Traffic Impact Study, the City would make recommendations
regarding the ingress/egress to the building site. Which entrance would be recommended?
Mr. Hendershot responded that the Traffic Impact Study also looks at access management.
Applicant Presentation
Aaron Underhill, Underhill & Hodge, 8000 Walton Parkway, New Albany, stated that he represents
the applicant, Vista Community Church. This application has an interesting history and is the reason
they are proposing a PUD versus another type of application. Pastor Mike Smith is present and will
be able to address questions related to operations. The church has been present in the community
since 2007. They have been meeting in Jerome High School and have not had a permanent home.
They were looking at this property before the pandemic, and were unable to come to a lease price
agreement. During the discussion process, however, this site was rezoned and did not include a
religious use. The church was not informed by the property owner of the Code revision occurring,
which did not include religious uses. Consequently, they have been engaged with City staff and the
neighborhood on the proposed use. The general consensus seems to be that the use makes sense,
but they had just completed a lengthy process, which did not include this use. There was little
interest in deviating from the Code so soon. However, due to fact that this property is positioned
next to a residential community where churches are often located, and in the Suburban Office
District, churches are Permitted Uses, they believe the proposed use is appropriate on this site.
Because altering the Code would have ramifications for the greater area, staff recommended filing
a rezoning request for this site only. They would incorporate the MUR-4 Code by reference and
add the religious use. That preserves the opportunity for the s ite to be used in the future as Office.
Although a PUD permits some site modifications, no exterior site modifications are proposed, other
than signs and perhaps re-striping the parking. There may be opportunity in the future to add
greenspace on the site by removing some of the parking area. There is one update; however. The
proposed temporary use for a food pantry is no longer needed, as they have found another
permanent location. The other proposed uses would benefit the community and help the church
to grow. Counseling services and daycare uses currently are permitted on the site. The traffic
impact of this use would be less than that of an office building with peak traffic hours of 8 am and
5 pm. The primary use of this building would be primarily on Sunday.
Public Comment
John Phillaman, Llewellyn Farms Civic Association president, stated that the civic association board
voted not to support the Vista Community Church rezoning request for two reasons. The community
was recently engaged in a rezoning effort of this District for over three years. The MUR-4 achieved
what the residents desired. Although they empathized with the applicant, and a religious use had
been a Permitted Use prior to the MUR-4 rezoning, the request w as not timely. Before the rezoning
was approved, ample opportunity was provided for any interested party to participate in the
associated discussion process. Essentially, the applicant is requesting a re-do for this specific
property. We do not want to set that precedent, which will encourage future requests for zoning
carve outs. Although the intent may not have been to exclude religious uses, at this point in time,
we have a new zoning law with which we need to comply. The question for the Commission is if
the religious use is consistent with the intent of the MUR-4 District.
Commission Discussion
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 19 of 30
Mr. Way stated that he understands that there was a lengthy rezoning process and a resolution
was achieved to which the City agreed. However, this is a vacant 1980s office building. He is
questioning whether an office tenant will want that building. He suspects it is a market challenge,
which is the reason it is vacant. Seeing a use in this building, and having it no longer vacant, would
have a positive impact on the area. He has no issue with the religious use. It was on the table
previous to the adoption of the MUR-4 Code. He is supportive of continuing the existing
conversation with the applicant. He believes the use would fit the building, site and greater area.
He appreciates the applicant’s comment about potentially moving some parking and increasing the
greenspace. He would appreciate conversations about how this site could be improved and become
a better asset to this part of the community. He is supportive of the proposed use because of the
history associated with it; however, he is unclear about the process. Would approving this use
permanently include it in the MUR-4 list of uses or approve it only for this site?
Mr. Boggs stated that the reason the applicant is proposing a PUD for this site is to avoid having it
added to the MUR-4 District. If something similar were to arise in the future, it also would include
specific review by the Commission. As proposed now, rather than a text amendment to the use
table for the MUR-4, we are looking at a potential PUD that would allow religious uses and adopt
the MUR-4 by reference for this site only. Any property owner has the ability to come before this
body and staff to try to undertake the rezoning of their property. While that can be frustrating for
the neighbors that were involved in work of the MUR-4 process, that would not factor into the
deliberation of the Commission on this application. The Commission needs to consider the planned
district criteria and compatibility.
Mr. Way inquired if, even though not be approved for the entire district, the precedent would still
be an encouragement to do the same.
Mr. Boggs responded that an applicant could always make that argument, but any application
would have to stand on its own merits. There would always be different site characteristics.
Mr. Way stated that due to that clarification, and the history of this application, he is supportive of
the Concept Plan.
Mr. Fishman inquired if it would be more appropriate to make this a Conditional Use.
Mr. Boggs responded that he does not know if making it a Conditional Use in the MUR-4 would be
advisable or not, as we don’t have that type of application for review.
Ms. Call noted that making it a Conditional Use would apply to the greater MUR-4; it would not be
specific to this application. As it is being approached, the application is narrowed to this single
parcel.
Mr. Supelak stated that he is divided in his position, because the MUR-4 rezoning was initiated by
the City for the neighborhood property owners. He is supportive of this use but is concerned about
the process. If we make a change, it is essentially negating our earlier agreement. He believes the
use is appropriate but is unsure of his position on the rezoning.
Ms. Harter stated that this is an opportunity that should not be missed. The site has been vacant
for approximately two years, and now there is an opportunity to fill it. She is supportive of the
proposed use. She is encouraged with the possible changes that could be made to the site, i.e. the
greenspace. The church has been a good tenant at Jerome High School and has had a positive
presence within the community. Having them locate to this permanent location would be good.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 20 of 30
Mr. Fishman stated that if the Commission approves the differen t use, he assumes that the existing
MUR-4 zoning would remain. Staff has indicated that the proposed rezoning would be more narrow
than a Conditional Use. In similar situations in the past, the Commission has added a Conditional
Use to the zoning. If the property owner vacated the site, it reverted to what it originally was. He
does not believe a use should be changed based upon the fact the building is empty. The use must
be compatible to the site and meet all the requirements. Although Office is the preferred use, he
believes the church is a compatible use; it will generate less traffic and have other positive impacts.
At this point, he is tentatively supportive of the Concept Plan.
Mr. Chinnock stated that he believes this is a compatible plan and a good use for the site. He
believes the decision should not be made solely on not setting precedent. The Commission needs
to be adaptable. There is a vacant building on this site, and there is much less need of office space.
In such cases, changing the zoning to accommodate what we believe is a good use would improve
the use of the property. In his view, there are more positives than negatives with the proposed
use.
Mr. Schneier stated that there was an earlier reference to process over substance, and while the
Commission would advocate for substance over process, we are following the prescribed City
rezoning process. We are not setting a precedent by considering a rezoning matter. He believes
both logic and equity call for this use in this particular circumstance with these particular facts. He
is not concerned about the precedential nature, because a rezoning always has its own particular
specificity. The next rezoning case within this area will have to stand on its own merits, as is
occurring here. He, personally, has no concerns about the merits of this proposal. He is supportive
of the Concept Plan moving forward.
Ms. Call noted that her employer is moving nearby to 5555 Frantz Road. She echoes Mr. Schneier’s
comments. The Commission is asked to judge this application based on certain criteria. In regard
to the proposed discussion questions, the use is not only compatible but also complementary. It
will have less of a traffic impact on the area. Complementary uses will lower the overall intensity
of the neighborhood. Each application must be judged on its own merits.
Ms. Call stated that no action on the Concept Plan is requested . She inquired if the applicant desired
any additional input from the Commission.
Pastor Mike Smith, 6480 Scioto Court, Westerville, OH stated that he oversees two churches; one
is the Dublin campus. He is encouraged and thankful for the pro cess. City staff has been responsive
and helpful. Their church has been a part of this community and wants to continue to be a part of
it. They are hopeful of locating on this parcel, but would not want to be there if it did not fit, did
not work with and was not conducive to the community. He is very glad to hear that the Commission
believes that it is. He finds that welcoming. The ancillary uses are proposed because people have
expressed an interest in them. That is what they will continue to do in the future -- they want to
do things that are helpful, provide a service, and work cooperatively with the City. They enjoy this
community; it has been a blessing to serve it.
Mr. Fishman asked confirmation that a change in zoning would be preferable to adding the church
as a Conditional Use in the MUR-4.
Mr. Boggs responded that a rezoning is what the applicant has requested. In his view, it
accomplishes the objectives of allowing this use on this site and not changing the Permitted or
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes June 16, 2022
Page 21 of 30
Conditional Uses within the MUR-4 District altogether. This would be more limited and conservative
in the sense of not over reaching. If approved by Council, this building would be a church as long
as this organization remains on the site. If they leave, the site would revert to the office use that
is otherwise permitted in the MUR-4.
Ms. Call stated that she is supportive of keeping the tree to parking space ratio high and considering
opportunities to restore some of the greenery that is native to Dublin.
4. 6801 Village Parkway, 22-041CP, Concept Plan
A request for a conceptual plan for a multi-family development consisting of 184 units with a
combination of podium and surface parking on a 3.71-acre site, zoned Bridge Street District,
Sawmill Center Neighborhood, and located southwest of the intersection of John Shields Parkway
with Village Parkway.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Will stated that a new development in the Bridge Street District follows a three-step review
process, beginning with a Concept Plan. The applicant is requesting review and approval, so a
determination would be required. If approved, the project would advance to the Preliminary
Development Plan application. The site is located southwest of the intersection of Village Parkway
and John Shields Parkway. There is a greenway along the south edge of John Shields Parkway.
The undeveloped site lies within a mature stand of trees on the south property line, which demarks
the boundary with a City-owned parcel with a shared-use trail to the south. A little further south
is Greystone Mews. The applicant engaged with the neighborhood association early in the planning
stage. This site is zoned Bridge Street District, Sawmill Center Neighborhood and is subject to
those standards. The Bridge Street District Code provides a hierarchy of requirements for
establishing a gridded street network. The Bridge Street District Code identifies three families of
streets: Corridor Connectors, District Connectors, and Neighbor hood Streets. Additionally, the Code
designated Principal Frontage Streets (PFSs), which contemplate additional design measures to
ensure a continuous, pedestrian-oriented block. Village Parkway and John Shields Parkway are
both district connector streets and principal frontage streets. Three buildings are proposed.
Building A is a 4 to 5-story podium apartment building, with a 260-space single-story parking
structure base. Buildings B1 and B2 are 3.5-story apartment buildings with 24 end unit garages.
There are an additional 30 surface parking spaces on the site. A total of 314 parking spaces are
being provided. For 174 units, the Code requires 260 parking spaces with a maximum of 350, so
the proposal meets Code. In regard to the architectural character, there will a mix of vertical and
horizontal façade treatments and a mix of roof types. The upper story of Buildings B1 and B2 is a
loft style. The proposed building materials are brick and stone; and there will be stoops on the
front facades. Access is proposed from John Shields Parkway, opposite the future Grafton Street,
which is being constructed with the recently approved Towns on the Parkway development.
Waivers would be required for access from a principal frontage street and for the block size.
[Discussion of proposed site plan continued.] The applicant is proposing to meet the greenspace
requirements via the existing greenway and the pocket park. They will be providing 45,500 square
feet where 35,000 square feet is required. The City will comprehensively design the greenway
corridor throughout the Bridge Street District. The neighborhood standards design framework
recommends a gateway location at John Shields Parkway and Village Parkway. The standards also
provide guidance on terminal vistas; there are three on this si te. Staff has reviewed the plan against
Minutes of
Held
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Meeting
o
Mr. Reiner asked about when AEP would have to communicate with the City regarding
the trimming of the trees. Mr. Hammersmith stated that in safety situations or in an
emergency, they would notify us and then trim or remove the trees, but they do not
need our consent. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if they provided a definition of
safety. Mr. Hammersmith stated that AEP's goal is to not have vegetation in the lines.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the right tree will be planted so it does not grow into the
lines.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor De
Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
Ordinance 86-21
Amendments to Zoning Code Sections 153.045-153.048 to Establish
Development Requirements and Procedures for Mixed Use Regional 4
District (MUR-4) within the Dublin Corporate Area Plan (Case 19-117ADMC)
Ms. Rauch stated that this Ordinance was introduced on November 15, 2021. There
was discussion at the first reading regarding screening and building height. Based on
Council's direction at that reading, staff revised the Code Amendment to make the
requirements consistent. Staff also removed the stipulation that the mechanical
screening would be incorporated into the overall building height, but kept the
recommendation that the mechanicals should be located away from the residential
areas. Ms. Rauch provided illustrations and landscape buffering graphics to show some
examples.
Ms. Fox clarified that a parapet around the entire building would not be allowed. Ms.
Rauch stated that a parapet around the entire building would be considered as part of
the overall building height. Ms. Fox asked about the review process for a new building
and whether or not Planning and Zoning approval would be required. Ms. Rauch stated
that this would be a new development that would require Planning and Zoning
Approval. Ms. Fox asked that it be noted that Planning and Zoning will be part of the
review process. Ms. Rauch stated she would clarify the language to reflect that. Ms.
Fox asked when the design guidelines are coming forward. Ms. Rauch stated that the
work is still being completed on the MUR-1 area revisions and staff intends to bring the
docurrient forward as one comprehensive document showing transition pieces between
the different subareas.
There was no public comment.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De
Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
Ordinance 87-21
A Rezoning of 27 Parcels from Community Commercial District (CC),
Suburban Office, and Institutional District (SO) and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to Mixed Use Regional District 4 (MUR-4) (Case #21-
087Z)
Ms. Rauch stated that there have been no changes from the first reading of this
Ordinance.
There was no public comment.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes;
Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 88-21
To Establish Appropriations based on the 2022 Operating Budget of the City
of Dublin, State of Ohio, for the Fiscal Year ending December 31, 2022
Mr. Stiffler stated that there have been no changes from the first reading of this
Ordinance.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, November 4, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. DCAP Code Amendments, MUR-4
19-117ADM Administrative Request
Proposal: Amendments to the Zoning Code for the MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional
District – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which establishes associated
development standards and procedures.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for the MUR4
Code Amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.234.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-117
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
Administrative Request for an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish the Mixed-Use
Regional 4 District development standards and procedures.
VOTE: 6 – 0
RESULT: The MUR-4 Zoning Code Amendment was recommended for approval and forwarded to City
Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Absent
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
DocuSign Envelope ID: A3A27B96-8610-4BE7-8646-C26BA54D23E2
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, November 4, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. DCAP Area Rezoning, MUR-4
21-087Z Rezoning Request
Proposal: Area rezoning of 27 parcels to MUR-4, Mixed-Use Regional 4 District in
conjunction with Zoning Code amendments.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for Zoning under
the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.234.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-087
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Area
Rezoning request from Community Commercial District (CC), Suburban Office and Institutional
District (SO), and Planned Unit Development District (PUD) to the Mixed-Use Regional 4
District (MUR-4), as clarified.
VOTE: 6 – 0
RESULT: The Area Rezoning was recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Absent
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
DocuSign Envelope ID: A3A27B96-8610-4BE7-8646-C26BA54D23E2
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2021
Page 16 of 22
Ms. Call stated that regardless of what development occurs here, it will be essential to be cognizant
of the riparian corridor.
Mr. Schneier stated that Council’s charge to the Commission is that they wanted to hear from the
Commission as to whether they were in agreement with this proposal. He would say that the
majority of the Commissioners believe that the Future Land Use along Emerald Parkway should be
revisited, particularly with respect to an opportunity to create a health and wellness campus. The
opportunity that exists with having a hospital and this type of center approximate to each other is
novel. Not taking advantage of that would be a lost opportunity. We have discussed Tech Flex
Districts and different concentration of areas within the City; that type of opportunity is now
dropping in our lap, and we want to say that, unfortunately, the opportunity does not fit with a plan
developed 15 years ago. He does not know if this is a motion that should be made or a point that
is made in the minutes, but that is his position.
Mr. Way stated that comments have been made about the economic return on this land. While
Office tends to provide a better return than other uses, it may be that what is proposed here would
have a more significant economic return than Suburban Office. It would be nice to have that
information, as these cases come back to the Commission. In regard to traffic, Office generates
traffic differently than proposals for assisted living facilities. They could have less traffic impact than
Office.
Ms. Call encouraged Commissioners to view City Council’s last meeting, when they discussed their
particular views regarding this corridor.
Mr. Way stated that he watched it, but the context of this particular discussion is different than the
context of that discussion, where the City had made an investment and was looking for a return.
However, he would like to understand what kind of economic return could occur with the proposed
use rather than Suburban Office.
Ms. Call requested that the Commission’s request be shared with City Council.
Staff indicated that it would be shared.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant requested any additional clarification from the Commission.
The applicant indicated no additional clarification was needed.
Ms. Call stated that Cases 3 and 4 would be heard together.
3. DCAP Code Amendments, MUR-4, Administrative Request, 19-117ADMC
An amendment to the Zoning Code for the MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office
District, establishing associated development standards.
4. DCAP Area Rezoning, MUR-4, Administrative Request, 21-087ADMC
Area rezoning creating the MUR-4, Mixed-Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District in
conjunction with the Zoning Code amendment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2021
Page 17 of 22
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch provided a brief overview. The Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) was adopted in
September 2018 by City Council as a Special Area Plan within the City of Dublin Community Plan. It
included the creation of four new Zoning Districts: MUR-1 (Metro/Blazer District), MUR-2
(Tuttle/Rings District), MUR-3 (Emerald District), and MUR-4 (Llewellyn Farms Office District).
Tonight, we are looking specifically at the MUR-4, which provides for lower density office uses and
sensitivity to adjacent residential uses. The plan calls out an undeveloped site, Site 11. There have
been several conversations with the Commission, the neighbors and the property owner of Site 11
regarding the development recommendations of the plan. There are three components of the DCAP
review. The Design Guidelines will be considered later. Tonight, review and recommendation for
approval is requested for the Code and the accompanying rezoning. There are four primary main
sections of the proposed Code: Purpose and Intent, Uses, Site Development Standards and Review
and Approval Process. With the proposed Rezoning, 27 parcels would be rezoned from Community
Commercial, Suburban Office Institutional and PUD to the MUR-4 District, to which those Code
standards would apply. At the Commission’s September meeting, several items were discussed, and
changes have been made subsequently. Those changes are detailed in the staff memo provided for
this discussion. The Code language was reviewed and the following changes were made:
153.045
• Added language about consideration and sensitivity of development to adjacent properties
and uses
153.046
• Clarified existing use provisions to permit only uses existing as of the effective date of the
ordinance, from then on any changes would be required to conform to the new Code.
• Reviewed when compliance with new standards are triggered, but no change made as site
compliance is required when redevelopment occurs.
• Verified language about construction trailers permitted only while under construction; no
changes were made, as existing Code provisions limit use.
• Provided benchmarking of day care uses adjacent to residential; no changes were made, as
the language is consistent with existing daycare requirements.
• Reviewed screening requirements regarding solar panels, and the language was revised to
require architectural integration and maintenance of building height.
• Reviewed sign provisions for vehicle charging stations, and language revised to remove
additional sign provision.
153.047
• Height restrictions and language “not to exceed” were clarified.
• Parking location language revised.
• Roof type allowances and pitches were reviewed and language was revised related to
permitted roof types, but the language related to roof pitch was unchanged to ensure
architectural diversity.
• Primary materials use and applicability language were revised to limit EIFS to upper stories.
• Language was added regarding selecting a variety of tree sizes to provide maximum opacity
within the landscape buffering requirements. Intent language was added; provisions added
regarding the use of small and medium trees for mid-level screening; preservation area of
existing trees at the drip line was included.
• Added shared and phased parking provision allowance under the Parking Plan.
• Required vehicle charging space provisions revised from 1 charging station/200 parking
spaces to 1 charging station/50 parking spaces)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2021
Page 18 of 22
• Loading area language requirements added to require loading areas be oriented away from
residential areas.
• Concrete base allowance for light poles was changed.
153.048
• Reviewed Minor Project language regarding projects abutting residential, and no change was
made.
Commission Questions
Mr. Way suggested retaining the wording regarding “front elevation” in regard to location of loading
docks, and clarifying what “upper story” means in regarding to the EIFS.
Minor language clarifications were requested.
Public Comments
Ms. Rauch stated that two public comments were received prior to the meeting, which were included
in the meeting packet. She, along with Ms. Fox and Ms. O’Callaghan, met with the Llewellyn Farms
residents a couple of weeks ago and addressed questions. An additional comment was received
from the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association requesting clarifications related to flat roofs and
assurance that in Subarea D, a pitched roof is required. However, the clarifications to roof type
were already included in the revised draft. They also inquired about the criteria required for use
and non-use variances. Any change requested for a use variance has much higher review criteria
than that for not meeting a setback. Variance requests are reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
They also requested that clarification regarding permitted and conditional uses in operation and be
subject to certain criteria. She will make those changes, as it does not fundamentally change
anything.
Matthew Cull. Attorney, Kephart Fisher LLC, 207 N. 4th St., Columbus, OH 4321, stated that at the
last hearing, they voiced their opposition to the changes that had been made to Section 153.047
regarding the screening of rooftop mechanicals, which differed from the agreement that had been
reached. With the last version, they also requested clarification on the meaning of “ground level.”
If ground level is not defined as being closer to the building, at ground level 400-500 feet away,
items on a rooftop are clearly visible. The proposed requirement would reduce the maximum height,
which is already three feet below what the neighboring residential homes are permitted. Therefore,
they request elimination of the provision regarding the screening of mechanicals as part of the
building height. The proposed language does not exist elsewhere in the City’s Code and unfairly
targets this property. If it is not eliminated, they request that “ground level” (p. 13) be limited to
the parcel on which the building sits.
Ms. Call stated that at their previous meeting, Commissioners requested that the mechanicals be
included in the building height.
Mr. Cull stated that would effectively reduce the maximum building height to 28 feet.
Ms. Call inquired if the measurement of ground height is defined in the Code.
Ms. Rauch stated that she does not believe it is called out in the Code definitions, but clarification
could be added. The term is also used in the Bridge Street Code.
Mr. Boggs confirmed that there is no definition of ground level in the Zoning Code General
Definitions. Depending on the Commission’s preference, it could be clarified either that it is ground
level at the parcel boundary, or at a fixed distance from the building.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2021
Page 19 of 22
Mr. Way stated that the property owner should be responsible only for the view on their property,
not from a distance away.
Ms. Rauch stated that the proposed language is consistent with that in the Bridge Street Code.
Mr. Cull inquired if in the Bridge Street Code, however, the screening of rooftop mechanicals was
included in the height.
Ms. Rauch responded that it is not included in the height.
Mr. Cull stated that their issue is not with the screening, but that it will be included as part of the
building height, which will reduce the building height from what had been agreed to in earlier
negotiations.
Ms. Rauch stated that it could be defined as being measured as viewed from the property line.
However, with any development proposal, the applicant would have the opportunity to request a
waiver or administrative departure to make some modification.
Discussion continued regarding height/functional height.
Ms. Rauch clarified that if the parapet height is the maximum height, the total height on a flat roof
is to the top of that parapet. The usual building height underneath would be decreased.
Ms. Call clarified that the Commission is not agreeable to the suggestion that the mechanical
equipment not be included in the height; however, the screening height would not exceed the
height of the mechanical. The 32-foot requirement would include everything on top, but that would
not reduce the height further than 28 feet.
Mr. Cull stated that nowhere else in the City’s Code, nor in any other Code he has seen, is the
screening of the rooftop mechanical considered part of the building height. In a typical residential
district permitting a 35-foot building height, the height is measured at rooftop; it does not include
chimneys or antennas, etc. From the beginning, this has felt like a targeted zoning. This is one more
instance of a change being made in the Code for this property only, which will further restrict its
development. The change is proposed after all the negotiation with the residents, who had agreed
to a height of 32 feet. At the last meeting, the change was proposed to reduce it to essentially 28
feet.
Discussion continued regarding the screening and determination of building height. Consensus of
the Commissioners was that the screening should be counted in the building height.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded a recommendation to Council for approval of the DCAP, MUR-
4 Code Amendment with the revisions as noted.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes.
[Motion approved 6-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded a recommendation to Council to approve the DCAP, MUR-4
Area Rezoning.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes.
[Motion approved 6-0]
Ms. Call inquired if the Commission would be supportive of making the Code consistent in regard to
defining building height as being inclusive of mechanicals.
Commissioners were supportive.
Ms. Call requested that staff prepare such a presentation.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 23, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) Code Amendments, MUR-4
19-117ADMC Administrative Request
Proposal: Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code to establish the MUR -4,
Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which includes the
creation of a new zoning district and associated development standards.
Request: Informal Review and non-binding feedback under the provisions of Zoning
Code §153.066.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-117
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to table this application.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The application was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP
Director of Planning
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0F79180B-16AD-490F-8E1A-B7292455AEC3
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 23, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) Design Guidelines
21-086ADMC Administrative Request
Proposal: Design guidelines to complement the proposed MUR-4, Mixed-Use
Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District requirements.
Request: Informal Review and non-binding feedback under the provisions of Zoning
Code §153.066.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-086
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to table this application.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The application was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP
Director of Planning
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0F79180B-16AD-490F-8E1A-B7292455AEC3
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 23, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) Area Rezoning, MUR-4
21-087ADMC Administrative Request
Proposal: Area rezoning accompanying the creation of the MUR -4, Mixed-Use
Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District.
Request: Informal Review and non-binding feedback under the provisions of Zoning
Code §153.066.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-087
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded, to table this application.
VOTE: 7 – 0.
RESULT: The application was tabled.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP
Director of Planning
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0F79180B-16AD-490F-8E1A-B7292455AEC3
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 23, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Supelak, Vice Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the
September 23, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Tonight’s meeting can also be accessed
at the City’s website. Public comments on the cases are welcome. To submit any questions or comments
during the meeting, please use the form under the streaming video on the City’s website. Questions and
comments will be relayed to the Commission by the meeting moderator. The City desires to accommodate
public participation to the greatest extent possible.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mr. Supelak led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Commission members present: Warren Fishman, Mark Supelak, Kim Way, Jane Fox, Leo Grimes;
Lance Schneier; Rebecca Call arrived at 7:30 pm.
Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Nichole Martin, Thaddeus Boggs
ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded acceptance of the documents into the record.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes.
[Motion approved 6-0.]
Mr. Supelak stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when
rezoning and platting of property are under consideration. In such cases, City Council will receive
recommendations from the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has the final decision-making
responsibility. Anyone who intends to address the Commission on administrative cases must be sworn
in.
Mr. Supelak stated that there are three cases on tonight’s Special Meeting agenda. Because they are all
associated with the Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), they will be heard together.
VII. NEW CASES
1. 2. 3. DUBLIN CORPORATE AREA PLAN (DCAP)
19-117ADMC, Administrative Request – Code Amendments, MUR-4
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 2 of 14
A request for amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code to establish the MUR-4, Mixed Use
Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which includes the creation of a new zoning district and
associated development standards.
21-086ADMC, Administrative Request – Design Guidelines
A request for Design Guidelines to complement the proposed MUR-4, Mixed-Use Regional – Llewellyn
Farms Office, Zoning District requirements.
21-087ADMC, Administrative Request – Area Rezoning, MUR-4
A request for an Area Rezoning accompanying the creation of the MUR-4, Mixed-Use Regional –
Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that tonight’s discussion would be an Informal Review, so no Commission action will
be requested. The Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) was adopted by City Council in 2018. This area is
comprised of four districts. These cases focus only on the MUR-4 District, the Llewellyn Farms Office
District. The DCAP provides for low-density office uses. Because this area is adjacent to residential, the
Plan looks at building height limitations, increased setbacks and landscape buffering. There is one
undeveloped parcel within the MUR-4 District – Site 11. The plan provides more specific
recommendations for that site to provide buffering for the adjacent residential neighborhood from the
low-density office, including building height and additional buffering requirements. Amendments are
proposed to the Zoning Code language, Design Guidelines, and an Area Rezoning is requested. These
cases were introduced at the June 17 PZC meeting. An Informal Review was conducted by the
Commission on July 8, 2021, and tonight, is a second Informal Review. Depending on tonight’s
discussion, these cases could be scheduled for PZC review and recommendation to City Council for their
final review and approval. Since the July meeting, staff, the Lewellyn Farms neighborhood
representatives and representatives for NCR, the Site 11 property owner, have been working on a
resolution of the concerns.
19-117ADMC, Administrative Request – Code Amendments, MUR-4
The draft zoning regulations have been modified to reflect the resolution proposed by those discussions.
A significant number of items have been modified per previous discussions, including:
• Minimum lot size and frontage
• Increased side, rear, and front yard setbacks
• Maximum building height
• Increased landscaping and buffering
• Architectural building design and window placement
• Uses and use specific standards
• Site design guidelines including parking lot locations
• Stream corridor protection
• On-site storm water management
• Public review process through Planning and Zoning Commission
Ms. Rauch presented an overview of the amended Zoning Code sections, including:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 3 of 14
153.045 Purpose and Intent: This section outlines the purpose for the proposed amendment, which is
to implement the goals within the Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP). Applicability standards and
explanation for how the proposed zoning regulations should be used in conjunction with the proposed
design guidelines are also included. For MUR-4, the proposed permitted uses include office uses (medical
and general), professional and technical training, research and development, banks, day care,
government services and parks and open spaces. A number of accessory and temporary uses are
included, which would be permitted only in conjunction with a permitted use or approved conditional
use.
153.046 Uses: The use section includes permitted, conditional, size, time limited, and accessory uses
for the MUR4 District, as well as use specific standards. The section also outlines how existing uses and
the expansion of existing uses shall be handled. Updates must ensure that properties are not made non-
conforming based on their uses, as that has financial implications to property owners.
153.047 Site Development Standards: The proposed Code includes requirements for site development
standards, architectural design, landscaping and tree preservation, parking, circulation and access, signs,
lighting and utilities. The site development standards address lot size, width and coverage; building
heights; setbacks and parking.
153.048 Review and Approval Process: The review process is based on the application type. The
required review body for the application type includes limited staff approvals, with the majority of the
review is handled by the Administrative Review Team (ART) and Planning and Zoning Commission
(PZC).
Ms. Rauch stated that the proposed MUR-4 Design Guidelines focus on general building and site design
elements to supplement the Code requirements, as well as sub-district specific guidelines. The proposed
MUR-4 Area Rezoning recommends that 27 parcels currently zoned Community Commercial, Suburban
Office and Institutional and Planned Unit Development Districts be rezoned to MUR-4. The Area Rezoning
would allow for the implementation of the proposed Zoning Code requirements and Design Guidelines.
During previous reviews, the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association representatives had outlined a list of
unresolved concerns regarding maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and the width of
the required landscape buffer. NRI, the owner of the only remaining undeveloped property within the
District, expressed concerns that the proposed Code would impose more restrictive requirements for
maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and width of the landscape buffer than their
current Suburban Office zoning requirements. NRI had requested previously to be removed from the
MUR-4. Per the Commission’s direction at its July 8 meeting, staff has worked with neighborhood and
NRI representatives to resolve the outstanding issues, which ar e represented in the proposed draft Code
and Guidelines.
A chart was included in the meeting packet, which compares the development standard issue with the
current Code provision; the July 8 proposed change; and the new change proposed tonight. No changes
were made to the front yard setback, so it remains 15 feet. The primary issues were the side and rear
yard building setbacks, which correlate to the building height. The proposed resolution is that in the
areas where property is abutting residential for Subarea C (the NRI property), a one-story building at a
height of 22 feet would be located at a 75-foot setback; a two-story building could be a height of 32
feet with a minimum setback of 95 feet. Between the 75-foot setback and the 95-foot setback, the
building height could be increased up to 32 feet at the following ratio - for every one foot of building
height, the building must be set back two feet. When a commercial property boundary does not abut
residential, the setback could be 10 feet, because there would be adjacent like uses. The agreement
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 4 of 14
was that a building could not exceed two stories nor a height of 32 feet, whichever is less. For Subarea
D, in the area of Bradenton Road that abuts residential, the existing setback requirements would be
maintained.
Ms. Fox inquired when the one-to-two foot ratio would be used.
Ms. Rauch clarified that it would be a factor only between the 75-foot and 95-foot setbacks.
Ms. Rauch stated that the side and rear pavement setbacks were revised from the previous proposal of
35 feet to 25 feet when abutting residential and 10 feet, if abutting non-residential.
Mr. Supelak requested clarification of the 15-foot or a quarter of the sum of the building requirement. Is
it the lesser or greater of the two?
Ms. Rauch responded that per the current Code, it would be 15 feet. In most instances, it will be greater
than that due to the building height and length.
The resolution of the remaining four issues of concern were:
o Landscape buffer – 25 feet of an augmented landscape buffer with opaque screening six feet in
height.
o Building height – tied to the setbacks.
o Permitted and conditional uses – retention of the current MUR-4 Code uses; no additional uses
were added.
o Office parking – parking requirements for office and medical office will be consistent with the
rest of the Code.
Per the Commission’s July 8 discussion, provisions were added to ensure that mechanical screening would
not artificially increase the building height. The screening must be within the height requirement. There
was also some concern about Minor Project thresholds. The previous draft stated that a 10,000-sq. ft.
building would have been reviewed by only ART. That number has been reduced to 3,500 sq. feet.
Because larger projects would have greater impact on the surrou nding character, they would be reviewed
by the Commission. Also included in the meeting packet were a list of the responses provided to the
concerns raised by the neighbors.
Tonight’s review will be for input on the proposed amendments; no action is requested.
Public Comments
Ms. Rauch stated that the following email was received and included in the meeting packet.
“We are not in agreement with this settlement concerning Llewellyn Farms, Phase 1. This is not good for
our neighbors. It is being forced on those who are trying to help. Very few in Phase 1 are in favor of
this. They should build with the restrictions they currently have. The people pushing to make a change
must have a hidden interest and getting something out of this.”
- T. L. Darling
Mr. Supelak inquired if there were also meeting attendees, who wished to comment.
Sven Christiansen, 5765 Settlers Place, Dublin, OH stated that the changes that have been made address
many of the concerns the residents raised. In the MUR-4, there are that many locations where residential
and commercial uses are in close proximity, and those are some of the more difficult issues to address.
They appreciate the response staff has provided to the list of concerns raised by the neighborhood.
There are some landscape clarifications that need to be addressed to ensure the landscape
buffer/landscaping achieves the primary intent of the screening. We look forward to the final draft, and
eventually, to the refresh of this part of Dublin.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 5 of 14
Mr. Supelak swore in the next speaker (Mr. Daney).
Clay Daney, 5775 Settlers Place, Dublin OH stated that he would like to provide some context for the
landscaping concerns he and many of his neighbors share. A 25-foot landscape buffer is not very deep
and limits how many large trees can placed in that space. Residents supported the original proposal of
a 35-foot landscape buffer, which could allow two rows of trees. If left with 25 feet, residents request
the language be strengthened to achieve the maximize amount of plantings possible within that buffer.
In Llewellyn Farms, there are legacy trees that are 100 – 125 feet in height. The foliage on the trees
does not occur, however, until approximately 40 feet up. The trunk of the tree provides no line of sight
coverage. He would request the lower areas be filled in with supplemental plantings to buffer the views.
[Presented a drawing depicting the concern.] Another issue is that the DCAP Code language regarding
permitted and conditional issues is ambiguous. It states that “all uses and buildings that were permitted
or conditionally permitted under the zoning applicable to the property immediately prior to its rezoning
into the MUR-4 zoning district shall continue to be allowed as permitted or conditionally permitted on the
property, including the follow…” Ms. Rauch has clarified that if there is no existing use occurs on the
property, once the MUR-4 Zoning Code is in effect, the new MUR-4 Code takes precedence. However,
the wording could be misinterpreted. The term, “permitted” can mean to grant. It also is a legal term,
which indicates a formal permit for an action. Could a different term be used to reduce the potential for
future misconception? The “whichever is less” terminology in the building height language also carries
the potential for misconception. Could a statement be included that, “in no situation or circumstance can
this building exceed 32 feet. In no circumstance may it be three stories?” Addition of that statement
would avoid misinterpretation.
Mr. Boggs requested that Mr. Daney provide a copy of the drawing that he had shown to the Commission,
to the Clerk, as well, so it could be included in the record.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Fishman requested confirmation of the statement that the proposed Code provides for PZC to
approve waivers to development standards including building height.
Ms. Rauch confirmed that the draft code included an allowance for waiver requests or administrative
departures, depending on the specifics of the request.
Mr. Fishman stated that this is an agreement that has been painstakingly reached by the commercial
developer and the residents. Future Commissions would not understand that. He would prefer to delete
the opportunity to request a waiver. Typically, waivers are not good for the residents.
Ms. Rauch inquired if he was opposed to waivers for any purpose.
Mr. Fishman responded that he was specifically concerned about building height, due to all the
discussions that have occurred between the residents and the landowner (NRI) regarding that issue.
Mr. Supelak inquired if waivers are a common element of the Code language.
Ms. Rauch stated that removing the waiver option would be a deviation from what the Code typically
permits. There would be criteria by which the Commission would grant the waiver. However, if the
Commission feels strongly about building height specifically, we could look at a way to craft that
language. This draft language is meant to apply to all the MUR Districts, not just the MUR-4.
Mr. Fishman noted that if there were some significant reason, the applicant could request a rezoning.
Ms. Rauch responded that this will be a standard zoning district, not a PUD. The goal is to establish the
standards needed. A waiver is a mechanism by which to request something different than the Code
permits.
Mr. Grimes stated that he believes the language of the standards will be quite clear. Requesting a waiver
would be an administrative process. The likelihood of the request being approved is very unlikely,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 6 of 14
because of the clarity of the standard language. Not allowing a property owner to be heard, although
probably denied, might appear too inflexible. The waivers appears to be typical Code language. Perhaps
Mr. Boggs would like to comment on this.
Mr. Boggs responded that there is value in providing that flexibility. As in the BSD Code, for example,
the waiver procedure is available, and often occurs, to improve projects, subject to approval. He believes
it would work in the DCAP Code in a similar fashion, although with a different set of criteria. A waiver
has a different set of criteria and standards than a variance. The variance opportunity would continue to
be an option, in the event of a unique hardship. Variance requests are heard by the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA). Their purpose is not to improve the project, as a whole, they are an option for a property
owner unable to work with a difficult piece of property within Code requirements. The waiver, on the
other hand, is an intermediary step, subject to Planning-related criteria, which is heard by PZC.
Ms. Fox stated that the City has limited abutting residential and commercial development, and
historically, Council has treated these areas sensitively to ensure the neighborhood is not negatively
impacted. The DCAP amendment process has been arduous, because we have empowered the
neighborhood to attempt to work out the issues. To retain the history of this particular area for future
Commissions, the description needs to describe exactly what it means to be sensitive to abutting
residential. The required setbacks, heights and landscape buffering should not be easily waived.
Personally, she believes no waivers should be granted unless there is agreement of the abutting property
owner to increase the height, setback or impact a landscape buffer. If the abutting residential is not in
agreement, no change should be made solely because the developer has a site with constraints. A second
issue is, the language regarding roofs indicates a roof pitch of 6/12 or 12/12. On a 2-story building, a
roof with 12/12 pitch is too high. She believes either a 1-story with a 6/12 (perhaps a 12/12) roof or 2-
story flat roof should be required. It is important to remember that height is measured from grade to
the middle of the eave. Typically, 2-story commercial buildings have flat roofs. She would recommend
elimination of the 12/12 roof option. It is important to ensure that it is not possible to exceed a height
of 32 feet. Finally, in regard to the landscape buffer, the City’s landscape architect has indicated that a
width of 35 feet is necessary to achieve an adequate buffer. If existing trees are retained but parking
lots are extended up to the buffer, would the root line of existing trees be destroyed? Those three issues
need further consideration: waivers adjacent to abutting residential; flat roofs (for 2-story commercial);
and width of landscape buffers.
Mr. Supelak inquired if building height is measured to the top of the roof.
Ms. Rauch responded that it would depend on the roof type. A pitched roof is to the mid-point.
Mr. Way stated that he believes there is a benefit to pitched roofs, particularly adjacent to residential
areas; they provide a more residential feel. A flat roof would have a totally different feel. Therefore, he
would support having both a 6/12 and 12/12 pitch. The difference between the two does not impact
height greatly. The sloped roof looks more residential.
Ms. Fox stated that the Mezzo building is 2-story with a very steep roof. On its corner site, it appears to
soar in height. Observing that most commercial buildings have flat roofs, she believes the flat roofs
address the height issue. Do Lewellyn Farms residents believe the transitional look or a 32-foot height
limitation is important?
Mr. Christiansen responded that he believes retaining a capped height would be beneficial. NRI has
indicated that is consistent with their inventory.
Ms. Fox requested confirmation that he is stating that the residents’ preference would be a flat roof
versus a hipped roof for a building height of 32 feet.
Mr. Christiansen responded affirmatively.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 7 of 14
[Ms. Call, Chair, arrived at 7:30 pm.]
Mr. Schneier stated that in regard to the waiver, because it is a process ingrained into administrative
law, he would prefer to avoid creating an exception. He would be interested in having staff’s opinion
regarding the language revisions suggested by Mr. Daney.
Mr. Supelak noted that a list of changes made in response to residents’ requests was also provided in
the packet.
Ms. Rauch stated that in terms of the comments concerning Existing Uses, she would recommend
retaining the draft language as presented. It is very consistent to other Zoning Code amendments,
including the Bridge Street District and the Historic District. There are financial implications to the
property owners, if Code changes make their uses non-conforming uses. From a legal perspective, this
is how that issue has been addressed.
Mr. Supelak stated that if uses are grandfathered, there are certain triggers that would cause any
changes they wished to make to be heard by PZC.
Ms. Rauch responded that if an existing use in a Community Commercial, CC zoning wished to use
another use permitted within the CC zoning, they could do so. However, if they wished to redevelop
their building or construct a new building, they would need to obtain PZC review and approval. If it were
a Conditional Use, any changes proposed would need to be heard by the Commission. However, the
existing CC uses and the DCAP Code uses are not significantly different.
Mr. Supelak inquired if there were existing uses that would need to be “grandfathered in,” if this Code
were to be adopted.
Ms. Rauch stated that she would pull up the list. Commercially oriented sites would have more differences
than Suburban Office.
Ms. Fox inquired if, after adoption of the MUR-4, an existing CC permitted use wished to discontinue that
use, they would be able to change to another CC permitted use, assuming there were no changes.
Ms. Rauch responded affirmatively; however, any use-specific standards required by the Code would
need to be met. The property owner would be required to mitigate that requirement.
Ms. Fox inquired if there is criteria that would impact either the neighborhood or the intent or purpose
of the MUR-4. In addition, would an addition to a structure for a new use require review?
Ms. Rauch stated if it is a Minor Project, the ART provides review and approval of modifications up to
3,500 square feet. Projects exceeding 3,500 square feet are FDPs, would be reviewed and approved by
PZC.
Ms. Fox inquired if the proposed amendment would require anything abutting a residential neighborhood
to be reviewed by the Commission.
Ms. Rauch read the Minor Project definition, and stated that only projects exceeding the size threshold
would come to PZC. The proposed modification would not require that development of any kind that
abuts residential must be reviewed by PZC.
Ms. Fox stated that her suggestion would be to make that modification.
Mr. Supelak stated that a permitted use in the CC District is grandfathered in; however, a change of use
would trigger the need for review/approval. Could they change from one CC permitted use to another
CC permitted use?
Ms. Rauch responded that an existing use could move from one permitted use in the CC District to
another use permitted in that District. That is consistent with the Bridge Street District. Typically, these
are very minor changes.
Mr. Supelak inquired how the CC uses overlap with MUR-4 uses.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 8 of 14
Ms. Rauch responded that CC uses are much more retail oriented. Any site modifications would trigger
a review process. Office and Personal Service uses are permitted in the CC zoning. There is also a list of
Conditional Uses, which would require a PZC review process.
Mr. Schneier inquired if the word “permitted” is confusing, as noted by the resident. If it is a defined
term, a change would not be warranted; otherwise, the point may be well taken.
Mr. Boggs stated that he is unaware if there is a definition for “permitted use“ in the General Zoning
Code. However, in Planning and Zoning law, a permitted use has a specific meaning, to wit, it is a use
allowed as of right. The reason we have developed the existing use type of language, both as it exists
and as proposed, is to avoid the alternative, which is an existing use that would become non-conforming
upon change of zoning. The intent is that existing uses would remain permitted for purposes of zoning,
and would ensure the user’s continued ability to obtain financing and invest in that use. The intent is to
avoid the hurdles that could be created if the use were nonconforming. From a legal perspective, there
is no issue with using this term as proposed. He does not believe it could be successfully interpreted in
the general sense of “permitted.” There would be concerns with changing the term as it would create
inconsistencies with the Bridge Street District Code and result in unintended consequences.
Mr. Schneier stated that the only other resident question concerned the buffer.
Mr. Fishman stated that he concurred with the justification for retaining the right to a Waiver. He also
would caution about requiring flat roofs. A sloped, 12/12 pitch roof has a very residential look. In
comparison, an area of buildings with flat roofs will have a very industrial feel. The intent is that the
commercial sites will blend with the residential areas.
Mr. Christiansen stated that he was under the impression that a sloped roof, measuring the height at the
middle point, would result in a building taller than 32 feet. If height were measured at the top, he would
agree, as it would be more consistent with the preferred. However, if it could result in a building 38 feet
in height, that would not be the preference.
Mr. Way inquired if the measurement is taken from the grade to the middle point of the eave. The grade
could be sloping away, so the measurement is a variable based on grade and the type of roof. It is a
difficult measurement.
Ms. Rauch stated that the building height is “the vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest
point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deckline of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between
the eave and ridge of a gable, hipped, gambrel roof, unless otherwise specified by the chapter.”
Mr. Way stated that, concerning the buffer, per the agreement with the residents, the existing Code
provision for a six-foot buffer will be increased to 25 feet. Although 35 feet would be better, 25 feet is a
reasonable compromise. Mr. Daney also pointed out the lack of opacity of the taller trees. Including the
six-foot buffer would provide the desired screening. All trees have a drip line. Many times, a protection
is placed at the drip line of trees to protect their root system from new pavement. Is there anything in
the City’s Landscape Code regarding preservation of the drip lines of trees?
Ms. Rauch responded that she not aware of that specific requirement. However, if there are significant
trees involved in a development project, the intent is to accommodate those on the site plans.
Mr. Way recommended that in the language that refers to preservation of existing trees, the language
be modified to require preservation of the drip line and root system of the tree. Regarding parking,
during the recent pandemic, we have discovered that the role and density of offices will change. The
requirement of 4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of office is an old standard, and the need for parking
spaces likely will diminish further as more people work from home. If the standard parking requirement
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 9 of 14
is included in the proposed Code, the result could be more surface and parking area than needed.
Perhaps there is a newer standard that could be considered.
Ms. Call stated that there are three agenda items to consider. It could be of benefit to review the entire
Code, page by page, to ensure all of the input has been taken into consideration.
Ms. Rauch concurred with that approach.
Mr. Supelak stated that a chart was included in the meeting materials that showed alignment of the
previous and the current Code drafts on many of the categories. Who participated in that discussion?
Ms. Rauch responded that the discussion was facilitated by herself and the Deputy City Manager with
Nationwide Realty Investors (NRI), and the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association Board representatives and
community residents. The Llewellyn Farms Civic Association has reviewed the draft Code and indicated
support.
Ms. Rauch reviewed the proposed Code by section and Commission members suggested the following
additional changes:
o Purpose and Intent. Enhance the language to enable the desired infill development/end
product to be visualized; add language that indicates intent to provide appropriate screening
for residential and recreational uses.
Ms. Rauch indicated that the recent amendment to the Historic District Code, the associated Design
Guidelines included character images. That could be included here, as well.
o Parking spaces. With expansion of a building, parking can be expanded, but should not be
more than required for the use. The intent is to have a walkable environment. A Parking Plan
permits modification of parking to address the need; it could include phased parking and
shared parking.
o Permitted Use Table. Clarify language regarding construction/office trailers, specifically
duration (Section 153.097).
o Rooftop mechanicals, including solar energy equipment. Clarify language to require that in areas
abutting residential: all rooftop mechanicals must be screened and remain within the required
building height; building-mounted renewable energy equipment shall be completely integrated
into the architectural character of the principal structures. If not integrated into the architecture,
solar energy panels may be mounted, but consistent with other rooftop mechanicals must be
screened and remain with the required building height.
o Vehicle charging station - location of sign. Define the term, which would better clarify the
location. The intent is that it be physically on the unit or appurtenance to that unit.
o Clarify roofs – what is permitted.
o Building height. In regard to maximum building height of 2 stories, not to exceed 32 feet, replace
term “whichever is less” with “maximum of 2 stories, not to exceed 32 feet.”
o Parking Location. Language states that where they can, they serve as a buffer between
residential. Replace use of buffer there with another word, so no to confuse with the
landscaping buffer.
o Provide clarification of roof pitches and height implications.
o Exterior materials – clarify types of glass and where they may be used.
o Landscape Buffer/Tree Preservation – Incorporate preservation of drip line; combine/
consolidate landscape islands to allow a larger grouping of trees in parking lots. [include in
Design Guidelines.]
o Parking – Review maximum requirements, ensuring they are appropriate for the use and the
area. Considerations: hybridized work trend may impact need for parking; potential
redevelopment of large parking lots.
o Parking plans – Include shared parking agreements.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 10 of 14
o Vehicle Charging Stations – Consider number of units per parking spaces; engage Ec. Dev. in
that determination.
o Loading Docks – Clarify requirements when adjacent to residential areas; if located near, how
to mitigate impact to the adjacent residential area; should not be permitted to face any public
street.
o Sidewalks/shared use paths - Strengthen language re. access.
o Signs – [Address the preferred character in the Design Guidelines.]
o Light/Light Poles – Remove 3-foot concrete columns.
o Review procedures – most of the changes were made in Minor Projects. Commission indicated
they had no objection to the square footage parameters.
o Waiver – Clarify the waiver request/application versus the waiver itself.
o Administrative Approvals – Applications regarding properties abutting residential areas should
not be Administrative Reviews; they should be reviewed by the Commission.
o Screening of Daycare Outdoor Recreational Spaces – Re. request to increase from 50% to
100% opacity requirement - determine whether the uses are adjacent to Residential or to
Commercial.
Public Comment
John Phillaman, president, Llewellyn Farms Civic Association, 4731 Bellfield Drive, Dublin, OH, inquired
about the ability of a property owner to request to increase th e height above the required building height
of 32 feet. The current language states that the request can be made, although may be denied. In
Section I-2, the language states a modification should be no greater that 10% of the building standard
related to building dimensions. He requests clarification of the term, “building dimension.”
Ms. Rauch responded that building dimensions would include all aspects of the building, including building
height.
Mr. Phillaman stated that would seem to state that the height could be greater than 32 feet, potentially
35.2 feet, if 10% were to be requested. He requested clarification of whether any existing use could be
grandfathered into the MUR4. When does the 12-month timetable contained in the draft language
start/stop?
Ms. Call clarified that the use must first of all be a permitted use. She requested Mr. Boggs to clarify the
rules for grandfathering.
Mr. Boggs stated that if the property owner is engaging in a use permitted by their current zoning, they
have a property right to continue engaging in that use. If the zoning is changed, so that use is no longer
permitted in the new zoning, it would become a nonconforming use, i.e., legally, the use can continue,
but it is not a permitted use. As long as these uses are continuous, are not abandoned for a period of
12 months or longer, they are deemed as permitted rather than non-conforming. The intent is to help
the property owner to be able to invest in the continuation of that use. That use can continue indefinitely,
but should it be stopped for a period of 12 months or longer, then it is no longer a permitted use. going
forward, the property owner could engage only a use that is permitted or conditional use under the new
zoning.
Mr. Phillaman inquired if the use on the existing property was not in place prior to the rezoning, would
the property owner be permitted a different use of the existing zoning.
Mr. Boggs responded that a vacant lot on which there is now no active existing use would be required
to comply with all the new rezoning regulations.
Mr. Phillaman inquired if a request for a parking expansion of 25% could be considered as a Minor
Project.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 11 of 14
Ms. Rauch stated that parking plans that are not associated with a Final Development Plan are considered
Minor Project applications and reviewed by the Administrative Review Team. Public notification of that
meeting and an opportunity for public comment is permitted. A parking plan associated with a FDP, a
larger development project, would be subject to review by the Commission.
Ms. Fox stated that in previous discussions with the neighborhood, she believes there was agreement
that any modifications to a property that abutted residential neighborhood would not ever be considered
an ART review. That would also be the case with any change that might impact the neighborhood or
stimulate resident opinions. She would like the Code to reflect that items that might have neighborhood
interest or impact would not have ART review.
Ms. Call stated that she believes better definition of the type of items and the threshold thereof would
be needed to identify those items.
Ms. Rauch provided clarification of the reviewing bodies. With an Administrative Review, the Planning
Director has the discretion of deciding upon minor improvements, such as lot line adjustments, re-
location of elements within a parking lot, minimal building footprint expansions or material substitutions.
The next level is a Minor Project, which is reviewed by the ART, a team of directors. The ART reviews
applications for revisions to properties 3,500 square feet or less; modifications of not more than 25% of
individual building facades; signs, landscaping, parking and other site-related improvements that do not
involve the construction of a new principal building; accessory structures and uses; and parking plans,
when not associated with an FDP. The next level is a Final Development Plan, which is reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Call stated that for clarification purposes, the ART review involves a public process.
Ms. Rauch confirmed that is confirmed.
Mr. Phillaman thanked staff and the Commission for the clarifications. The Civic Association will continue
to work with staff to make additional improvements.
Ms. Call noted that two earlier language clarifications were made to the proposed Code:
(1) Building height must be two stories or less and not exceed 32 feet.
(2) Requests for Waivers would be permitted, but would be heard only by the Planning Commission.
Any request for an increase in Building Height would be scrutinized heavily, including all the
history, and not necessarily granted.
Mr. Phillaman stated that the residents had a concern with the “whichever is less” language associated
with building height. There is a desire to remove any ambiguity regarding the potential height.
Ms. Rauch clarified that there are review criteria for granting waivers. A waiver must meet the spirit and
intent of the Community Plan, the Dublin Corporate Area Plan, the MUR Design Guidelines, and applicable
Zoning Code requirements. Waivers would be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Daney inquired if an existing permitted use in the current SO-Suburban Office zoning, which remains
continuous, would be permitted at some point in the future to convert to a different permitted use in the
current SO zoning, but not permitted in the new MUR4 zoning.
Ms. Call requested Mr. Boggs to clarify if it might be a consideration of deprivation of property rights, if
not permitted to convert.
Mr. Boggs responded that a property owner would not be deprived of property rights if not permitted to
make a switch in uses. However, if the Code permits them to switch from one formerly permitted use to
another formerly permitted use, as long as the existing use had been continuous, they would be required
to abide by the use specific standards of the permitted use to which they were converting. Any expansion
of space that would be entailed with the conversion of uses would be reviewed by the Commission.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 12 of 14
Ms. Call stated the reason for allowing a non-conforming use is to ensure that the City is not depriving
someone of their property rights. If not having the ability to convert from a non-conforming use to a
different permitted use would not be depriving them of a property right, then could the Commission
request Code language be added that allows the existing non-conforming use to continue, but changing
it to a different permitted use would not be permitted.
Mr. Boggs stated that from a legal standpoint, a person is not deprived of their property rights should
they want to change from a previously permitted use to a different previously permitted use, but are not
allowed to make the change because the use is not permitted within the new zoning. He believes the
existing use provisions in the Bridge Street District (BSD) Code, which the proposed MUR4 zoning is
based on, were adopted because with the area-wide rezoning for the BSD, a number of property owners
were concerned about those changes. The Existing Use provision accommodated those expectations,
although the provision may be wider than the legal actionable property right.
Ms. Call stated that the Commission desires to have closer scrutiny of those parcels adjacent to the
residential neighborhood. To ensure that a use does not change substantially from something not
previously engaged in, it is important to protect the property rights of both the owner and the
expectations of the adjacent residential property owners.
Matthew Cull, Attorney, Kephart Fisher LLC, 207 N. Fourth Street, Columbus, OH 43215, representing
Nationwide Realty Investors (NRI), stated that approximately one month ago, NRI, the Llewellyn Farms
Civic Association and City Planning staff came to an agreement. That agreement eventually was reached
after a year of effort. For the first portion of tonight’s meeting, he was pleased with the residents’
comments. However, during the second half of the meeting, certain components of that agreement have
been chipped away, such as those pertaining to solar panels and rooftop mechanicals. He is concerned,
also, with the targeting of this property, as opposed to looking at everything as a whole. Because this is
the only undeveloped property in the MUR4, these changes will impact primarily this property. He is
concerned that at this point, we are further away from what the agreement was.
Ms. Call inquired if, in addition to the rooftop panels and rooftop mechanicals, he believes there are other
items in need of clarification.
Mr. Cull stated that until he sees the changes, it is difficult to say. There was discussion about location
of loading docks, building setbacks, location of parking lots and amount of landscape buffer. He will
review the revised draft when available. However, the flexibility in the compromise they thought had
been reached has been slowly disappearing tonight.
Ms. Call stated that the Commission has been attempting to ensure the language reflects what was
agreed upon between the neighborhood and NRI. The attempt has been to remove ambiguities.
Mr. Cull stated that what he has heard in this discussion was not just removal of ambiguities. For instance,
a height of 32 feet is permitted as the maximum, and if a vent were to exceed that by one inch, a waiver
must be requested. Until tonight, the draft Code did not reflect that..
Ms. Rauch clarified that including the rooftop mechanicals in the overall height was an issue that was
discussed previously. This draft reflects the earlier discussion.
Mr. Schneier inquired if it was NRI’s expectation that they would be able to have rooftop mechanical
equipment exceeding the 32 feet of height.
Mr. Cull stated that was their expectation. It was their understanding that the building height would be
measured as it is throughout the rest of the Code.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 13 of 14
Mr. Schneier inquired if the expectation, following the negotiation with the neighborhood, was that the
32-foot height limitation would not include mechanical equipment or solar panels.
Mr. Cull stated that was the expectation. That is not the only item, however, that has changed since the
agreement they thought had been reached.
Mr. Schneier noted that all parties would have another opportunity to review another revised draft.
21-086ADMC, Administrative Request – Design Guidelines
Ms. Rauch stated that the proposed Design Guidelines include an overview of the four MUR Districts
within the intent and applicability sections, but the majority of the Guidelines focus on general building
and site design elements to supplement the Code requirements.
Ms. Call inquired if Commissioners had any questions about the intent and applicability sections before
moving into discussion of the building and site design elements.
Ms. Fox stated that with a Code, it is important to have aspirational images that provide a picture of
what is intended. Illustrations of a variety of expectations provide character and personality to the Code.
The Commissioners are citizens. As such, she has struggled with attempting to interpret Code without
initially understanding the end point. She would like the Design Guidelines to give a picture of what the
Code intends.
Ms. Call expressed agreement. She would suggest that some of the images be of pitched roofs and
smaller buildings. Currently, most of the examples are larger buildings with flat roofs.
Building Design
Ms. Call stated that she would suggest staff incorporate any information from tonight’s discussion
regarding materials, including inspirational images to depict where those materials would be acceptable.
Ms. Fox stated that it is also helpful to have descriptions from other Master Plan Developments. Just
saying that a building design should have four-sided architecture and avoid single-material monolithic
wall planes does not paint a picture. It simply tells you what not to do. Descriptions that show what is
desired or how to achieve it encourage creative thought.
Mr. Fishman expressed agreement. When Ms. Fox provided images during a previous BSD zoning review
of other projects, the images were very helpful. The next generation of planners need to be able to see
what is intended.
Mr. Way stated that as an overview, the Design Guidelines capture a good amount of intent, but there
is more detail about the subject matter in other materials. The two documents need to be better married.
For instance, there are several ways in which to incorporate landscaping within parking lots. There are
statements in the Code that are not reflected in the Guidelines, which could be. The Design Guidelines
are the graphic depiction of what should be achieved. The imagery currently in the Guidelines is high
level. He believes it is possible to include specific examples of what the Code says we want to achieve.
Ms. Call agreed that the Guidelines should provide examples of what we are looking for. The images also
ensure consistency among the reviewing bodies as to what should be achieved.
Mr. Schneier stated that his recollection is that the Historic Dublin Design Guidelines provide for specificity
and images. Perhaps that document could be used as a template.
Ms. Rauch responded that those Design Guidelines do provide more specificity, due to the nature of that
area. However, it is helpful to have the Commission’s input on what level of specificity is desired with
the DCAP Design Guidelines.
Ms. Call inquired if there was any additional input. [There was none.]
Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2021
Page 14 of 14
Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Schneier seconded to table the three DCAP cases.
Vote: Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes; Ms. Call, yes.
[Motion approved 7-0]
Communications
Ms. Rauch introduced new City employee, Taylor Mullinax, Planner I.
Ms. Rauch stated that due to the case volume, a special meeting would need to be scheduled next month.
Ms. Martin stated that the tentative Special Meeting date is Tuesday, November 16. Members should
check their calendars with the intention that at the next regular meeting on Thursday, October 7,
members would confirm if November 16 would be a viable option.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Mark Supelak
Vice Chair
Judith Beal
Assistant Clerk of Council
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, July 8, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), Mixed-Use Regional (MUR-4) - Informal Review
5. 19-117ADMC Code Amendments
6. 21-086ADMC Design Guidelines
7. 21-087ADMC Area Rezoning
Proposal: Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code to create the MUR -4,
Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which includes:
creation of a new zoning district and associated development standards ;
design guidelines; and area rezoning.
Request: Informal review and non-binding feedback for a newly created district:
MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Information – 3 Cases: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-117 and 21-086 and 21-087
RESULT: The Commission conducted an informal review and provided non-binding feedback on the
Zoning Code, Design Guidelines and Area Rezoning proposed to implement the MUR -4 District
within the Dublin Corporate Area Plan. The Commission discussed the updated materials and
graphics that included a detailed history, development standards of adjacent commercial
properties that abut residential, potential development capacity studies for site 11, landscape
buffering information, comparison of points of impasse, and a response to Llewellyn Farms
Civic Association question. The members heard testimony from commercial and residential
property owners. The Commission requested staff work with Llewellyn Farms Civic Association
and the commercial property owner (NRI) to determine whether resolution of the outstanding
items could be resolved. The Commission also requested a dedicated meeting to review the
proposed Code and Guideline documents in detail.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Absent
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 48EF32A0-E97A-4E40-BDDC-7F5E18DA0920
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2021
Page 13 of 22
Ms. Fo x stated that the massing is too large. She would prefer to see a 2-story building along Frantz
Road, but the residential building behind it could be more stories. The DCAP document is very
important, as that sets the stage for the streetscape. She would not be supportive of a 4-story
building along the Frantz Road streetscape.
Ms. Call noted that Commission support for a higher number of stories along Frantz Road appears
to be split. However, the Commission is not requesting a reduction in building square footage, only
the massing of that square footage.
Mr. McCabe stated they would re-think the massing and bring back a future plan that reflects the
Commission’s guidance.
Public Comments
No public comments were received on this proposal.
Ms. Call stated that due to the number of residents present for the DCAP Cases, Cases 5 through 7
would be heard next, followed by Case 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
5. DCAP Code Amendments, MUR-4, Informal Review, 19-117ADMC
Feedback on proposed amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code to create the MUR-4, Mixed
Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which includes the creation of a new zoning district
and associated development standards.
6. DCAP Design Guidelin es, Informal Review, 21-086ADMC
Feedback on proposed design guidelines to complement the proposed MUR-4, Mixed Use Regional
Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District requirements.
7.DCAP Area Rezoning, MUR-4, Informal Review, 21-087ADMC
Feedback on a proposed area rezoning accompanying the creation of the MUR-4, Mixed Use
Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch stated that the proposed Zoning Code requirements, Design Guidelines and Area
Rezoning for the Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), MUR-4 Zoning District were introduced at the
June 17, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission reviewed the materials,
provided feedback and requested additional information for future consideration.
Background
Four districts were created when the DCAP was adopted in 2018. The proposal before the
Commission this evening is only for the MUR-4, the Llewellyn Farms Office District. The DCAP
documents recommend lower density Office use, and when adjacent to residential areas, the
building story height is limited, setbacks are increased and landscaping buffering is provided. At the
June meeting, the Commission discussed the various limitations and specifically discussed Site 11,
the only undeveloped parcel within the District. No numbers, other than building heights, were
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2021
Page 14 of 22
included in the DCAP recommendations. An attempt is in process to translate that to Code, holding
collaborate discussions among staff, the neighbors and the commercial property owners to find the
best balance for all parties. Tonight will be another Informal Review of the DCAP documents; no
determinations will be made. There will be future special meetings for detailed review of this plan.
The ultimate goal is the Commission’s recommendation to City Council for adoption.
The Code and Guidelines have been developed with the goal of implementing the Area Plan
recommendations, recognizing the commercial property owner’s need to establish a viable
development/redevelopment of their site, also taking into account the residential properties that
abut the area. The property owners have been very engaged in the process. There are been several
meetings with the residential and commercial property owners over the last year, attempting to
address the challenges, particularly those for the undeveloped site, Site 11 (NRI, Nationwide Realty
Investments property). At this time, NRI has initially requested to be removed from the MUR-4
district. (That letter was included in this meeting packet.)
At the June 17 meeting, the Commission requested the following information to assist their review:
Detailed history of engagement and public review of the DCAP;
Comparison of adjacent commercial and residential developments;
Potential development capacity studies for Site 11 (NRI, Nationwide Realty Investments
property);
Landscape buffering information;
Comparison chart of outstanding points of impasse;
Response to Llewellyn Farms Civic Association questions.
Additionally, minor changes have been made to the draft Code and Guidelines for the Commission’s
consideration. These changes are represented as a redline version document for review. The most
notable is the division of the MUR-4 area into four subareas to help clarify the requirements
proposed for the different properties within the MUR-4 District. Ms. Rauch reviewed the responsive
information provided.
Ms. Call stated that the additional history that was provided was very helpful.
Public Comment
Public comments were provided by the following Llewellyn Farms residents:
Eric Kreidler, 5815 Settlers Place, Dublin, OH, stated that an attempt is being made to address the
concerns with the undeveloped site. Would this Code also address redevelopment of a currently
developed sites in this District.
Ms. Rauch responded that the Code requirements would address all those instances, whether it be
for a building addition, demolition and construction of a new building. A public review process would
be required, of which abutting property owners and neighbors would be notified.
Mr. Kreidler clarified that he was attempting to clarify if the Code would be applied uniformly to all
property owners within this District
Ms. Rauch responded that they would address existing buildings in the subareas, as well.
Sven Christiansen, 5765 Settlers Place, Dublin, OH stated that building height and setback are the
two outstanding items that continue to need work. He inquired if there had been any subdivision
of plans in the revised Code. The previous Code proposal would have added approximately 12,000
usable square footage for the NRI site. Does that remain essentially same? Additionally, he would
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2021
Page 15 of 22
like to have a copy of staff’s responses provided for the Commission’s requests from the previous
Council meeting. The goal stated is development “compatible with surrounding structures.”
However, a building that it taller than exists today would be incompatible.” He would prefer the
word, “consistent.” In his neighborhood, what is in harmony is what has been there. With this Code,
the residents desire to have security ensured that will not be bypassed.
Larry Darlington, 4209 Haymaker Lane, Dublin, OH stated that we went through this process a few
years earlier. The members of their HOA would under the understanding that the City would not
reflect any changes between Tuttle Road, Frantz Road and Rings Road with which the association
was not in agreement. He has lived in this neighborhood many years, long before Nationwide
purchased this lot in 2006. He objects to the need for the resi dents to “bend” to allow this developer
to make money, impacting their neighborhood negatively. None of the residents are in agreement
with what is proposed. The residents are also hearing about other real estate transactions occurring
in Cramer Creek that are not public knowledge. He would appreciate the City’s help in protecting a
long-existing community.
Marguerite T homison, 4 656 Bridle P ath Lane, Dublin stated i f information provided indicated roofline
heights of 35 feet adjacent residential areas. Is that residential comparable to Llewellyn Farms, or
does it include other residential types, including, condominiums and multi-family.
Ms. Rauch stated that in the DCAP, residential refers to single-family homes adjacent to c ommercial.
Reviewed the sites abutting single-family residential.]
Edward Erfurt, 4212 Haymaker Lane, Dublin OH, inquired if the 35-foot maximum height refers to
the ridgeline. What would be eligible to exceed 35 feet – mechanicals, chimneys?
Ms. Rauch responded that where the height is determined depends on the roof type. For a pitched
roof, it would be the midpoint of the eave. The draft Code attempts to establish a roof pitch
requirement.
Mr. Erfurt responded that there are churches in residential areas that are well above 35 feet, and
they have pitched roofs.
Ms. Rauch responded that in this instance, churches are not a permitted use. The height of a flat
roof would be measured from the roof deck. Language was added that would limit the roof pitch.
Roof height is measured consistently for all buildings within the City.
Mr. Erfurt inquired if illumination is addressed in the proposed zoning.
Ms. Rauch responded that the Code would require that parking lot lighting would be shielded. There
are property line limitations to ensure that light trespass is not occurring onto adjacent properties.
Merlina Galbreath, 4203 Hertford Lane, Dublin, OH stated that most existing buildings adjacent to
residential are not 35 feet in height. How could that be consistently ensured for their neighborhood,
if the proposed 35 feet were to be approved? She is interested in seeing staff’s responses to the
questions provided by the civic association.
Ms. Rauch reviewed staff’s responses provided to the Commission in response to the questions
raised by the civic association.
Ms. Galbreath inquired if HVAC could be in addition to the 35-foot maximum height.
Ms. Rauch responded that the two items are considered separately, but the maximum height cannot
be exceeded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2021
Page 16 of 22
Ms. Galbreath stated that the civic association had provided a potential proposition to staff during
the attempt to negotiation during thi s past year. As a good faith effort, they had proposed numerical
values for building height and setback, according to their calculations, the developer would be able
to increase the size of their development by 32%. Was staff able to verify that their calculations?
Ms. Rauch stated that the parking ratio for MUR-4 is a minimum parking ratio. If the developer
desired more parking, the size of the building would need to be reduced.
Ms. Galbreath stated that she would like staff to verify the calculations they had proposed would
achieve the beneficial results they indicated.
Ms. Rauch responded that the proposition was provided to NRI, as well, which Mr. Cull may want
to respond to.
No additional public comments were received at this point.]
Matthew Cull, Attorney, Kephart Fisher LLC, 207 N. Fourth Street, Columbus, OH 43215,
representing Nationwide Realty Investors (NRI), stated a letter from NRI was provided in the
Commission’s packet. That letter included a timeline and the position at which they have now
arrived. While they were aware of the DCAP recommendations, there was nothing objectionable for
this property in Cramer Creek and until they were made aware of what was in the draft Code. At
that time, rather than seeking to opt out, or something similar drastic, NRI leadership decided to
attempt to work with it. The initial communications with the City, NRI limited their request to three
items. Those were as limited as possible and still have an economically viable property. This site is
5.7 acres that has remained empty for the 15 years NRI has owned it. It already was a difficult
property to develop, they limited their requests for modification to the draft Code to the extent
possible. Negotiations beginning in August 2020 had seemed to progress, and they had agreed to
meet with the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association. They believed a resolution had been achieved that
would satisfy both parties. However, the meeting with the civic association was canceled. The first
iteration they saw of the draft Code included a significant down-zoning from the Suburban Office
and Institutional District. All along, NRI has been attempting to retain the minimum development
rights that they currently have. After negotiations stalled in November-December, the City contacted
NRI to see if they would be interested in having their site removed from the MUR-4 District.
Subsequently, they submitted a formal request to remain in the Suburban Office District. Their
concern at this point is, if their request to be removed from the MUR-4 is not granted, that the
current draft Code will be implemented without their ability to meet with and work with the
neighborhood to negotiate terms with which both NRI and the neighbors could agree. If the current
draft is implemented, and they are subject to that, their property will be undevelopable. For this
reason, their request is to be removed from the MUR-4 District. They did see the proposal the civic
association put together. One of the primary issues is that the draft Code limits the maximum
number of parking spaces to 2.5 per square footage. For Office space, a minimum of 4-6 parking
spaces is desired. The ratio presented by the draft Code was a drastic reduction and will not work.
Ms. Fox inquired if NRI remained willing to meet with the civic association.
Mr. Cull responded that at this point, their strong preference would be to remain in the SO District.
He cannot say that the opportunity no longer exists, however, as he is not an NRI decision maker.
He can check with them and verify their position.
Ms. Fox asked Mr. Cull to clarify their parking needs.
Mr. Cull responded that 5-6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of Office is standard. Less than
that, potential tenants would not be interested.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2021
Page 17 of 22
Ms. Call inquired if there are “sticking points” of the greater concern for NRI than others.
Mr. Cull responded that one of the most significant was the introduction of a very significant
pavement setback, which was a 35-foot pavement setback at the rear. However, there is not one
issue that was greater; it was the combination of all that makes the site unviable. At one point, they
had requested a 25-foot rear pavement buffer, but the City’s landscape planners responded that it
would be difficult to meet the landscape requirements within that space. NRI indicated that they
could so. However, the 35-foot pavement buffer with the additional setbacks was untenable.
Ms. Call stated that most of the concerns reflect the anticipated massing of up to 35 feet in height.
Does NRI have a building template that would typically be placed on this site that would alleviate
the massing concerns?
Mr. Cull responded that there is no NRI template. The issue is whether NRI has 2-3 viable tenants
interested in the site. The City Economic Development has proposed certain layouts that could
attract tenants to the site. He is not aware of the reason nothing went forward.
Ms. Call stated that the NRI request to remain in the SO District remains outstanding. However, the
question has been raised as to whether the opportunity remains to go back to the NRI decision
makers and see if they would be willing to work on a resolution.
Mr. Cull stated that they all would prefer to have something mutually acceptable; however, at this
point, their strong preference would be to be left out of the MUR-4.
Ms. Call requested that the responsive information the residents requested be provided at the
website for public accessibility. There will be future working sessions to discuss the proposed Code,
Guidelines, and Rezoning. Is there any additional guidance the staff requests from the Commission?
Ms. Rauch stated that as next steps, they will determine if there is an opportunity for the parties to
meet and discuss the issues is more detail to see if a compromise might be possible. A future special
Commission meeting may be scheduled for further discussion.
Ms. Call stated that there may be a need to have the residential standards be identified in numerical
values.
NEW CASE
8. The Country Club at Muirfield Village, Amended Final Development Plan, 21-085AFDP
Construction of platform tennis courts, a warming hut, pool patio expansion, and associated site
improvements. The 79.66-acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development, Muirfield Village and is west of
the intersection of Muirfield Drive with Whittingham Drive.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Hounshell stated that this is a request for review and approval of an Amended Final Development
Plan for the Country Club at Muirfield Village. This is Phase 2 of the improvements contemplated on the site.
The site is located west of Muirfield Drive, approximately 1,700 feet northwest of the intersection with
Memorial Drive. This is one of two golf courses located within the Muirfield PUD. The site was zoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as part of the Muirfield Village development in the early
1970s. There is no development text that exists for this golf course. Everything on the site is
considered compliant.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, June 17, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), Mixed-Use Regional (MUR-4) - Informal Review
3.19-117ADMC Code Amendments
4.21-086ADMC Design Guidelines
5.21-087ADMC Area Rezoning
Proposal: Amendments to the City of Dublin Zoning Code to create the MUR-4,
Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District, which includes:
creation of a new zoning district and associated development standards ;
design guidelines; and area rezoning.
Request: Informal review and non-binding feedback for an introduction of MUR-4,
Mixed Use Regional – Llewellyn Farms Office District.
Applicant: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager, City of Dublin
Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Contact Information: 614.410.4690, jrauch@dublin.oh.us
Information – 3 Cases: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-117 and 21-086 and 21-087
RESULT: The Commission conducted an informal review and provided non-binding feedback on the
Zoning Code, Design Guidelines and Area Rezoning proposed to implement the MUR -4 District
within the Dublin Corporate Area Plan. The Commission generally discussed the proposed
documents. The members requested additional information be provided to inform the
discussion including detailed history, development standards of adjacent commercial
properties that abut residential, potential development capacity studies for site 11, landscape
buffering information, comparison of points of impasse, and response to Llewellyn Farms Civic
Association question.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Yes
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 560C03A8-5C26-4766-9579-9A71D9E653F9
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2021
Page 15 of 20
restaurant to own the corner plaza and make it truly dynamic and integrated with the feel and
design of the restaurant.
Ms. Fox responded that Crawford Hoying had the opportunity to design a plaza, here, if desired.
The better design outcome is if there were a significantly beautiful architecture piece in this
restaurant, it could be ensured that there was a marriage of the elements to make it look like it
belongs there. A couple of benches and a planter pot look inappropriate next to all the investment
in this building. She would encourage Crawford Hoying to work with the applicant to make sure that
design element is truly “wow.” The restaurant and the plaza should look like they belong together.
Mr. Fishman stated that he would be much more in favor of the encroachment if there was an
amazing blend of those elements there, improving the overall area. In regard to the Conditional
Use factor he suggested, he wants to ensure that it is recognized that it is an encroachment by the
next tenant that may occupy this space.
Mr. Starr pointed out that the vertical column that extends upward into the second story is part of
a different tenant space. They will have to study that issue.
Ms. Fox stated that she could disregard that unattractive column if this corner were to be made
outstanding with a distinct gateway impression. The tower is not a gateway element, only a pole.
Karen Halon, KHA Design Inc., Hollywood, Florida inquired if a fountain could be added.
Ms. Fox stated that the Commission is open to other suggestions, if they are impressive.
Mr. Bean requested the images shared in the meeting be forwarded to them.
Ms. Call thanked the applicant for the presentation. The Commission is anticipating the next iteration
and discussion.
Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), Mixed-Use Regional (MUR-4) - Informal Review
3. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), 19-117ADMC - Code Amendments
4. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), 21-086ADMC - Design Guidelines
5. Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP), 21-087ADMC - Area Rezoning
Request for Informal Review of a proposed Code Amendment creating a Mixed Use Regional (MUR
4), Llewellyn Farms Office, Zoning District and associated development standards, design guidelines
and area rezoning.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Rauch presented an overview of the proposed Zoning Code requirements, Design Guidelines
and Area Rezoning for the MUR-4 Zoning District within the Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP).
The Dublin Corporate Area Plan (DCAP) was adopted in September 2018 by City Council as a Special
Area Plan within the City of Dublin Community Plan, which included the creation of four new Zoning
Districts: MUR-1 (Metro/Blazer District), MUR-2 (Tuttle/Rings District), MUR-3 (Emerald District),
and MUR-4 (Llewellyn Farms Office District). The application before the Commission tonight is only
the MUR-4 Zoning District. The goals behind the development of the DCAP plan were to:
Reposition the “legacy” office sites within the planning area for success
Create a walkable, mixed use environment
Identify under-served markets
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2021
Page 16 of 20
Establish a strategy to “refresh” the Frantz Road streetscape
Recommend mechanisms to ensure additional development along Frantz Road does not
adversely impact neighborhoods.
Recommend zoning tools to ensure successful implementation
Introduce consistent and compatible architectural and site design guidelines.
Following plan adoption, staff analyzed various options to implement the Plan recommendations and
zoning strategies. Implementation options and strategies were presented to the Community
Development Committee (CDC) on March 4, 2019, and the Committee recommended a phased
approach that included starting with the MUR-4 District, which is east of Frantz Road and south of
the Rings Road area.The site-specific recommendations for the MUR-4 District include lower density
office with building heights not to exceed 2 stories with a flat roof and 1.5 stories with a sloped roof,
and additional buffering requirements to minimize potential impacts of new development. Site 11 is
the only undeveloped parcel within the MUR-4 District. Tonight is an Informal Review only. The
DCAP documents are anticipated to be before the Commission several times before a final
recommendation is made to City Council. In order to address the goals of the Code and be
responsive to the commercial property owners and the Llewellyn Farms residents, they have met
with the parties on multiple occasions to ensure the plan is representative of those perspectives.
The intention has been to create a balance between providing viable development options for the
existing commercial property owners with appropriate consideration to adjacent residential
properties. Staff conducted a series of meetings with the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association as well
as the commercial property owners within the proposed MUR-4 area to review the proposed zoning
requirements and design guidelines, as well as explain the review and approval process to adopt
these proposed documents. As part of these discussions, the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association
raised concerns regarding the proposed language in the Code and Guidelines, particularly as it
relates to future office development adjacent to residential properties.
One particular challenge emerged in this process regarding the only undeveloped parcel (Site 11)
in MUR-4, owned by Nationwide Realty Investors (NRI) on Cramer Creek. NRI has owned this
particular property since 2006. Staff and the consultants have conducted multiple meetings with
both the residential neighbors and the commercial property owner (NRI) to understand both
perspectives. The proposed draft zoning regulations have been updated through multiple
reiterations and are based on the DCAP recommendations, site capacity and existing conditions
analyses, NRI’s feedback, and the neighbors’ expectations and feedback. A significant number of
items have been addressed through our meetings and iterations, which include:
Minimum lot size and frontage
Increased side, rear, and front yard setbacks
Maximum building height
Increased landscaping and buffering
Architectural building design and window placement
Uses and use specific standards
Site design guidelines including parking lot locations
Stream corridor protection
On-site storm water management
Public review process through Planning and Zoning Commission
As identified in the continued discussions with the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association representatives,
the list of unresolved standards has been narrowed down to three main outstanding issues:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2021
Page 17 of 20
maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and the width of the required landscape
buffer.
During previous discussions, NRI was initially willing to accept the requirements listed above which
differ from their current Suburban Office zoning requirements; however, NRI has expressed
concerns about the Code imposing more restrictive requirements for maximum building height,
minimum building setbacks, and width of the landscape buffer. Staff has attempted to propose a
compromise solution for the unresolved standards for both the Llewellyn Farms Civic Association
and NRI. However, NRI expressed that these requirements will significantly affect their ability for
viable commercial development of their property given the existing site constraints and requested
to be removed from the proposal. Staff has also engaged with other commercial property owners
within Phase 1 and there have not been any major concerns. Again, the NRI site is the only
undeveloped parcel within the MUR-4 area. Ms. Rauch reviewed the structure of the proposed
Zoning Code, including Purpose and Intent, Uses, Site Development Standards, Review and
Approval Process. The three main issues are the maximum building height within the Standard
Office (SO) area in the Llewellyn Farms PUD. The height is currently based on a formula – the taller
the building, the longer the wall, the greater the setback must be, which dictates the height. No
maximum height is currently stipulated within SO. If the building abuts Residential and is not located
on Bradenton Road, the draft Code proposes two stories with a maximum height of 22 feet, which
could be increased with a setback ratio of one to three feet, up to 32 feet maximum. For the
Bradenton parcels that abut residential, the current proposal is one story, or 20 feet maximum. For
the other properties north of Tuttle Crossing that are not abutting residential, the story height would
be limited to two stories with a 32-foot maximum. For properties south of Tuttle Crossing that do
not abut residential, the proposal is three stories with a 40-foot maximum height. The residents
have requested two stories with a 25-foot maximum height overall. They are requesting a smaller
building with a larger setback, allowing that to be increased up to 25 feet within a 105-foot building
setback. For the Bradenton parcel, the request is for one story with a sloped roof with a 20-foot
maximum, matching the size and height of the existing building. Previous discussions with NRI
considered a 35-foot building maximum with a one-two foot ratio, beginning at 22 feet at a 75-foot
setback and ending at 35 feet. We are looking at the maximum and the ratio at which the height
may be increased up to a specific number. In regard to the setbacks for paving and landscape, the
current Code requires a 6-foot width with one tree every 40 feet, plus 6-foot screening. The draft
Code proposes a 35-foot buffer with a 4-foot high opaque screen. The residents are requesting a
35-foot buffer with mounding and a screen that is 9 feet in hei ght. In previous discussions with NRI,
a 25-foot buffer was proposed, allowing some flexibility for them to ensure sufficient parking. In
terms of the setback and sideyards, the current Code requires a 15-foot minimum setback, but if
the building were taller or longer, there would be a greater setback. The proposed Code is 72 feet
if abutting residential; for the Bradenton parcels, it would be 25 feet if abutting residential. NRI’s
request was for 50 feet. The current sideyard setback is a minimum of 15 feet with the formula
used of ¼ of the height and length of the wall. The proposed Code is a 10-foot minimum setback,
but if abutting resident, 75 feet would be the minimum sideyard setback.
Public Comments
Ms. Call stated that public comments were received from the following Llewellyn Farm residents:
Josh Kinzel, Peter Hutchins, Joseph Kasouf, Michelle Pfefferle, Carole Mack, Kelly Stover, Domenico
Pietropaolo, Alaa Ujali, Kelly Manusakis, Cindy Sebier all highlighted the same concerns: lower
density, proper building height, setbacks and landscape, some of which also included taller, dense
commercial abutting residential and low density protection for the resident. Carolyn and William
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2021
Page 18 of 20
Tabor recommended no changes to the DCAP. Adam Schauer noted that he was not in favor of
taller buildings, light pollution, parking lots, commercial abutting residential, safety concerns and
reduced property value. Glen Vanderbilt stated that taller commercial buildings were not warranted
as there is currently existing empty commercial in the City.
Ms. Rauch stated that additional public comments were received from Marguerite Thomison
requesting mockups for the residents; Merlina Galbreath requested that the DECAP retain lower
density, building height limitations, buffering and maintain the current character of the area and
property values; and Clay Daney expressed concern about building setbacks and height.
Commission Discussion
The Commission requested and staff provided clarification of the following:
o Sites within the Suburban Office zoning;
o Proposed building height factors and proposed changes; most buildings are two-story;
o Constraints of Site 11 (including stormwater protection restrictions);
o Need to honor the protections that have been promised to the Llewellyn Farms residents;
o Flexibility of the DCAP plan;
o Details of the landscape buffer.
Ms. Call noted that Sven Christiansen is present, representing Llewellyn Farms residents, and
Matthew Cull is present, representing NRI.
Matthew Cull, Attorney, Kephart Fisher LLC, 207 N. Fourth Street, Columbus, OH 43215,
representing Nationwide Realty Investors (NRI), stated that NRI discussions regarding their site
began in August 2020. Their goal is to maintain some amounts of reasonable economic viability for
this parcel. This is the sole undeveloped parcel in the MUR-4, so the proposed changes would have
the greatest impact on this site. NRI was clear about the changes they could agree to and it
appeared that a mutual understanding was achieved in regard to heights, setbacks and buffering;
however, that agreement fell apart. No further progress was made, and in January 2021, NRI
requested to be removed from the MUR-4. He is unsure if that earlier request remains sufficient.
Ms. Rauch responded that the same request could be used.
Ms. Fox inquired if it was height or other issues that were untenable.
Mr. Cull responded that the height was a significant issue. Initially, it appeared the City was willing
to offer some flexibility. Later, the level of restrictions proposed for this site, including pavement
setbacks, became too restrictive for NRI to move forward with development of the site.
Sven Christiansen, 5765 Settlers Place, Dublin, OH, stated that he is representing the Llewellyn
Farms Homeowners Association, which submitted its concerns to the City in advance of this meeting.
In 2018, he spoke to the Commission to express their support for the final draft of the DCAP. They
were supportive, because City leadership had acknowledged their requests and addressed them in
that final draft. In view of that, he is surprised to be before the Commission tonight strongly
opposing the draft Code, which would permit buildings up to 32 feet in height and permit buildings
to be located closer to the residential neighborhood than currently permitted. He reviewed
additional concerns and requests of the residents, which if met, would garner their support.
Mr. Schneier stated that there seems to be some disagreement as to what the various stakeholders
were promised. The Commission is now requested, ex post facto, to seek equity for all concerned
parties. Without a record of the commitments made, that cannot occur. Likewise, he would like to
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2021
Page 19 of 20
have more specifics from the developer on their concerns and position. At this point, he cannot offer
much input.
Ms. Call stated that this is an Informal Review, but inquired if the Commission was generally
supportive of the draft Code language for the MUR4 in relation to building height, density, buffering
and landscaping.
Mr. Schneier stated that he is looking at the matrix for the first time, and the Code adopted could
have significant consequences for the stakeholders.
Ms. Call inquired how the setbacks and building heights in the proposed Code compared to other
properties throughout the City where there is also commercial abutment to residential.
Ms. Rauch responded that there are not many other areas where this occurs. Perhaps this discussion
tonight indicates what other information the Commission needs to help make an educated
recommendation. Staff would pull some records responsive to the Commission’s requests. They
would also pull some case history in regard to earlier Plan reviews.
Ms. Call requested zoning history regarding similar properties, including both the Code requirements
and the actual implementation.
Ms. Fox stated that this issue has been ongoing since before her tenure on City Council. Many
meeting minutes exist reflecting the earlier discussions. This application is very significant because
the residents have been involved from the beginning. This residential neighborhood has consistently
requested consideration be given to neighborhood protection, and there were earlier assurances
that would happen. They have attempted to find a win-win resolution that would be fair to the
developer, as well. She would request any conversations that occurred from the beginning of the
DCAP between Council, the residents and the Planning Department as to the expectations.
Ms. Call noted that staff is attempting to identify an equitable agreement for the neighborhood and
the commercial residents, as well. There are many property owners involved.
Mr. Fishman stated that earlier meetings he was involved in promised development that would be
compatible with the neighborhood, maintaining a residential character. This will require much more
work to arrive at a resolution. It was recommended previously that the commercial buildings have
pitched roofs to accomplish a more compatible “feel.”
Staff indicated they would provide the requested records of previous City discussions, commitments
made to Llewellyn Farms re. future surrounding development and the DCAP area, and will continue
to work with the residential and commercial property owners to identify mutually beneficial
development standards.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Rauch reported that:
The City will return to in-person public meetings on July 1, 2021. The next regular meeting
of PZC will be held at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, July 8, 2021 in the old Council Chambers at 5200
Emerald Parkway. The August 5, 2021 meeting will be held in the new Council Chambers at
5555 Perimeter Drive.
Required online Board and Commission training can be accessed via a link provided to
members.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2021
Page 14 of 15
No public comments were received on this case.
Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Grimes seconded a recommendation for City Council approval of the
Historic Design Guidelines.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms.
Call, yes.
Motion approved 6-0.]
COMMISSION TRAINING
Dublin Corporate Area Plan
Ms. Rauch provided an overview of the Dublin Corporate Special Area Plan (DCAP). In the near
future, the Commission will be seeing proposed Code, Guidelines and area rezonings related to this
area. The City’s Community Plan is the overarching document that guides growth and development
decisions within the community. Within that are Special Area Plans, which provide an additional
level of detail and policy direction for a specific geographic area. The DCAP is one of those. Zoning
is the legal mechanism that will govern land use development, and proposed rezonings come before
the Commission for review. The DCAP includes the Metro Office District, the Blazer Research
District, and a portion of the Emerald Corporate District. The goals of the Plan are to focus on re-
positioning the City’s legacy office. The DCAP area has many office sites in need of reinvestment,
and it is essential to insure the zoning tools are in place to implement successful reinvestment. The
DCAP area is divided into various Mixed Use Regional (MUR) Sub-Districts. The Plan provides
building height guidelines, depending on the location. It also provides guidelines regarding uses for
presently undeveloped sites. When the DCAP was approved in 2018, City Council provided direction
on moving forward with the implementation. The direction was for Phase 1 to focus on the MUR 4
Sub-District, the area located on the east side of Frantz Road adjacent to Llewellyn Farms. Phase
2 will be the MUR 1 Sub-District, the Metro Blazer area. Future research will be required for the
MUR 2 and 3 Sub-Districts, in which there are many PUDs. Ms. Rauch reviewed the elements of the
MUR 4 Sub-District. The next step will be the proposal of a new section of the Zoning Code for the
MUR 4 Sub-District, along with Design Guidelines and a rezoning. When completed, the same
process will occur for the MUR 2 Sub-District.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Call inquired if it would be possible for menu board proposals to be handled
administratively by staff, rather than as Consent Cases.
Ms. Rauch responded that many of these proposals are within PUDs, which would involve different
standards. She would discuss the possibility of doing so with Mr. Boggs.
Mr. Boggs stated that the primary complicating factor would be the PUDs involved. For straight
zonings, and perhaps as they relate to the Sign Code, it may be possible for many of the cases.
They would look into the suggestion.
Ms. Call noted the recently passing of a Dublin resident and previous City of Dublin Planning
and Zoning Department employee, Gary Gunderman. Mr. Gunderman worked for the City
for many years and has many friends here. She would like to highlight his service to the City
of Dublin and extend condolences to his family and his friends for their loss. Mr.
Gunderman’s wife, Chris, will be making a donation to the City for a planting in her husband’s
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of----------='"""u=b'"""li"'""n-'C"-'i=ty_C=-=-ou=n'-'-c=-i '--I ___________ Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS. DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
Held Marc h 22, 2021 Page 10 of 12
Vice Mayor De Rosa agreed with the approach recommended by staff.
Ms. Alutto moved to accept staff recommendations regarding moving forward with the
DCAP.
Vice Mayor De Rosa seconded.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose
Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
AEP Distribution -Hayden Run Circuit Improvement
Mr. McDaniel stated that he wanted to highlight the proposed upgrade of a single
circuit electric distribution line by AEP. This particular line runs along Cosgray Road. It
will increase the single circuit to a double circuit. He wanted to b ring this forward for
information and awareness. He added that, to his understanding, AEP will be reaching
ou t to residents.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, to clarify, AEP was not asking permission. Mr.
McDaniel stated that was correct and that the City is not really involved in the project.
The Clerk and Ms. Weisenauer noted that no comments have been received regarding
this matter.
STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. McDaniel shared the fo llowing:
Spring Severe Weather Awareness Week -March 21 -March 27. Planning
ahead and knowing how to handle such emergencies is critical. There will be a
statewide tornado drill on Wedneday, March 24 at 9:50 a.m.
Chicken Coops
Mr. McDaniel stated that Council referred the topic of chicken coops to the Community
Services Advisory Committee in late 2019, early 2020. After revieweing this topic, staff
is recommending that this topic be referred to the Community Development
Committee.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to refer this matter to the Community Development
Committee for additional discussion.
Mr. Reiner seconded.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms.
Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes.
St. Patrick's Day
Mr. McDaniel thanked staff for the innovative ideas surrounding the St. Patrick's Day
festivities. He thanked City Council for their participation and all those who came out
to enjoy the day.
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Planning and Zoning Co mmission: Ms. Fox stated that the Commission did not have
any applicants on the agenda, but they did discuss garage conversions, specialty
hospita ls and tech flex district. She also stated that work continues on the goal of
providing more education al opporutnities for our boards and commissions. She stated
that the following is being planned to further this goal:
April - J une: Presentations related to: City initiatives, Comprehensive plan
overview discussions, innovative neighborhoods, neighborhood design and
placemaking;
Third Quarter: Discussions relating to housing trends, housing needs,
residential development standards; and•
Fourth Quarter: Regional partners and the challenges they are facing,
architectural design, material discussion and presentation, and col laborative
design processes.
This information will be recorded so that future commissioners can utilize this
i nformation and education.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 21 of 27
Warren Fishman suggested that since Ms. Fox brought it up, but the developer is here, and before we
approve the Final Development he assumed the Commission will see a solution to that. Victoria Newell
said Legal Council could step in but these blocks are already established with streets so she did not think
the Commission had the leeway to turn around and change the widths of the streets now. She said when
the architecture of the buildings come in, one of the discussions we had very early on in thi s process is
you have this in downtown urban areas, you are going to have deliveries made street -side at the curb but
they are generally temporary so if there is someone unloading a truck, yes, they may be tying up two
parking spaces but it is generally for a short period of time. She recalled that was a long discussion even
developing the BSD Code, for which we were willing to accept for the walkable urbanism. She said if
delivery drivers are plugged in, they are taking away usable land within that space and there will be less
cohesiveness to the built environment that is there. She said to consider delivery drives for every single
entity that starts to go in, so depending on what the uses are, and it will have an excessive amount of
deliveries, then that is something the Commission would addressing when those structures came forward
or those tenants came forward in some fashion. She asked if that made sense. Ms. Fox said it makes
sense but she restated how narrow these streets are when loading/unloading is occurring in on-street
parking spaces, it disrupts the pedestrian experience.
William Wilson suggested to alleviate this conflict between deliveries and pedestrians/cyclists, is to post
hours to limit deliveries when no one is around. Mr. Fishman agreed and delivery times are posted in a
lot of big cities. He suggested that when the buildings are designed, that there is another place, like in
the rear of the building where they are only allowed to load and perhaps with special freight elevators.
Ms. Newell said the discussion is more appropriate when the Commission is reviewing architecture
because the right-of-way is already established.
The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to speak on this case. [Hearing none.]
She called for a motion.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Final Plat with
the following condition:
1)That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Fox,
yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes. (Approved 7 - 0)
4.Dublin Corporate Area Plan Administrative Request
17-093ADM Community Plan Amendment
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for an amendment to the
Community Plan to add a new Special Area Plan for Dublin’s legacy office areas including Metro, Blazer,
and Emerald Districts. She said the site is approximately 987 acres bordered by West Bridge Street to the
north, Emerald Parkway to the west, Frantz Road to the east, and Tuttle Crossing Boulevard to the south.
She said this is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for proposed
amendments to the Community Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 22 of 27
Devayani Puranik said the Dublin Corporate Area Plan was introduced at the last meeting that entailed a
detailed presentation. She said they discussed the Community Plan, Special Area Plan, Zoning, the
process for the plan, contents of the plan, different recommendations, and implementation strategies.
She indicated tonight’s presentation would be brief focusing on the comments from last PZC meeting.
Ms. Puranik presented an aerial view of the area this plan would cover. She said the project goals are as
follows:
Reposition the “legacy” office sites for success by encouraging new investment, as well as
reinvestment in existing buildings;
Create a walkable, mixed-use environment with the commensurate amenities, while
recommending places for infill and new development;
Identify under-served markets and the related opportunities for attracting new private
investment;
Establish a strategy to “refresh” the Frantz Road streetscape that better reflects the gateway
nature of this important corridor;
Recommend mechanisms to ensure additional development along Frantz Road does not
adversely impact neighborhoods to the east;
Recommend zoning tools to ensure successful implementation of the vision and plan
recommendations, while providing new zoning protections for adjacent neighborhoods; and
Introduce consistent and compatible architectural and site design guidelines for the entire
district.
Ms. Puranik presented a graphic showing the planning process for the Dublin Corporate Area Plan that
began in 2016 with analyzing of the existing conditions, engaging neighborhoods and stakeholders,
developing conceptual recommendations, engaging neighborhoods and stakeholders again, finalizing
recommendations that now have brought us to the adoption phase of the plan in 2018. She said the
Dublin Corporate Area Plan will be included under the Special Area Plans upon adoption and she provided
the following highlights of its progression:
Phase I: Legacy Office Park Competitiveness Study – 2015, which focused specifically on parking
and how to manage existing parking more efficiently and in some cases, trying to add parking for
economic development within these districts; and
Phase II: Dublin Corporate Area Plan - Public Workshops, Open Houses, neighborhood meetings,
and Council Work Sessions from 2016-mid 2018, which focused on introducing new amenities
and land uses within the district.
Ms. Puranik reported that one of the importa nt points discussed during the PZC meeting on May 17 was
that open space be an important amenity to the Plan and to consider a “central green” that can be a
focal point of the area. She said that the Plan provides specific recommendations that the open space to
be utilized as an organizational element, focal point, and usable amenity in the district along with the
reconfiguration of interior landscaping .
Ms. Puranik said the plan also discusses interior landscaping within the parking lots and making
meaningful islands for interior landscaping, including sustainable stormwater practices. She said the plan
has references throughout the document regarding screening/buffering landscaping for existing
neighborhoods.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 23 of 27
Ms. Puranik stated large setbacks were also discussed along Frantz Road and the idea within the plan is
to activate the streetscape by providing a visual connection for pedestrians and users nearby. She said
the plan has references to 30-foot setbacks from Frantz Road but, however as staff moves forward to
zoning discussions staff can look at specific site design patterns for setbacks. She said it is possible
differentiate districts based on existing patterns and determine setbacks accordingly.
Ms. Puranik said a dedicated bike lane was discussed for Frantz Road. In the plan, she said, there is
already a reference to examining connectivity through the Mobility Study. She said Planning has followed
up with Engineering and they are working on Frantz Road/SR 161 intersection traffic study, some
improvements will be made. She said that to possibility of bike lane along Frantz Road will definitely
require a Feasibility Study.
Ms. Puranik said the Zoning Code and process has been discussed and will be starting soon. She said
staff is anticipating a start in the Fall of 2018 and that is when all the details will be reviewed , which is
very extensive. She explained because it would be a public process, all commercial property owners
within the district would be involved, as well as neighboring property owners.
Ms. Puranik said approval is recommended to City Council for the Dublin Corporate Area Plan. She said if
the Commission agrees, the next step will be a review and adoption by City Council and staff is
anticipating that process to occur in August/September 2018.
Warren Fishman said Ms. Puranik did a fabulous job explaining what is being proposed. He said the
Bridge Street District is a dense, urban area but he does not want that urban area spread all over the City
because then, Dublin could look just like any other city. He said the City’s forefathers worked so hard on
getting open areas and the expansive look that is on Frantz Road, for example. He added that when he
attended the car show at the Metro Center, people complemented the office park for the available green
space. He suggested using the existing buildings and adding restaurants to the first floor of those
buildings instead of building new. He said that the restaurants would be used by the people in that center
and the green area will not be sacrificed. He said he liked the BSD but it is different than the rest of the
City and he would like to preserve all the green areas in the rest of the City. He indicated the
compliments about Dublin are that it is all green. He said a huge difference is visible when crossing over
into Columbus, OH, on Frantz Road.
Victoria Newell said it becomes a Building Code issue. She indicated that when an office building is
designed from the beginning with a restaurant in it, the two uses have to be separated in terms of
construction. Exhaust for one needs to be dealt with when constructing a restaurant . She added that it
becomes more difficult when adding a restaurant to a pre-existing building because that use was not
planned for and if the office building is seven stories high for example, the exhaust still has to go all the
way up through the roof. She stated she is not saying it cannot be done but it becomes problematic. Mr.
Fishman suggested adding the restaurants to the side or fro nt of the office building and possibly attached
to keep the footprint minimal. He emphasized he wanted to keep the setbacks on Frantz Road as that
kind of look is what Dublin is famous for and sets us apart from a lot of cities. He recalled pushing for
100-foot setbacks and they all look fabulous. He indicated if the setbacks are not actually 100 feet, they
are certainly large.
Ms. Puranik clarified the recommended setbacks in this proposal are not the same as setbacks in the
BSD. She said that the plan suggests that there would be a tree lawn, shared-use path, and then 30-foot
setbacks here. She said the proposal would be more like a transition from BSD to a more suburban
setting. She said the setbacks staff referenced in the proposed document are very different than the BSD;
green space is anticipated along Frantz Road. Mr. Fishman said if grass and trees are being eliminated,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 24 of 27
that would change the appearance. Ms. Puranik said the intention is to not eliminate the green grass
along Frantz Road, it is just putting the building slightly forward to interact with the streetscape.
Tammy Noble noted a lot of the questions the Commission is asking are what the plan is addressing. She
said the idea is to repurpose the existing buildings and build around them. She said the key element of
this plan is for the office park as it is failing without amenities close by. She reported originally the scope
of work was for a parking analysis but Staff has found there are a number of issues adding to the
vacancy rate. She noted Jason Sudy, Side Street Planning, had said this at the May 17th meeting – green
space is not being eliminated but they plan to reduce it and reconfigure it to then get to the economic
incentives that will revitalize this area. She said she thought several issues that the Commission
discussed, are addresses in the plan. She added the fundamental part of this plan is to revitalize those
areas.
Bob Miller said he appreciates past Commissions and their input in creating aesthetics for Dublin . He said
the reason we are having this discussion for redevelopment is because it is not economically feasible and
needs to be protected for the next generation. He said it is sad it is about to change but on the other
hand, it has to change; the redevelopment has to come forward to breathe life into the area. Mr. Fishman
agreed that it has to change to make it economically feasible but the “good green feel to it” has to be
maintained and not to appear like the Bridge Park Development. Mr. Miller said it was a very special place
and at the time it was great.
Ms. Newell said the task to move forward with this is to pay attention to developing the Code. She said if
there is open green space that is nothing but lawn, it can be used for new development or planned
vegetative planting areas. She suggested there can be really good quality landscaping in exchange for
some of the open, flat, lawn space that has to be mowed. She indicated that if this is not revitalized, for a
draw it once had, ultimately we are hurting the City. M r. Fishman agreed. In regards to landscaping, Ms.
Newell said she still wants the area to appear as we have been known for in Dublin and to not lose that.
Ms. Noble said staff understands it is a balancing act.
Jane Fox said she disagrees with some development design principles, primarily the use of glass as a
primary material. She said when the regulations or guidelines become too prescriptive, in terms of what
shall be used and what should be used, etc., the developers are forced into boxed up buildings. She said
if we really are a community that says we want to build walkable areas and we try to retrofit these large
masses of land, we have to consider what makes that mass of land and those walkable areas attractive.
As stated on surveys time and time again, she said, Dublin thinks the public realm is attractive because of
the open natural environment. She hopes this plan does not lock us into the way the boxes are
illustrated. She said there can be some wonderful public-realm open spaces, parklike elements, Llewellyn
Farms, Waterford, and mid-century residents, will want to come and bring the kids and have a picnic or a
wonderful place to run or take a walk. She said we have to be particularly careful when we are
developing our open spaces, that we do not have long grassy areas and call that our public realm as it is
not serving any purpose.
Mr. Fishman said the City does a wonderful job at obtaining public input. He said he has read all the
minutes and what he finds interesting is the residents will say they want the redevelopment but not near
their house or subdivision. He said he agreed we need to make changes; the Metro Center has outlived
its spark and we need to make it economically feasible but we have to be so careful to ensure it looks
great. To Ms. Newell’s point he agreed, we no longer need masses of lawn. Ms. Fox agreed a long open
lawn will not draw the people to it.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 25 of 27
Ms. Newell cautioned her fellow Commissioners that this is a plan and the illustrations in the plan are only
examples and not real life projects.
Ms. Kennedy said that as indicated by staff, if the on-going traffic study will include dedicated bike lanes.
She asked if the studies also include the pedestrian element as well. Ms. Puranik said the plan
recommendations are for Frantz Road. She added that the crosswalk improvements and streetscape
improvement project is on-going and Public Works department is managing it. She said the traffic study
for Frantz Road and SR 161 will be on hold based on OCLC discussions. She said Engineering will have to
complete a feasibility study if there is to be a bike lane on Frantz Road. She said the Frantz Road corridor
streetscape improvement project has already been on Engineering’s plate and they are looking at
specifics for pedestrian improvements, etc.
Ms. Kennedy said she is really excited about this project and enjoyed reading this proposed plan as the
revitalization is absolutely necessary. She agreed that Dublin is known for and loves its green space so
she will also be taking a critical eye to that component in this study.
Mr. Fishman said there can be vertical greenspace as well as horizontal.
Ms. Fox said this is an opportunity to build a development the neighborhoods can use. She said this will
be an interesting infill experiment but there needs to be sensitivity when it comes to how that is
accomplished.
William Wilson said the design option in the plan shows repurposing the existing office buildings, which is
good. He said the buildings in the back can be reused but buildings along Frantz Road look new in the
concept and shown closer to the road, indicating something new is going on there and green space will
need to be kept between the commercial uses and Frantz Road to again, differentiate this development
from those in other cities. He said the key for this development to succeed is to get other uses back
within existing office complex, and incorporating the residential and other uses. Ms. Puranik explained
Metro Center has long-term leases and Option 1 reflects that, shown in the concepts, those buildings are
to be kept as is and then Options 2 and 3 add to that.
Mr. Wilson asked if the owner of the property has been involved in this whole process. He said it would
be interesting to see if we have support from everyone that has a stake in this. Ms. Puranik answered
they have all been notified.
Mr. Wilson asked if there will be any educational opportunities offered here, which would draw the young
people. Ms. Puranik said the WID was the latest special area plan that went through a similar process
that was recently adopted by Council. She said the WID has Ohio University presence so the idea is to
incubate businesses and new companies here in this area; they will then move on to the WID for
partnerships with OU and other educational institutes. She said this area will serve as a connection
between WID and BSD presenting opportunities to start-up companies are in this area, including our
Dublin Entrepreneurship Center.
Mr. Stidhem said he thought that was more of a market driven thing; if you go to interesting places, then
there can be office buildings that serve an educational purpose but it is going to have to be an interesting
place where people want to go. He agreed, he thought the OU area was more geared toward that. When
he looks at this area, he said, he thought having a college campus type of feel to it would be very
interesting, with the mix of residential, retail, restaurants, and office space. He indicated he envisions
educational businesses baked into the office spaces. He said he likes where this proposal is going in
general. He said the trees that were planted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s will need to be preserved.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 26 of 27
The Chair invited the public to speak in regards to this case.
Clay Daney, 5775 Settlers Place, said the comments he has heard from the Commission this evening are
encouraging. He said he also thinks the residents understand redevelopment is something that needs to
happen in order to revitalize the area. He said he lives in the area and spends a lot of time
jogging/running using the recreation paths and this proposal will provide a lot of opportunity. He said this
area is unique because there is some inherent friction in the way that the area is laid out. He said people
moved here because they found nice backyards with beautiful landscaping and a home they could raise
their family and it happens to be directly adjacent to commercial areas that could potentially be
redeveloped in 20 years or with a vacant piece of property, it could be developed tomorrow. He said the
canopies from the trees are 30 feet tall providing screening but underneath there are honeysuckle trees
eating up everything beneath. He said there is an example, if landscaping is done correctly in this area,
we can remove the angst that the Commission has seen in the correspondence between the residents in
the area. Overall, he indicated the residents are very excited about the opportunity here and noted sites
10 and 11 may need special attention. He wanted to know what mechanisms would be available fo r
residents to check during the zoning process to see if their interests and concerns are being considered.
Ms. Newell said the residential properties absolutely need to be protected and that is one of the
Commission’s goals as this redevelops. She said properties that abut commercial could be zoned
differently and suggested a PUD to allow residents to be re-engaged into that process to feel complete
ownership and provide input. She commended Mr. Daney for taking an active interest and said residents
that participate help the Commission make the decisions that they do.
Mr. Wilson added buffers are critical.
Mr. Daney said he is not so concerned about the setbacks along Frantz Road as long as there is vertical
greenery like beautiful trees, fountains, greenscapes, and beautiful landscaping that Dublin does so well.
Mr. Wilson agreed that made sense from a planning standpoint.
Ms. Kennedy said it is exciting to have engaged citizens and express their views and she is looking
forward to hearing from him again. Mr. Fishman said he also appreciates the public input and how Dublin
allows for that input. Mr. Daney added that residents are vested in this area. Ms. Newell said we are all
here because we are residents and want to protect the interests of our city.
Mr. Daney said he did not want to see tall, glass commercial buildings right behind a residence where at
10:00pm at night, the lights are on in the office and the resident can see the accountant working late
with offices brightly lit, directly from their home. He suggested the offices have shades or the opacity of
the windows be such so that does not happen. Ms. Newell said shades can be automated and
programmed. She said there are office buildings that can be built to be more on a residential scale for
those areas; one or two stories versus four to seven.
Ms. Fox said since site 11 is the only one the residents are most concerned with, maybe the Commission
makes recommendations that the height allowances need to be studied. Ms. Puranik said one clarification
on site 11 – it has a stream going through leaving half of the site unusable due to the Stream Corridor
Protection Zone requirements. She noted the even if the rest of the site is built to its full potential, per
existing zoning, only two stories are possible. She added that it will be a very small office building with
not enough room for parking. She emphasized that is why this site has not been developed in a long
time. She stated standard zoning exists there now and if developers meet the requirements of current
zoning, it could potentially move forward. She emphasized there are considerable constraints when it
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 7, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 27 of 27
comes to development of this site. The Economic Development Team, she said, has been trying to figure
out why it has not been selling and the reason being trees replacement standards and preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Daney said even when there are limited stories, there can be a variance in the height of stories
permitted, which can make a huge difference to the overall height of the building. Mr. Fishman said the
Commission usually puts a height restriction on the building. The crux here , he said, is the commercial
buildings were there before the subdivision. He said the Commission likes buildings that abut residential
to have the residential feel. He suggested ranch office buildings with shake roofs. Mr. Daney said the
medical buildings on Emerald Parkway were done very well and thoughtfully which makes it very pleasant
so it would not be a problem for neighboring residences. The buildings contain the interesting roofs, nice
brick, and nice setbacks with landscaping so if something along those lines were created for here, we
would get this right.
The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public that wished to speak. [Hearing none.] She
closed the public portion and asked if there were any further comments or questions from the
Commission. [Hearing none.] She called for a motion.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for an amendment to
the Community Plan to add a new Special Area Plan for Dublin’s legacy office areas as it promotes the
objectives of the City of Dublin. The vote was as follows: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes;
Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes. (Approved 7 - 0)
COMMUNICATIONS
Claudia Husak said our Planning Assistant, graduate student, Sierra Saumenig, graduated from the Ohio
State University with her Master’s Degree and accepted a job as a planner in North Carolina. She said she
is leaving Dublin next week.
Ms. Husak noted Vince Papsidero is on vacation, returning for the Commission’s next meeting. She said
she will be going on vacation and will miss the next two Commission meetings.
Victoria Newell said she wanted to suggest a field trip as the City moves forward with the Dublin
Corporate Area Plan. She said one of the considerations in the plan was to seek ways to harvest and treat
water better. She said there is an amazing facility (but it has been a few years since she has been there)
on The Ohio State University campus that is done for research. She said the facility is surrounded with so
much vegetation you barely know it is there. She said they collect all of the water off of the building and
treat it and use it in the fountains and the site is incredible. She said she will do some Google research
since it has been 6 or 7 years since she has been there but thought it would be a great place to tour to
learn ways to treat and handle water differently, which might be something the City considers.
Ms. Fox said she wanted to ensure when notes go to Council that the discussion about the need for
landscape and the green is emphasized and not have it just be a passing comment but rather an
important one.
The Chair asked if there were any further items to discuss. [Hearing none] She adjourned the meeting at
9:44 pm.
As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2018.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 21
ensure the correct verbiage was included from staff’s perspective. Ms. Burchett said the Commission is
considering the Waiver request this evening for transparency while utilizing this image. She said the
amendment to the MSP would be completed at a later date.
Mr. Miller questioned what happens if the graphic deteriorates.
Mr. Wilson said as the BSD develops with bars and restaurants, he anticipates this will come up again so
he asked if there could be a standard, which can always be used and it can differ though throughout the
development. He indicated graphics could become a piece of art for a specific restaurant and suggested
that could be explored with the developer.
The Chair invited anyone from the public to speak on this case. [There were none.] She opened the
meeting up to the Commissioners for any further discussion. [Hearing none.]
Ms. Newell said she thought these proposed graphics were a great solution and she liked the black and
white images because they were a better enhancement to the architecture. She concluded she really
appreciated that the applicant was willing to work with staff to find the right solution and bring back
something better than what was originally proposed. She called for a motion.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Miller moved, Ms. Fox seconded, to approve the requested Waiver to reduce transparency on the east
and south elevations with the following condition:
1)That the applicant amends the approved Bridge Park Master Sign Plan to address the size of
window graphics when used for screening of interior spaces, prior to sign permitting; subject to
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; and Mr. Miller,
yes. (Approved 5 - 0)
4.Dublin Corporate Area Plan Administrative Request
17-093ADM Introduction
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for an amendment to the
Community Plan to create a new Special Area Plan for Dublin’s legacy office areas including Metro, Blazer,
and Emerald Districts. She said the site is approximately 987 acres bordered by West Bridge Street to the
north, Emerald Parkway to the west, Frantz Road to the east, and Tuttle Crossing Boulevard to the south.
She said this is a request for an introduction of a future Administrative Request for proposed
amendments to the Community Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232.
Devayani Puranik introduced fellow presenters, Jason Sudy, Side Street Planning.
Ms. Puranik said The Community Plan was last updated in 2013. She explained this is the vision plan, a
policy document which guides development in the future and helps guide development decisions. She
said Special Area Plans look at specific geography within the City. She explained zoning is a legal tool to
guide the development, which will be reviewed at a later date. She said The Community Plan is on the
City’s website and it contains many elements but one of the most essential components of the plan is the
Future Land Use Map. Another important element, she said, is the Thoroughfare Plan and it shows
connectivity within the City, some of which is existing and some has been planned for the future. She
stated that there are nine Special Area Plans and the Dublin Corporate Area Plan would be part of this list
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 21
when it gets adopted. She presented the Zoning Map and said, most of the time, zoning aligns with the
Future Land Use Map but sometimes there are conflicts so as development occurs, staff has to negotiate
and work on those recommendations as well as existing zoning processes. She presented the study area
that contains multiple classifications and districts within the study area. She said it is challenging for more
consistent compatible development within the district and that is one of the issues to look at as part of
this planning process.
Ms. Puranik explained that the Special Area Plans also align with se ven Business Districts that have been
established by our Economic Development team. Going from east to west, she pointed out the Bridge
Street District (BSD) and the West Innovation District (WID), which is the most recent Special Area Plan
that is now adopted. She pointed out the study area for the Dublin Corporate Area Plan; it includes three
different business districts including Dublin’s older office complex – Legacy Office complex. She presented
graphics that showed the office development from the 1970s to 2010. After 2010, she noted there were
very few office developments because the suburb and office market is now shifting to more walkable
areas and mixed-use, amenity-driven requirements. She said most of Dublin’s offices are between 17 and
45 years old, therefore, some of that is ready for redevelopment.
Ms. Puranik said the project goals to begin this plan focused on the following:
Repositioning the Legacy Office sites for success;
Creating walkable, mixed-use environments to serve the workforce as well as neighboring
residents;
Identifying under-served markets and look for opportunities to introduce those markets;
Establishing a strategy to “refresh” the Frantz Road streetscape;
Recommending mechanisms to ensure additional development along Frantz Road does not
adversely impact neighborhoods to the east;
Recommending zoning tools to ensure successful implementation of the vision and plan
recommendations, while providing new zoning protections for adjacent neighborhoods; and
Introducing consistent and compatible architectural and site design guidelines for the entire area
plan.
Ms. Puranik said existing land uses, zoning, natural resources, and connectivity were examined to see
what is happening today. She reported stakeholders were engaged, whi ch included residents, businesses,
property owners, tenants, and real estate brokers. She said staff made conceptual recommendations and
presented it to the stakeholders and continued to work with the stakeholders to come to final
recommendations for the plan.
Ms. Puranik reported this process began in 2015 and Phase 1: Legacy Office Competiveness Study
culminated in a workshop focused on property owners, brokers, and company representatives within the
study area. Key feedback included:
The need for more amenities for office workers;
Updates to the appearance of the sites and adjacent roadway corridors ;
More efficient parking and parking ratios; and
Strategies for more aggressive redevelopment of the area.
Ms. Puranik said based on the first workshop, they began Phase II: Dublin Corporate Area Plan. She
reported staff has held several public workshops and meetings and the most recent was with
neighborhood meeting with Llewelyn Farms, Waterford Village, and Mid-Century Modern neighborhoods.
She said staff received good feedback from the residents and they are supportive of the plan. She said
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 21
meetings have also been held with representatives from the large companies within this area. They, too,
have been supportive of the plan and feel it is addressing the needs of their employees.
Jason Sudy, Side Street Planning, said the project began as an analysis of the parking ratios within the
boundaries of the study. He stated that some tenants that were concerned about moving into different
areas because of the potential inability to accommodate the parking ratios that they identify as suitable
parking for their businesses. He said some of these buildings used to be multi-tenant buildings and have
now become individual tenant buildings; in some cases, the amou nt of square-foot per employee dropped
significantly and that creates tight parking. A full traffic study was not conducted, he said, but parking
was observed at different times of the week and day and found in almost all cases, there was no
situation where the parking was completely full. However, he said there was a lot of cases where parking
was not very well aligned or convenient for the use and in some cases, it was because it was located on a
side of a building that did not have a door so employee had to walk all around the building to enter.
Mr. Sudy said they concluded they needed to reposition some of these areas to function for yet another
generation. He said there were a number of issues and parking is only one of those issues. He said the
larger issue was it was predominantly all highway oriented legacy office. He said there is a lot of vacancy
in these buildings. He said they have learned that the decision to move into a space is not just based on
the space itself but also what amenities are around the office. He said there are not many amenities in
this area, the area has limited roadway connectivity, and it does not have much quality public open
space.
Mr. Sudy said there are changes in mobility and the market is shifting for overall office development in
suburban locations. He said they are not contemplating the end game for what all of these areas are
likely to become. He said they are proposing to position this area so that is survives and thrives for
another generation.
Mr. Sudy said the area is large so it is impractical for the entire redevelopment. Through market analysis,
it was determined that there is great spending potential that is closely associated to planning area.
Specifically, he noted, there are several hotels and when someone determines where to stay, they look at
what is easy to access for dining and recreational needs. He noted the Metro Center area has several
hotels but not options for dining that is easy to walk to so that is one way to capture some of that
spending potential. He said the feedback was received for the need for food options including restaurants
and grocery stores. The consultants determined a reasonable amount of new development could begin in
each of these areas in the short-term.
Mr. Sudy said with new development, there has to be compatible zoning and that will require a separate
zoning process. He said they conducted a preliminary cursory analysis of the zones and a separate
consultant will be updating the Zoning Code to provide zoning standards that meet the objectives of the
plan. He said a set of mixed-use, regional districts were analyzed that accommodate these employment
facilities but also allow other uses to be there. He said mixing other supporting uses will allow for control
of the scale and the type of development they are considering.
Mr. Sudy said they also looked at undeveloped sites to get a sense of how they could fit into these
mixed-use areas and presented a map that represented proposed land uses for different districts. He said
they took into account preserving the natural features, scale of the buildings, and buffering and setbacks
standards and that was a large part of the most recent discussions with the neighbo rs. He provided some
of the key points in conjunction with the neighboring area:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 21
Limited building height of only one or two stories along Frantz Road and stepping up the heights
so sites closer to the highway would allow for much taller buildings. This would allow a more
dense development of potential employment, should someone choose to locate in that area.
He presented a graphic to show what might be implemented in the plan. In the Frantz/Metro
area, lower two-story, mixed-use buildings on Frantz Road were shown as well as a destination
restaurant with a cool, modern design (or a historic classic design) but it would be something
that would be fairly large scale that would be able to accommodate a lot of business users at
lunch and people from the business campus and neighbors to go there afterward.
An opportunity to reposition the way open space works so that it can be an amenity that really
functions as more of a park for the area including neighborhood residents (existing and potential
new residents).
As demographics shift in the region, an opportunity to provide more small -scale, individual-unit
housing to ease the ability of some of these employers to attract the types of employees that
they are looking for in close proximity
Along Rings and Frantz Roads there is an opportunity to do a small, two-story format grocery
Mr. Sudy said these recommendations can be implemented in short term.
Mr. Sudy recommended long-term solutions. He said the City’s early requirements for landscaping and
parking are now outdated in the suburban office context and do not respond to environmental and
sustainability efforts that have been revolutionized over the past decade. He said they are recommending
a different approach to the way parking lots are laid out and the way they are landscaped. He stated
edge screening is still important but other issues are important to address. He said Dublin’s internal
landscaping requirements create small landscape islands that do not promote sustainability. He said an
example would be long linear landscape areas, in parking lots, that help with storm water management.
Mr. Sudy looked preliminarily at Frantz Road and said it is a great area for cohesive requirements that
create a gateway to the area. He said examples include enhancing landscaping, using accent paving, and
having more cohesive signage. He presented renderings which showed existing conditions that could be
beautified. Most importantly, he recommended creating a more systematic approach. He pointed out a
graphic that depicted outdoor dining that is closer to the street. He said the current design of the most of
the sites within DCAP have buildings with large setbacks. He said they are contemplating, finding a way
to move businesses closer to the street, while keeping a robust setback, a pedestrian path, great
landscaping, as well as opening up those front patios for opportunities for more activity on the street. He
said the crosswalks should also be enhanced on a consistent basis as well.
Mr. Sudy concluded that there should be zoning requirement and design guidelines that create the
environment that the DCAP is proposing. He said this should include high quality building materials,
landscaping, signs, and open space that interacts with the uses of the site .
Ms. Puranik said there were some key points she wanted to highlight regarding next steps:
Frantz Road streetscape improvements
Drafting new zoning districts and rezoning, which came out of discussions with neighboring
residents that included buffering and how development will impact existing residential homes
next to these parcels. She said therefore, buffering, setback standards, and building height
standards would be examined.
Economic Development is working toward having the Frantz and Rings Road development posted
on the website, an initial step to looking at implementation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 21
In terms of next steps for this planning process, Ms. Puranik said tonight was the introduction and
understands there was a lot of material presented. She indicated the next meeting is tentatively
scheduled to incorporate a review and recommendation to City Council, June 7, 2018, and final review by
City Council in August/September of this year.
Warren Fishman said since he was on the PZC in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, he recalled the slogan that “It’s
Greener in Dublin” was emphasized and that is why Dublin is the way it is. He said they fought rigorously
for those setbacks because the community supported large setbacks. He understands that the parking
lots are awkward but he favored the open space. He said he can appreciate that some of this is outdated
but many roads had setbacks of 100 to 200 feet as a requireme nt. He reiterated, the residents wanted a
green Dublin” so we need to be mindful of that.
Mr. Sudy said they heard from many developers that this is not the kind of development that attracts
their desired workforce. He said young, energetic, bright people have the opportunity to work anywhere
and they do not want to work in the middle of a sea of parking, if they have the option to work
somewhere else.
Mr. Sudy said that the requirements for internal landscaping are not benefitting the sites as intended. He
further stated that we could modify these requirements to create more sustainable practices. He said
they are not proposing a change to the exterior screening around parking lots – that standard remains
the same but keeping huge setbacks on Frantz Road is not beneficial for the long term success of this
area. He said if the community does not want to do that, it is the City’s prerogative but he believes that
would be a mistake. Mr. Fishman said times have changed in 40 years but he does not think we need
high density buildings sitting right on the street to mimic any other city. Mr. Fishman said he does not
support eliminating green space but perhaps reconfiguring it. Mr. Sudy said that is basically what the
consultants and staff are proposing. Mr. Fishman disagreed that green spaces are not well used and cited
the example of the annual car show and businesses that have picnic tables on their green space. He said
once you lose a green space, it is gone forever. Mr. Sudy said there can be a difference of opinion on
what is considered “well used green space”. He said large areas of continuous green space is being
planned to be used as a park setting and additional development. He said they propose parking at the
same ratios but more efficiently.
Bob Miller said he was impressed with the plan and highly commended Ms. Puranik for her efforts. He
asked what a multi-modal hub meant. Mr. Sudy answered a multi-modal hub provides different types of
transit/transportation options is various locations throughout a community. He said he noticed Dublin
now has one of the different modes that is parked outside today and referred to LimeBikes. He indicated
we are in a new world of mobility options that it is hard for us to define in the near future; however,
Dublin is actively participating in a large regional-scale project that MORPC is undertaking and one of the
corridors actually ends up pretty close to here. He said part of that is to determine what the future o f
transportation is for Columbus. He said we are considering possible locations of where mobility could
provide better access to these different areas.
William Wilson remarked about existing buildings versus new buildings. He said for new buildings,
particularly commercial, density is needed and people are not going to come to this area if they do not
see the population. He asked if the existing buildings could be repurposed. He suggested restaurants can
be added to first floors or maybe converting the buildings into residential. Mr. Sudy indicated there are
some opportunities for some repurposing. He stated that placing new uses such as retail uses or
restaurants away from Frantz Road or Emerald Parkway is probably not going to be very successful. He
indicated they are confident in the near term that immediate development potential for those types of
uses has to take place in areas that will service what is there but will also take advantage of the traffic
counts along busy roadways. He stated that in the future, there may be additional opportunities as the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 17 of 21
area densifies. He said if first floors were repurposed to retail uses or restaurants, they would have to be
a really unique destination uses to attract people there. He said that approach of repurposi ng could work
if it was part of a large scale approach and different ways to repurpose different elements of those
buildings was considered.
Mr. Sudy said their plan is to interject brand new buildings with the existing buildings in Metro Center . He
stated that there may be a time when it becomes economically feasible to redevelop that site but
currently that is not what we are proposing.
The Chair opened the meeting up to the public.
Sven Christianson, 5765 Settlers Place, stated that Dublin is a unique and special place. He said he has
heard that Dublin is difficult to build in but frankly it is the hard work of the Planning and Zoning
Commission that makes this place special. He said he is here supporting the plan and the reason is the
plan has all the right tools for a successful plan. He said Planning has educated the public along the
process about how they provide the information to the Commission and the Commission ensures that it is
implemented. He said he is very interested in how the pu blic gets engaged when projects are presented
to the Commission to ensure the details of the plan are implemented and all of the details are discussed.
He said Planning has made a distinction with Site 11, and he is a resident representing Llewellyn Farms,
and is primarily interested in buildings with significant height for that site and interested in uses on this
site, in general. He said that he would like to ensure that the Commission consider all issues for this site
not just buffering but lighting, sound, and uses. He indicated he is not sure if the Commission received
the information from their meeting in April that listed the HOA’s concerns. Ms. Puranik affirmed that
information was received. The Chair confirmed the Commission has seen printed comm unity
correspondence.
Clay Daney, 5775 Settlers Place, said he echoes the comments shared by his next door neighbor, Mr.
Christianson. He said the residents all see a need for this plan and the Planning staff has done a great job
of recognizing many of the residents’ concerns. He said the main concerns are building heights, setbacks,
lighting, transparency of windows, hours of operation, parking lot lighting, and landscaping that includes
buffering. He said the last concern is a huge piece when considering office buildings next to residential
and usually those are complementary uses. He noted currently there are large scale trees for buffering
but as they have matured, they are so tall that there is a 30 -foot area where there is no buffering at all.
He stated that if this vegetation is removed, there would be a wholly transparent view of whatever is in
the lot next to the resident. He asked the staff to find creative ways to solve that problem. He said there
are also environmental protections, materials and building design, and trash collection that the residents
of Llewellyn Farms and Waterford Village are concerned with and staff had agreed those are items that
need to be addressed in zoning. He stated they would like to be involved in this process because they are
concerned they could be left behind if they do not. He said it is very clear, for the area east of Frantz
Road that is the most concerning part of the plan as it stands today because there are residences nearby.
He added that if a lot of multi-family development were to occur in this space, there would be an impact
on the school system. He said they would like to see the population grow but want to know how the
impact on the schools would be mitigated.
The Chair asked for anyone else from the public that wished to speak in regards to this case [Hearing
none.] She closed the public portion. She thanked the residents that came in and encouraged them and
others to stay engaged in the process.
Jane Fox thanked all the residents for coming and paying attention to this. She encouraged the residents
to read the development text and design principles with this plan that are on the website and provide
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 18 of 21
feedback. She asked staff if this will become a Form -Based Code. She asked about the approval process
for the new development that will occur in this area.
Vince Papsidero explained that the review process will be based upon the WID model . He said this would
not be a Form-Based Code, it would be a much more like the traditional zoning structure that Dublin is
accustomed to. He said to some degree, the ART would be involved and as we look at updating the WID,
that could be a model use , which will also be dependent upon Council’s thoughts. He said one of the
goals is to create a system that is somewhat expeditious for investment to try to reposition some of this
aging property. He indicated that this will all occur in a public process. He said staff will work with the
public one-on-one and when this gets to the Commission, it will be a very transparent process. He said
they still have to really engage the majority of the current commercial property owners and have reached
out to just select representatives that are interested in working with us.
Ms. Fox noted the setbacks on Frantz Road would be reduced from a 50 - to a 30-foot setback. She said
the one thing she has noticed is there is a shared -use path and the proposal to add patio dining. She said
if we are going to make this a very walkable, transit -oriented community, then we need to incorporate a
bike lane that is separate from the roadway and a shared -use path. Ms. Newell stated that is an excellent
suggestion.
Mr. Papsidero said the 30-foot setback is from the edge of the right-of-way so it should accommodate
those amenities.
Mr. Fishman said he thought the setback was more like 100 feet. Mr. Papsidero said the setbacks vary
substantially. He said the goal for new construction, there would be at least 30 feet of landscape for new
construction plus heavy landscaping outside the right-of-way. He said this would be very attractive view
shed opposed to 100 feet of turf.
Ms. Fox said in developing this plan, there are some character guidelines and some options for green
spaces but she would wanted to avoid the common trend to create green spaces that are just simply long
lawns that look like bocce ball courts. She would like really unique public realm spaces considered that
draws the public in and creates a permanency, no matter what development goes on around them. She
said it should include places that the residents will want to go. She indicated multi-family can be
integrated because the whole purpose of this plan is to create environments that workers want to be in
and they will enjoy going to.
Mr. Miller said that the planning process needed great amount of work over two to three years and he
commended all of the staff. He said that introducing residential uses will result in success inside this
whole area. He noted Site 4, Site 10, and Parcel 9 where he liked Option B because of the residential
piece that will help bring vibrancy but Option C needs work. He said he liked the setbacks. He agrees
with Cramer Creek Crossing residents and thought maybe there could be improvements with some of the
visuals that were presented in the plan. He appreciated the recommendations for the solar and wind
alternative energy. He liked the zoning proposals and is curious about the incentive programs that will
help this be accomplished. He also said the local grocer is an awesome idea. Lastly, he said getting
creativity is going to be a challenge because he does not know how you get people to invest in this area
and be creative at the same time if it means additional expense. He said that is what the Commission is
trying to do with the signs in Bridge Park but we are not being successful.
Mr. Fishman emphasized how thankful the Commission was for the resident involvement because nobody
knows the area as well as the residents and he encouraged them to invite all of their neighbors to come
for further discussions. He said it is the staff that helps move things along and make Dublin great. He
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 19 of 21
said he agrees about the aging landscape and that it can be addressed . He said staff is on the right track
and this plan is pretty exciting.
Mr. Wilson told everyone they did a great job. He said that there needs to be connectivity in the plan and
specifically referenced bike trails. He agreed some of the parks needed to be redesigned. He said exercise
stations encourage people to get out and enjoy green space.
Ms. Newell asked staff if they see this plan as more straight zoning that will keep the Planning
Commission engaged in this process and if so, how that would occur. Mr. Papsidero said it will be similar
to Bridge Street with the exception that there will be more authority by the Commission opposed to the
ART. He said there would be a Concept Plan, Preliminary Development Plan, and Final Development Plan
all coming to the Commission. He said smaller projects may rest with the ART, if the Commission agrees.
Ms. Newell asked if there would be design guidelines and Mr. Papsidero answered affirmatively. She said
she does not see how we would get the quality and creativity we want if we were to leave this as just
straight zoning, especially in terms of landscaping. Mr. Papsidero indicated they would start with updated
the Zoning Code but it may likely end up as a separate set of guidelines.
Ms. Newell said she is not entirely convinced about completely changing the setbacks on Frantz Road.
She said she is thinking about all the other development that we are doing in the City of Dublin where we
are allowing everything to come completely up to the street and we should consider how much land we
are ultimately giving away. She restated a bike lane is needed, separated from traffic so she can see
giving up some of that setback for that purpose because it would provide a better connection with
walkability. She noted the multi-purpose path is not continuous now. She said a lot of people that work in
these offices walk around this area and around the residential neighborhoods. She said she knows people
will get out in the community and walk and understands there are not services in this immediate area but
there is also not a connection to get all the way down the road. She remarked that as soon as the bike
shares went in, she noticed them around town so that is another reason why she likes that connection.
She said for the development of the green space, it really needs to be public and belong to the
community of Dublin and not as an amenity for a specific area/office development. She asked if staff had
considered the strip of land that is on east side of Frantz Road that is getting pulled into this area
because it is open land to still be a PUD. Mr. Papsidero said currently that land is in the township so for it
to develop, it would have to be annexed and could easily be treated as a PUD as part of that single-family
development.
Ms. Puranik said staff will take back the comments, review the document, and then figure out the next
steps.
Ms. Fox asked about the RFQ, how it was publicized, and who gets the chance to review. Rachel Ray,
acting on behalf of Economic Development, said she is managing the RFQ process. She said that was
released on May 7, 2018, and it was distributed to all of the developer contacts, the local American
Planning Association, ULI Columbus so they could send out to their networks, it was shared via LinkedIn,
the City’s website, and all the typical channels. She said the intent is to keep the neighborhood involved
as they go through the process, likely after they get responses, to measure how many responses were
received, to record accurately to the neighborhood.
Ms. Husak asked Ms. Ray to state who was on the team to review the responses. She named Donna
Goss, Vince Papsidero, Aaron Stanford, the Division of Engineering, Public Works, and Ray Harpham as
review committee members.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 17, 2018 – Meeting Minutes
Page 20 of 21
Ms. Fox asked how many developers were on the list. Ms. Ray said ±150 contacts via email and then
there is a lot of activity on LinkedIn. Ms. Fox asked once they are reviewed, what the process is. Ms. Ray
said once the responses are received, (June 4 is the deadline), staff will have a two week internal
turnaround filling a matrix of evaluation criteria and selecting the top three finalists to submit an actual
proposed concept. She said that at the conclusion of the RFP process, (late summer) they anticipate
hosting a public open house and the finalists would have an opportunity to present their concepts,
engage with the neighbors, and get feedback. She said staff would review the proposals and prepare a
recommendation for Council’s ultimate consideration.
The Chair closed discussion.
5.PUD, Autumn Rose Woods 7540 & 7660 Hyland-Croy Road
18-023Z-PDP-FDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for changes to the previously
approved development text and plans to permit the split-rail fence to remain along the perimeter of
Reserve C, to be owned by the City of Dublin. She said the site is on the east side of Hyland-Croy Road
approximately 1,200 feet south of the intersection with Tullymore Drive. She said this is a request for a
review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development
Plan and review and approval of a Final Development Plan un der the provisions of Zoning Code Section
153.050.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. She said a formal
presentation was not needed. She called for the first of two motions.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Rezoning with a
Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Fishman,
yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Ms. Fox, yes. (Approved 5 - 0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve a Final Development Plan with no conditions. The vote
was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Ms. Fox, yes.
Approved 5 - 0)
Claudia Husak noted the intent was to get this proposal to City Council for the meetings in June.
6.PUD, Coffman Homestead – Sign 6659 Coffman Road
18-024ARB-AFDP Amended Final Development Plan
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for the installation of a new sign for
the existing Historic Coffman Homestead site west of Emerald Parkway, approximately 400 feet north of
the intersection of Post Road. He said this is a request for a review and approval of an Amended Final
Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. She said a formal
presentation was not needed. She called for the first of two motions.
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Council Chambers
Minutes of Meeting
Mayor Peterson called the Monday, October 16, 2017 Work Session of Dublin City Council to order
at 6:19 p.m. at Dublin City Hall.
Members present were: Mayor Peterson, Vice Mayor Reiner Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Amorose
Groomes, and Ms. Alutto. Mr. Keenan was out of town (excused).
Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Goss, Ms. Readler, Ms. Mumma, Mr.
Earman, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Rauch, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Richison and Mr. Plouck.
Mayor Peterson clarified to those in attendance that this is a Council Work Session and not a
regular Council Meeting. He also explained that Council would be making an exception to the
normal rules of a work session and would be accepting public comment. He stated that there are
two items on tonight’s agenda: the Dublin Corporate Area Plan and the Historic Dublin zoning code
changes for the area south of Bridge Street.
Dublin Corporate Area Plan
Mr. Papsidero referenced Council’s briefings on this project, noting that this project builds upon the
Legacy Office work that has been ongoing. He invited Jason Sudy, Principal with Side Street
Planning to present the Dublin Corporate Area Plan.
Mr. Sudy introduced Steve Kolwicz of POD Design and Pete DiSalvo of DDA Advisors who are also
working on the project. Mr. Sudy stated that this project addresses the following:
repositioning the Legacy Office sites to adapt to future demands;
create a walkable, mixed use environment while recommending infill opportunities;
identify new markets for investment;
develop a strategy to refresh the Frantz Road streetscape;
recommend mechanisms for adding new development west of Frantz Road while not
adversely impacting the neighborhoods to the east; and
recommend zoning tools to ensure successful implementation of the vision and plan
recommendations.
There are many office sites that are not as competitive and are not performing at the highest
levels because they were developed in a different era using a different approach to site
development. One of the major goals of the project is to bridge the time between now and into
the future with an actionable short-term plan to reposition those sites with the understanding that
a more larger scale development that may happen in the future. This is needed to capture the
next generation of development. Having a more mixed use environment will allow this area to be
more competitive with other sites that offer mixed uses and maybe open up new markets for
investment. Refreshing the Frantz Road streetscape has become an important part of this study.
He made the important distinction between this area plan and the subsequent process of zoning.
The zoning process is being undertaken by a separate consulting group, but they are all working
together because that process will codify the details that are recommended in the plan.
Mr. Sudy illustrated the public input process with the business community that had been
completed to date, beginning in December 2015. Several public workshops were followed with
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 2 of 12
interactive polling and web-based information gathering. A large number of participants either
lived or worked in Dublin.
The Market Analysis identified three areas with redevelopment potential with retail/restaurant site
characteristics. They are:
Frantz/Metro Center;
Frantz/Rings Road; and
Emerald Parkway/Parkwood Place.
The analysis consisted of looking at marketable site locations, consumer types, spending power
and market supported opportunities. Council’s packet included some drawings of the Metro area
intended to illustrate what could be there; the drawings are not specific site plans. In examining
the spending power in each of these areas and the users, it was discovered that there is an
immense number of hotel dollars not being captured. The users staying in the hotels have no
places to walk to and few places for a short drive. There is market supported development for
50,000-60,000 square feet at the Frantz/Metro area, 50,000 square feet in the Frantz/Rings area
and 20,000 square feet in the Emerald/Parkwood area. Restaurants, special-food grocery, and
personal care service retail could be accommodated in those areas now. There is also ground that
is generating tax dollars based on its commercial use, but it is underperforming significantly. This
study suggested that housing should be integrated at key locations throughout the study area to
bolster the economic potential of the other uses in the area.
Regarding land use, he stated that the one comment heard over and over in the public sessions
was that there are not many amenities along Frantz Road. He noted the principles of land use are
to encourage a variety of uses, focus on amenities, utilize open space as an organizational element
and usable amenity, infill residential development in key locations and mitigate negative impacts
on adjacent neighborhoods. He reiterated the difference between a land use plan and the zoning
code. Land use designates what types of things can be in a given location from a suggested
standpoint. A land use plan does not have the legal ramifications that the zoning code does.
Therefore, what the consultants are aiming to do with this study is identify basic districts that can
accompany a future zoning approach that allows a much more specific site by site stipulation to be
put on all those properties for future development.
He introduced the basic districts as follows:
MUR-1: Metro/Blazer area – appropriate uses include office, hotel, residential infill on key
sites and neighborhood commercial along Frantz Road;
MUR-2: Tuttle/Rings (North) – corporate office within interior of sub-district;
MUR-2: Tuttle/Rings (South) – immediate interstate access, close proximity to mall;
Mr. Sudy noted that they are drawing a distinction between the east side of Frantz Road
and the west side of Frantz Road. The west side could consist of many uses to make it
function better such as a small-scale grocery, and other retail and restaurant possibilities,
but the east side of Frantz Road is recommended for low intensity office uses.
MUR-3: Emerald – continue to be freeway oriented office, specific uses in district subareas,
office personal services and restaurant.
He provided an illustration of the 13 site specific policy areas in order to bolster the thinking in
how those would apply to the new land use categories. These are land use suggestions and any
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 3 of 12
specific site development approach will only be assured with the zoning process. The proposed
building heights were shown to be limited to one to two stories along Frantz Road. Taller buildings
would be allowed along I-270 frontage and the heights between these two areas would be
transitioned. He shared some pictures of potential development opportunities and how it might
appear along Frantz Road/Metro Center and along Frantz Road and Rings Road.
Regarding connectivity, he noted that there are two opportunities, one of which is that there is
already a robust trail system that could incorporate new connections and there is limited roadway
connectivity. The roadway connections could function better by adding connections.
He stated that the current concerns along Frantz Road are the landscaping is overgrown, the
interface of the building with the road, connectivity, signage and the overall look and feel. Altering
the characteristics of the roadway and developing some outside space for dining, walking, etc.
would improve the look of this roadway.
Next steps include any revisions to the draft document based on Council, resident and property
owner comments; plan adoption in December or January 2018; and plan implementation in 2018.
There are two immediate steps toward plan implementation -- the first is developing the new
zoning district for the planning area and a comprehensive rezoning and the second is a design and
implementation of Frantz Road streetscape improvements.
Mr. McDaniel stated that what drove this Legacy Office study is the desire to keep it competitive
and vibrant.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this area is due for rehabilitation. He agreed that one thing that was
missed was providing restaurants and pocket places for the residents of that area. He believes the
way this plan is mapped out is sensitive to the current residents.
Mayor Peterson stated that he asked the Clerk to pull the citizen comments from the August 28,
2017 meeting and to make a copy of the comments from the August 28 meeting and attach them
to this meeting’s minutes so it will all be together (comments attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit A). He noted that if those present already provided public
testimony, it will be in the record.
Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that Council will not be voting on any matters at this meeting.
Sven Christensen, 5765 Settlers Place, Dublin, requested the slide in the presentation illustrating
the site specific policy areas be displayed. He noted that there was greater detail given regarding
height and density since the last meeting, and he is appreciative. He stated that some Council
Members came out to walk along the path to the school and along Llewellyn Park. There is no
specific zoning that abuts that residential path. He would like to have a sub-district study on the
area that is immediately adjacent to the residential area. The fact that this doesn’t have a site
specific direction is the main concern.
Mr. Papsidero pointed out that the text does give a list of uses specific to the area west of Frantz
Road and not east of Frantz Road.
Mr. Sudy reiterated that these are suggested uses for the west side of Frantz; the zoning code will
legally limit the uses.
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 4 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that because there is a list of uses for the west side, it would be
helpful to have a list of uses for the east side.
Mayor Peterson stated that everyone is in agreement that this needs to be clarified.
Mr. Christensen reiterated that he believes a specific site study like the one that was done on
Blazer Parkway would be helpful. He asked staff to take the opportunity to do better when it is
right next to the neighborhood.
Ms. Salay stated that she agreed completely. She wants to nail down the future for these
neighbors so that everyone is comfortable. The City does not need to develop or over develop.
Neighborhoods are investing in their area and she does not want residents worrying about what is
coming. We need to be very clear and make sure everyone understands what is going on. She
asked staff if the vision is for a blanket rezoning or overlay districts.
Mr. Papsidero responded that the strategy is to do a comprehensive rezoning of the entire area.
Much of this area dates back to PUDs, which lacked standards. From a process standpoint, the
concept is to build upon the structure that is in place for the West Innovation District and then do
a comprehensive rezoning that is based on this plan, but which will go into more detail.
Ms. Salay inquired about the process if a comprehensive rezoning were proposed and someone
wanted to develop and can meet those standards, could they proceed without any additional public
input?
Mr. Papsidero clarified that they are in the process of updating the West Innovation District and
including more criteria, which defines when a project will go to Planning Commission. Therefore, it
is more definitive, and the bar will be even higher in this area. It will be an open development
approval process.
Ms. Salay inquired about a vacant lot near Llewellyn Farms and the fact that at one point, a senior
housing development was interested in that land. Is that a possible use?
Mr. Papsidero stated that the vacant parcel Ms. Salay refers to was handled as all the other
parcels. It is currently a Suburban Office use. The Plan supports only office with the height limit.
It is a small parcel and therefore, two-story office is all that could be accommodated because of
parking requirements.
In response to Ms. Salay’s question regarding current zoning, Mr. Papsidero stated that the lot in
question was strictly office use.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that when this was last discussed, she recalled that an area rezoning
was appropriate for the West Innovation District because of the limited number of adjacent
residents. Some valuable lessons have been learned in area-wide rezonings. She would not be in
favor of area-wide rezoning in proximity to residential areas. There are triggers that would prompt
review by the Planning Commission, meaning that some of these would not go to Planning
Commission. She would not be supportive of proposals that could bypass the Planning and Zoning
Commission process for development.
Mr. Papsidero stated that one of the triggers, for example, would be any land that fronts Frantz
Road.
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 5 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that triggers can change.
Mr. Papsidero noted that these would be spelled out in the zoning code, not reviewed by ART or
staff.
Mr. Christensen summarized that a sub area study for what lies next to residential would help
everyone feel more comfortable.
Mark Gray, 4786 Belfield Court, Dublin, stated that he and his wife have been residents of
Llewellyn Farms for 28 years. One of the reasons they built there was because Dublin has a Plan.
He was confident that his home value would be retained because of the Community Plan. He
asked Council to make sure there is a compelling reason to change the Plan in some way that
impacts home values and quality of life for the residents. He is an AEP retiree and understands
design and design basis and the importance of having compelling reasons to change anything.
Planning staff needs to understand what is there after 6 p.m., on the weekdays and on the
weekends and help the residents retain and preserve the quality of life and retain their investment.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Council and staff have much experience with what can happen and
the impact certain development can have on residents, for example, banging dumpsters and noise.
Vicki Prescott 5805 Settlers Place, Dublin, described the increased foot traffic in her neighborhood
currently. She believes that it will increase even more with this development. She is in favor of
development, but is concerned about people walking through their neighborhoods.
Bernie Schlueter, 5716 Chatterfield Dr., Dublin, suggested more consideration be given to park
space, gardens, or a creative and imaginative space for walkers. He believes Dublin could put in a
wonderful place to attract people.
Clay Daney, 5775 Settlers Place, Dublin, stated that he has spoken previously and wants to
reiterate a few comments. His neighborhood is an engaged group of people. There is a real
opportunity to do something great in this area. If there was an opportunity to have a round table
where ideas could be given, something excellent could come of this blank slate area. He
suggested taking extra time and care to consider what could be done and the impacts that could
still occur in some areas. The site specific areas are helpful, but some neighbors could still be
impacted. He trusts that the City of Dublin will get the zoning right, but not really understanding
what MUR means, it is still cause for concern. He thanked Planning staff and Council for being so
open to hearing comments.
Jane Fox, 6193 Dublin Road, Dublin, stated that she is impressed with the engagement of the
Llewellyn and Waterford citizens. They want to have something special in their neighborhoods.
There is an opportunity to have great commercial attraction to the area. City planning has such a
talented staff, but it hopefully is not just a commercial attraction, but will be something the
residents agree with as well. The process is so linear -- the roundtable type discussion that brings
creative thoughts is missing. It would be wonderful if in the early planning stages, people could
come and share good ideas. It would then be a collaborative effort that everyone buys into. If
the neighborhood does not support it, then it will never be successful because they will feel that
their value has gone down. This much land is a grand opportunity to draw people to this area.
Landscape architecture could be the key. Everyone loves beautiful spaces, so maybe the place to
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 6 of 12
start is with the landscape and build the commercial around it. Focus on making this the most
beautiful place in central Ohio and there won’t be any challenge in drawing people.
Mayor Peterson asked for the timeframe on the Plan.
Mr. Papsidero responded that they continue to gather comments from property owners. There are
revisions to make to complete a final draft document. The final document is to go before the
Planning Commission in November and then to Council in January.
In response to Mayor Peterson, Mr. Papsidero confirmed that there will be more revisions, based
upon feedback that they receive. The final document will come forward as a submitted formal
application to the Planning Commission. This meeting has focused on east of Frantz Road
concerns, but there have been concerns expressed by property owners on Emerald Parkway as
well that will be addressed.
Mayor Peterson asked if the Commission will have more than one hearing on this.
Mr. Papsidero stated it is up to the Commission.
Ms. Alutto clarified that there is additional opportunity for people to view the document and read it
prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and so they can attend the Commission
meeting and testify if they desire.
Mr. Papsidero stated that was correct.
Ms. Alutto stated that this was envisioned to be a mass rezoning. However, she may not be
comfortable with a mass rezoning. She asked whether staff would bring forward other options
other than a mass rezoning.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the document purposefully does not go into that detail. As a result of
some issues raised at this meeting, there may be more detail added about what the zoning code
could address. The strategy of which approach to take could be discussed with Council and
options could be provided, but there are challenges with the way this district is currently zoned.
The parcels they are discussing tonight have straight zoning in place, and there is not much that
could be done today to protect the residents. There are very few standards in place in these areas
being discussed. Because of that, it serves as a disincentive for any investment because the rules
are thin, there is not a lot of guidance and this creates hurdles. This brings back the idea of a
comprehensive rezoning with all new current standards, a very clean process, new landscape
standards and more efficient parking. It is for these reasons that this is being discussed globally.
Ms. Alutto stated she would like to have a clear understanding of the different approaches. It
doesn’t have to be part of the document and could be a conversation separate from this. It would
be beneficial to the residents to have a better understanding of the process. She thanked Planning
staff for being flexible and having more specificity around the neighborhood areas.
Ms. Salay stated it seems we are attempting to strike a balance, because Council’s previous
direction has been for redevelopment and to make this area easier for investment to occur. Due
to the hurdles he described earlier, it is actually a disincentive in this area. On that front, the idea
of a global rezoning is interesting. However, when it is adjacent to a residential area, there is a
need for balance. That requires more thought and consideration. She suggested looking at global
rezoning on one side of Frantz Road, but doing something different with the area that impacts
neighborhoods.
Dublin City Council Work Session
Monday, October 16, 2017
Page 7 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that this has been her request since Council was first presented this
document -- that this area is treated more like a community plan and not to rezone the areas
adjacent to the residential components.
Ms. Salay stated that staff makes a good point because it is currently all straight Suburban Office
zoning, and the City desires to get away from that.
Mr. Papsidero stated that it is a balancing act.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that if a rezoning occurred on the (McDowell) parcel, there is a
desire to keep it residential.
Mr. Papsidero stated that was correct.
Mayor Peterson stated that the residents should be assured that this Council is unified in that this
process should protect the borders of their neighborhood. However, something must be done
because the current zoning is straight S.O.
Ms. Salay stated that she is hopeful that a meeting could take place between now and the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that that everyone is to the point of being comfortable.
She doesn’t want the neighborhood to continue to come to meetings out of fear of what may
happen.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this was never about money. It was a project to rehab and upgrade
the area that was in need of upgrading.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he personally has a history of protecting the integrity of neighborhoods
and the Council that he has served on has a tradition of doing the same.
Mayor Peterson asked those in attendance if anyone else wanted to speak.
Mark Martin, President of Llewellyn Farms Civic Association stated that he respects the idea that
they want to retain the approval of projects. The residents would like to see a “mass plan” so they
don’t have to worry about what can and cannot go in certain areas. Many residents missed the
earlier meetings where this was presented. He doesn’t want to have to watch the newspaper
regularly to see what is going on and whether or not it affects him. He thanked Council for their
work and complimented the services of the City of Dublin.
Historic Dublin Code and Area Rezoning
Ms. Rauch shared a map depicting the area south of Bridge Street, along South High Street. The
directive to staff from Council in May of 2016 was: to look at the Bridge Street Code, specifically in
this area on the south side of Bridge Street along S. High to see if there are some modifications
that could be made to be more responsive to some of the development pressure the City is
experiencing in this area; and to make sure that it is sensitive to the neighborhood and fitting in
with the existing character, particularly as it relates to the residential on either side – along S.
Riverview and Franklin Street. The other part of this is looking at specific requirements related to
commercial uses, how those are treated, specific building design details, building height, noise,
density, etc. The directive was to look at the Code for these things and make some
recommendations, providing opportunity for public comment.
Dublin City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission
Joint Work Session
Monday, April 17, 2017
Minutes of Meeting
Mayor Peterson called the Monday, April 17, 2017 Dublin City Council-Planning and Zoning
Commission Joint Work Session to order at 6:00 p.m. at Dublin City Hall.
Council Members present were: Mr. Keenan, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Amorose Groomes, Mayor
Peterson, Ms. Salay, Vice Mayor Reiner and Ms. Alutto.
Planning and Zoning Commissioners present: Ms. Newell, Mr. Brown, Mr. Miller, Mr. Stidhem, Ms.
DeRosa, and Ms. Mitchell.
Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Readler, Mr. Papsidero, Ms. Husak, Ms.
Rauch, Ms. Puranik, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Ray, Mr. Gracia, Mr. Earman, Ms. Richison and Ms. Burness.
Mr. McDaniel stated that because tonight’s work session focuses on Planning-related items, Mr.
Papsidero will guide the discussion.
Mr. Papsidero stated that the discussion will focus on four projects. The objective is to obtain
Council’s input and ensure that the projects are proceeding in the desired direction – particularly
for the zoning projects because there are a few new components on which Council’s feedback is
desired. Those projects are:
1. West Bridge Street Framework Plan
Because this is a part of the Bridge Street District that impacts adjacent neighborhoods,
significant public input has been obtained. A preliminary development concept will be
shared tonight.
2. West Innovation District Zoning
This project relates to minor tweaks to the zoning that is already in place, which reflect
the work to date on the West Innovation District Plan update. Council has seen much of
the update previously. Tonight’s presentation is an interpretation of that work in terms of
recommended Code changes.
3. Metro-Blazer District Zoning
The City has been undertaking a significant amount of work in this district over the last
three years, looking at Legacy Office developments and understanding the role of
Planning on the marketplace. Some shifts may be necessary in order to ensure that area
remains a very vital part of the City. A new zoning approach is proposed for that area,
which is based on what has been learned to date with the West Innovation District.
4. Bridge Street District Zoning
This Code update was initiated six months ago. It has involved a significant amount of
stakeholder interviews. With the consultant, they have looked at ways in which to
improve that District both in terms of process and Code standards; these improvements
are based upon experience over the last few years with project review and approvals.
The goal with all the projects is to ensure more consistency in the Code and process and the
development of design guidelines for each of these areas. The intent is to better communicate the
City’s expectations to the development community, ensure that applications the City receives
reflect the City and the public’s values, and identify what the City sees as most important about
Dublin City Council-Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session
Monday, April 17, 2017
Page 19 of 23
METRO-BLAZER DISTRICT ZONING
Elizabeth Fields, McBride Dale Clarion, presented an overview. The major difference between the
West Innovation (WID) and Metro-Blazer District is that the majority of the WID is undeveloped
area, and new development is being proposed. With Metro-Blazer, the intent is to retrofit existing
development and make it more competitive. Another firm has been retained to handle the land
use plan for this project, and Jason Sudy with Side Street Planning is present. His firm is working
on the Dublin corporate area master plan for this district. The zoning will be the implementation
tool for that land use plan.
Goals for the Metro-Blazer Plan update are:
Development regulations that coincide with the plan update and allow for redevelopment
and new development that aligns with the City’s vision for the Metro-Blazer district.
A clear, concise, and user-friendly set of regulations that identifies the standards and
guidelines that apply to development within the District.
Clear distinction between the Dublin Corporate Area Plan, Zoning Code, and Design
Guidelines.
The plan will focus on the overall design principles, goals and objectives for the District. The
zoning code will focus on the non-discretionary and quantitative standards (uses, setback,
development standards, process). The design guidelines will focus on discretionary guidelines that
will concentrate on the character of both the overall District and the individual buildings.
Current Zoning/Proposed Zoning:
The existing zoning for this District is a mix of: Restricted Suburban Residential; Suburban
Office and Institutional; Community Commercial; Tech Flex; Office, Laboratory and
Research; Planned Unit Development; and BSD-Commercial. Much of the District is
Planned Development.
A draft land use plan has been proposed for new districts. The Tech Flex and Bridge Street
Districts would remain. Four new districts are proposed: Metro/Blazer; Emerald;
Tuttle/Rings North; and Tuttle/Rings South. The Land Use Area Plans will describe the
City’s intent for each of those four areas.
The Code update will be the implementation tool for the Land Use Study. Rezoning this
study area from the existing zoning districts to an overall Metro-Blazer zoning district will
be a similar tool to the existing West Innovation districts. The Metro-Blazer districts will
have their own list of Permitted Uses and Standards. The current proposal is to leave the
existing PUDS as is, but the owners will have the discretion to re-develop to the existing
plan development standards or develop under the new zoning standards. The plan allows
them that flexibility. Minor changes would probably occur according to current standards,
but a complete redevelopment would follow the new regulations.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if percentages have been assigned related degrees of
modifications.
Ms. Fields responded that has not yet been discussed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that this is different and probably easier than the Bridge Street
redevelopment.
Mr. Papsidero stated that they would be looking at that. They were trying to follow the Bridge
Street model.
Dublin City Council-Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session
Monday, April 17, 2017
Page 20 of 23
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it created some difficulties for property owners wanting to make
modifications.
Ms. Fields stated that the intent is to provide incentives for property owners to follow the new
regulations. Those details will be worked out.
The approval process in the Metro-Blazer District would replicate that in the West Innovation
District. The Code sections would be organized in the same manner, focusing on measurable
standards. There would be unique uses and standards for each of the four subareas. The design
guidelines would focus on the look, feel and character items.
The Major Changes Proposed are:
New zoning districts for the Metro-Blazer district that are allow for more development
options than what currently is permitted
Existing PUDs will be able to continue under their current regulations or develop under the
new regulations
Defined criteria for “Kick-up” provision
Similar process and development standards to WID
The Next Steps are:
Finalize Dublin Corporate Area Plan - review and approval by Fall 2017
Public outreach for the zoning
Draft zoning changes for review by staff and PZC with approval by City Council
Area rezoning process following the Code adoption
Council/PZC Questions:
Ms. Salay referred to the football-shaped piece of land at the corner of Woerner-Temple, Rings
Road and Emerald Parkway -- Emerald Town Center is located there. Could that Town Center be
removed from the Emerald District? The neighborhood fought hard for that town center, and it is
working well, at this point. On behalf of those neighborhoods, she does not want to have to go
back to the drawing board with that. When that section of Emerald Parkway (Thomas Kohler)
developed, the intent was for a 10-pump gas station and UDF on the corner, where the Chinese
restaurant current sits. The neighborhood strongly objected, and the UDF project was eliminated.
She prefers to remove that section from the Emerald District and make it part of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that her rezoning and process comments remain the same as on the
previous plan.
Mr. Reiner inquired if there is a master plan that addresses some areas separately. In addition,
the landscaping and streetscape in this area has declined over the years. It was done in the 1980s
and needs to be refreshed.
Ms. Fields responded that the Dublin Corporate Plan on which Mr. Sudy’s group is working will
have concept plans for individual areas and address the mix of uses and landscaping. Council will
have the opportunity to review those concept plans. She will not begin to work on the zoning
code until Council has worked out the details of the concept plans in the Land Use Plan, including
the ultimate goals, uses, setbacks, building heights, etc. desired in this area.
Dublin City Council-Planning Zoning Commission Joint Work Session
Monday, April 17, 2017
Page 21 of 23
Mr. Reiner stated that developers will want to know which areas are still open to them. That
should facilitate more rapid development in this District.
Ms. Salay stated that all three of these plans provide for a significant public process. She would
like to have a copy of the public feedback that is received, so Council can be aware of the
neighborhoods’ perspectives on the proposed changes.
Mr. Papsidero responded that a detailed copy of the input would be provided to Council.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if staff input were needed on the conceptual concepts.
Mr. Papsidero responded that it is not. The question tonight is if this is an approach on which staff
should continue to work. The details will be addressed at a later date.
BRIDGE STREET DISTRICT ZONING
Donald L. Elliott, Clarion Associates, stated that:
1. Their team has written codes for many communities around the country, and most codes
are hybrids. The Bridge Street Code is a success, not a failure; it was just difficult to do.
Much development actually has happened here in the five years this Code has been in
place. The amount of walkable, sustainable, urban development that has occurred within
this adopted framework is unusual to find. There are now many buildings in place.
2. When the Bridge Street Code was developed, it followed a technical approach to form-
based codes. That turned out to be a poor fit for Dublin, and there have been attempts to
change the programmatic approach to make it work better for this community. With five
years of experience, there is the ability to evaluate and update the Code, and Council has
asked them to do so.
Clarion’s contract had three tasks:
1. Identify why the sign regulations were problematic for existing development. Those
findings have been finalized and approved by Council. The change permits improvements
or changes in existing buildings to continue under the previous signage requirements. Only
a new building developed under the new code need follow new sign guidelines.
2. Determine if the Historic Core protections are sufficiently strong or if changes are needed.
That review is being conducted by Leslie Oberholtzer, their technical form-based code
specialist.
3. Provide general updates to simplify the review process, provide greater flexibility and
design guidelines.
Since last fall, work on general updates has been underway, working with stakeholders and the
public. Many interviews have been conducted with builders and developers who have invested or
tried to invest in the Bridge Street area. They have found that there are substantive challenges
with the Bridge Street Code and there are process challenges.
Substantive challenges were: (1) the Code’s Building Design Standards lacked flexibility and
created monotony; (2) some of the Site Development Standards inhibited good design; and (3)
some don’t work for existing buildings/development. One of the key changes is to re-visit the
applicability thresholds.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 8
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to approve the Conditional Use with no conditions. The vote
was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and
Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
3. Avery Road CrossFit 5725 Avery Road
16-110CU Conditional Use
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for an indoor recreational facility within an
existing building in the Technology Flex District. She said the site is on the west side of Avery Road,
approximately 710 feet south of the intersection with Woerner -Temple Road. She said this is a request
for a review and approval of a Conditional Use under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.236.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Conditional Use with one condition:
1) That the applicant work with staff to provide the one loading space required by the Code to be
verified at permitting.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem,
yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Planning Items
Vincent Papsidero said there are three current projects interrelated that include the West Innovation
District, Metro-Blazer area, and the Bridge Street District. He said plans are in place to update the first
two areas just mentioned. He said staff does not intend to update the plan in the BSD but in each area
they are updating the Code and developing Design Guidelines.
Mr. Papsidero presented a map highlighting the three areas as well as the overriding intent of Code
versus Design Guidelines:
Code and process improvements (Code)
Focus on dimensional standards + “absolutes”
Consistency among review steps and application requirements
Process improvements that do not compromise outcomes
Strong emphasis on outcomes (Design Guidelines)
Emphasize creativity and originality in urban design consistent with City values and expectations
Avoid monotonous outcomes
Guidelines to focus on intent (do this/don’t do that)
Answers the applicant’s question “what do you want from us?”
Bob Miller said most of what Mr. Papsidero just said is extremely logical. He asked if Mr. Papsidero sees a
risk with these changes. Mr. Papsidero answered he does not see a risk. He explained he has written and
used guidelines in other communities of Columbus with quite a bit of success. He indicated Design
Guidelines will provide more leverage than what a Code in some cases.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 8
Mr. Papsidero presented qualities of effective Code language:
Language should be clear
Easily interpreted (as “black and white” as possible)
Measurable and dimension able
Objective and not subjective
Legally defensible
Mr. Papsidero included a good example:
Lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width at the public right-of-way.”
Mr. Papsidero alternatively provided poor examples of Code language as they are too subjective:
o “forward looking”
o “thoughtfully designed”
o “intentional and carefully thought through”
o “unique and diverse”
o “look and feel”
o “design expression is of a modern application”
Mr. Papsidero said the above comments are excellent examples of Design Guideline language.
Chris Brown said the Design Guideline language examples are very subjective and he questions what is
enforceable. He said when someone brings forward a great looking project, no matter the transparency
percentage or primary/secondary materials for example, the Commission looks at it and states “Wow,
that’s nice” or “oh, that looks bad”.
Mr. Papsidero said the Commission’s role is to represent the community’s values and merge them with
the technical piece. He said subjective language in Design Guidelines is enforceable, if adopted by Council
after the Commission’s recommendation and linked by Code to the actual development steps in the
process.
Steve Stidhem said this is an opportunity to be forward looking, to consider more renewable energy
options, and add to the Code. He said there is a lot of material written on the impact of self-driven cars in
city planning. He indicated there may be more cars or could be less cars, we do not really know. But we
do know there will be less parking requirements near where people are actually doing their work. He
asked to be very specific about the language.
Mr. Papsidero said language for this topic could be specific but for subjects that are in an early stage like
autonomous vehicles; that is a perfect topic for Design Guidelines. He indicated we could state that an
area designed for a garage now could be at least partially converted to other uses in the future. He
suggested this should not be mandated in the Code but a lot of guidance could be provided.
Mr. Stidhem agreed for the subject of autonomous vehicles but for renewable energy (solar power or
windows) that could be stated in the Code. Mr. Papsidero said that subject matter is very detailed and
Planning would probably do that as a separate project or add-on because that gets into a lot of
requirements to think through as a community. He used turbines on a single-family lot, as an example.
He said that would become a community dialogue under the direction of Council.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Papsidero said as a Code standpoint, the following topics would be addressed:
Land Uses
o Dimensional standards
o Height
o Setback
o Density/Intensity (du/ac, sf/ac, FAR)
o Parking and loading
o Landscaping/open space quantities
Process
o ART + PZC/ARB + Council
o Administrative approvals
o Provides legal justification for applying Design Guidelines
Mr. Papsidero explained Design Guidelines are:
o Explanatory in nature
o Provide insight into acceptable ways of meeting Code requirements and City values, expectations
o (as defined in policy)
o More subjective, less objective
o Illustrative (do this, don’t do that)
o Implemented by staff (report and recommendation) and Boards/Commissions (analysis and
decision)
Mr. Stidhem asked if cell towers are considered as 4G capability moves to 5G. Mr. Papsidero said the
state has determined that the City has no authority over the regulation of these new cell towers. Mr.
Stidhem asked if we could insert fiber optic connectivity into the Code. Mr. Papsidero said that might be
included in the Building Code. He indicated we would need to determine where it would fit from a
regulatory standpoint. Mr. Stidhem said in anticipation of what could be to come, that sort of thing is
inexpensive to incorporate while construction is going on versus retro fitting it later.
Mr. Papsidero said staff is looking for a strong dialogue with the Commission as we work through this.
Mr. Papsidero presented pictures of Design Guidelines from different places around the country that
include the guideline language to illustrate the goal. He said as we work through these specific issues, we
can be as detailed as we need to be to provide additional guidance.
Mr. Papsidero said guidelines support policies; they focus on outcomes such as architecture and
materials; site design; landscaping/open space design; and signs. He said they provide examples of best
practices and would need to be adopted by Council.
Amy Salay said they went through years of the PZC process from staff level to PZC and Council to
negotiate this PUD back and forth. She said it was so fine-tuned and so negotiated they were criticized by
the development community for making it impossible to work with. Now, she said we have adopted a
form-based Code with intent in other areas like the WID to be more user -friendly from a developer’s
standpoint. She said now we have come to this most recent proposal, which she likes the pattern book,
more illustrations, and explaining what we want, to enable the professionals in the development
community do their work. She asked how we keep from falling back into everything by negotiation.
Mr. Papsidero said by doing these Design Guidelines, walking in the door, the developers will have a clear
picture of what the City’s expectations are. He said it would be up to staff and the Commission to be
consistent with those guidelines. He said now, the developers get hearsay and talk from clients or
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 8
competitors to gain their feedback about their experiences with the City of Dublin’s process. With BSD in
particular, he said the form -based Code is a hybrid. He said we are suggesting to streamline the process
by limiting the ART to just the really minor approvals and go back to the traditional process where staff
creates and presents the report to the Commission and the Commission then deals with the applicants
directly. He said the ART has been an additional step to jump through and does not add much to the
process. At the same time, he indicated staff wants to streamline the submittal requirements and go back
to a simpler system. He said they want to take some of the standards in the BSD and turn them into
guidelines so staff is spending less time as accountants, measuring transparency and all other items,
which at the ground level is important. He said we might want to have a minimum standard for the
ground floor and maybe use a broader goal for the upper stories. He noted a hotel would be very
transparent whereas an apartment building would be less transparent because privacy is needed for the
units. He said measuring 63% when 65% is the standard does not help anything. He said staff wants to
talk to Council about the mandatory Basic Plan going to Council first and then being recommended down.
He said now we do Informal Reviews at different levels and applicants are bouncing around quite a bit,
negotiating three, four, and five times. He said investors are using that against the City when it comes to
Economic Development.
In summary, Mr. Papsidero said a Plan establishes policy foundation and community expectations. He
said Design Guidelines explain how to accomplish community expectations and provide a bridge between
policy and Code. He said Code establishes regulatory controls and process, and dimensional standards
such as bulk, mass, and height, etc.
To be more specific, Mr. Papsidero said for the West Innovation District:
Building upon updated concept approved by Council
o Plan update
o Code update to reflect changes in geography, policy
Sub-district boundaries will be modified (uses + standards)
OU Master Plan incorporated by reference
No process changes expected (With the ART, there is a kick-up provision to the PZC we
would like more specific as this could impact adjacent neighborhoods, especially in Metro -
Blazer area. We would like this mandated instead of discretionary)
o Design Guidelines created
Consolidates material from existing Code and Plan
Builds upon new concept
New material
Mr. Papsidero presented a map of the new sub-districts in the WID.
Mr. Papsidero said for the Metro-Blazer area:
Dublin Corporate Area Plan
o Issues/goals completed (phase one)
o Draft plan nearing completion (phase two)
Code update to be initiated, building upon WID process
o Consistent with WID
o Comprehensive rezoning
Design Guidelines to be initiated
o Special focus on parking lot landscaping/screening
o Infill/redevelopment
Mr. Papsidero presented a map of the Metro-Blazer area to be rezoned, built upon the WID approach. He
indicated this would streamline reinvestment. He suggested the surrounding property owners would be
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 8
supportive. He reported this area has not been competitive because of a lack of amenities, the aging of
the buildings, and inefficient parking lot layouts.
Mr. Papsidero said for the BSD:
No changes to plan
Code update initiated, significant engagement with stakeholders, users
Code and process to be simplified
o Reduce number of approval steps
o Reduce role of ART
Design Guidelines to be prepared
o Move some standards to guidelines
Mr. Papsidero presented a map of the BSD and said the next steps are:
PZC to review draft material between now and April
Council-PZC joint workshop in April
Revisions will be made following the workshop
Adoption
Cathy De Rosa said since the Code changes require Council’s approval, she asked what happens to the
Design Guidelines changes. Mr. Papsidero answered it would be the same process for both. She then
asked what the approach would be for changing illustrations. He answered staff would want input from
Council.
Mr. Papsidero said the intent is to write the Design Guidelines separately for each of these three areas
but in fact a certain percentage would apply across the board. He said future chapters could then get
more specific on solar or other issues that are not ready to be addressed now. He said the final would be
one book as opposed to three.
Ms. De Rosa said with visuals (like with sign designs) a picture is worth a thousand words. She said ‘they
know it when they see it’. She suggested being able to be flexible and add more pictures as we find great
examples as they arise without making the process terribly onerous. She indicated that helps applicants.
Mr. Papsidero indicated staff would like to eventually address Parking, outdated Land Use Designations,
and issues within the Sign Code.
Mr. Brown asked if there are inspirational pictures, something totally unique that does not fit illustrative
criteria that could be provided to the public to assist with the library design. Mr. Papsidero encouraged
the Commission to share pictures worth promoting with staff that they have found remarkable through
their travels.
Mr. Papsidero said staff has completed two Kaizen events that facilitated the application intake process
and the internal case review process. He said this has resulted in creating more efficient processes. He
said staff is also in the process of reformatting all the Planning Reports to make them more consistent
and less redundant and more valuable to the Boards, Commission, and Council.
Claudia Husak asked the Commission to alert staff by sending an email if there is information they would
like to see that is not incorporated currently, or need to see more/less of.
Victoria Newell suggested including existing site photographs into the Planning Reports, even though
most of the Commissioners visit the sites as well. She explained it is helpful to have pictures while
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 19, 2017 – Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 8
reading the report. Ms. Husak said having an electronic format makes that easy because then quality is
not lost that may be lost when printed.
Communications
Claudia Husak said staff is seriously considering cancelling the first Commission meeting in February and
place the focus on the second meeting on the 16th.
Ms. Husak said the National Planning Conference in New York City, NY is scheduled for May 5 – 9, 2017.
She said registration starts in early February but hotels are filing up quickly. She recommended interested
members contact Flora Rogers for hotel accommodations in the next two weeks.
The Chair indicated Leadership Dublin attended the full meeting this evening and adjourned the meeting
at 7:24 pm.
As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 2, 2017.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 10
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Mitchell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes.
Approved 4 – 0)
Planning Items
Vincent Papsidero said the following Long Range Planning project updates would be presented:
Dublin Corporate Area Plan
Historic and Cultural Assessment
Shier Rings Roadway Corridor Character Study
Mobility Study (Introduction)
W. Bridge Street Framework Study
Dublin Corporate Area Plan was presented by Devayani Puranik.
Ms. Puranik explained this was previously known as Metro -Blazer-Emerald-Frantz. She said this is a brand
new planning process initiated to review the legacy office development within the City. She presented a
map that defined the ±1,000-acre area. She explained the northern boundary is SR 161, the eastern
boundary is Frantz Road including offices located east of Frantz Road, the southern boundary is Dublin’s
Corporate boundary, and the western boundary is Emerald Parkway. She showed the study area within
the context with the City of Dublin.
Ms. Puranik presented a map showing Dublin’s seven business districts. She said the Bridge Street District
is located to the east with development standards that cater to mixed-use development. She said the
West Innovation District located to the west caters to research and development facilities and institutional
facilities like Ohio University, whereas Metro Blazer and Emerald Districts focus mainly on technological
jobs including Dublin’s Entrepreneurial Center. While the study area houses several technology oriented
jobs, she said the built environment is outdated.
Ms. Puranik presented the map highlighting the Metro -Blazer-Emerald-Frantz area. She explained existing
zoning in the area is very diverse with inconsistent development standards making this area somewhat
less attractive for location of new businesses and development. She said some of the specific issues
include:
o Diversity of Zoning Districts including PUDs
o Varying Development Standards
o Outdated Built Environment
o Lack of Amenities
o Overgrown Landscaping
o Underutilized Prime Land
Steve Stidhem asked if any new construction is planned for this area. Ms. Puranik answered there is not a
huge amount but based on their market research, there are great opportunities.
Mr. Papsidero said Economic Development Staff have found challenges in the marketability of some of
the older properties.
Ms. Puranik said some of the land that is used for stormwater management ponds within the Upper Metro
Center represents prime land approximately five acres in size.
Ms. Puranik said the purpose of the Plan is to understand the shifting office and employment
demographics and its effects on old suburban office parks in this very competitive m arket. She explained
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
approximately 87% of Dublin’s office inventory was built in the 70s, 80s, and 90s and approximately 12%
of that space is currently vacant. She said several factors have contributed to the vacancy rates:
o Lower parking ratios
o Lack of walkable amenities
o Building age
o Visibility/Wayfinding
o Lack of public transit
o Lack of sustainable practices to gain maximum benefits of the land
o Location
o Floor plate size and building size
o Lack of basic curb appeal
Ms. Puranik presented a chart that showed the percentage of total office square feet built in Dublin by
decade and noted 80% of the office space (almost 7 mil lion square feet) is between 17 and 45 years old.
She presented a map to show where the specific development occurred by decade.
Ms. Puranik reported that through discussions with developers, business owners, tenants, and others
trying to locate in Dublin, two contradicting factors emerged:
1. A shift in the perceived and actual parking demand - a much higher employee per square foot ratio;
and
2. Increasing employee desire for nearby convenience and entertainment amenities, ideally within a
walking distance.
Mr. Stidhem said he had hoped Home2Hotel would offer public services. Deborah Mitchell said there is
not even a coffee bar in there. Cathy De Rosa noted the only other restaurant in the area is Max &
Erma’s.
Ms. Puranik said a public workshop is planned where they plan to display these market research maps.
Ms. Mitchell asked if this came from focus groups or surveys. Ms. Puranik said the Economic Development
Division speaks often with businesses and there was a stakeholder meeting held in December of last
year, which included 35 people.
Ms. Mitchell explained she asked because she has an office in the area and when she tries to get more
food trucks to come due to the lack of restaurants, it is hard to get people to come out to the trucks . She
said it seems people say they want to have restaurants within walking distance but they all end up
driving.
Ms. Puranik said part of it might be that the offices are surrounded by huge parking lots so just getting
from the door of their office to a site is challenging . She said 600 feet seems to be the magic number for
an accepted walking distance.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about the parking ratio. Ms. Puranik explained the current Code requires 4 parking
spaces per every 1,000 square feet of office space. She said companies are asking for 7 parking spaces
per 1,000. She said companies are trying to fit more employees into smaller office areas.
Mr. Papsidero said trying to accommodate more parking comes into conflict with the landscaping
requirements so staff is looking at ways to creatively meet that Code.
Victoria Newell said she likes to walk at lunch and a lot of people in her office park walk.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
August 18, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 10
Tammy Noble said people might not be going to a certain location even if an amenity is provided because
of how the space feels. She indicated they may not feel safe or have a place to sit and really enjoy the
experience.
Ms. Newell said little plazas are inviting and they can accommodate music on certain days to entertain
people.
Mr. Stidhem said he likes the idea of food trucks as long as there is a place to go eat the food. He
indicated that he sees the demand for parking diminishing over the next 10 years and so he is hesitant if
someone is proposing a parking garage.
Ms. Puranik said staff is studying both short and long term approaches. She said as Phase 1, they are
focused on parking as companies are leaving (Nationwide as an example). She said the process for Phase
II will include:
o Development strategies
o Site retrofit strategies
o Capitalization on market opportunities
o Detailed Code updates
o Frantz Road Corridor (streetscape and design)
Mr. Stidhem asked if there were specific plans for significantly updating Frantz Road. Mr. Papsidero said
currently there is a design study underway for that intersection. He said a new planting scheme for the
median could be an option as trees have struggled to thrive there.
Ms. Puranik said the first public workshop is scheduled for August 31, 2016, at IGS Energy but it will also
be posted online. She said for the next couple of months, staff will work on the physical development
concepts and the zoning and development standards. She indicated the second public workshop will be in
October so the plan adoption process should be in December – January. Mr. Papsidero added that in
addition to the public workshops, Staff is reaching out to all the neighborhoods to the east of Frantz Road
to engage the residential community along with the business community.
Ms. De Rosa asked if there are examples presented in these workshops of other communities that are
doing this well. She said every suburb in America is having this same discussion. Ms. Puranik said the
consultants working with staff have experience nationwide.
Historic and Cultural Assessment was presented by JM Rayburn.
Mr. Rayburn presented the Study Area Grid that encompasses the City of Dublin as well as townships in
surrounding areas that included ±860 structures that were surveyed. He stated the purpose of the
project is to create an inventory of historic properties and assets within the City of Dublin, which will
include an assessment of whether the buildings and assets are contributing or non -contributing to the
historic character of the City of Dublin. He said the assessment will also help identify funding strategies
for historic preservation efforts for property owners. He said additional tasks may include assistance with
an update to the existing Historic Dublin Design Guidelines.
Mr. Rayburn said to engage the public they have focused on stakeholder interviews with members of the
community and he presented a list.
Mr. Rayburn said the architectural survey was completed August 4, 2016, and highlighted some of the
initial findings. He said the next steps will include a complete landscape/archaeological portion including
mill ruins, quarries, cemeteries, stone walls, and recorded archaeological sites. He said staff will finalize
data for the GIS layers and the consultant will complete the final report. He said they will compile a list of
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1987
Page Eleven
Mr. Jezerinac asked if the applicant was willing to eliminate the curb-
cut on Sawmill. The applicant responded no. Mr. Jezerinac said, you are
definitely not willing. The applicant said that he would probably like to
bring that back. Mr. Jezerinac asked again, are you willing to eliminate
the curbcut on Sawmill. The answer was no, not at this time. Mr. Hale said
number one that it would have to go back to the site plan committee because
they have to approve any changes in the site plan. If you would hire a
traffic engineer he would say that the curbcut there serves a very.... Mr.
Jezerinac interjected that is not the intent..Mr. Hale said there has been a
curbcut on every plan that has ever been shown on this site.
Mr. Berlin said that he thought that the Staff Report is very good and
the comments on the Theme Boulevard are well taken. He stated that he has
listened to the rebuttals and he accepts their rebuttal. He felt that their
exposure to Sawmill, is important and the right-in right-out on Sawmill will
facilitate traffic and he is willing to accept it.
Mr. Amarose felt that the applicant has done a great job as far as the
architecture. He stated that this is a tough decision and he could see
where the applicant definitely needs the exposure on Sawmill Road however,
in going back to the Sawmill/161 Quad Study, the intent was for the traffic
and traffic control. He believed that the building should be turned around
and pointing towards Dublin Village Drive rather than Sawmill Road. He
stated that this is not to say that the applicant could not put appropriate
signage on the Sawmill Road side the rear of the building) because he is
entitled to that. He felt that he has to agree with Staff's recommendation.
Mr. Berlin made a motion to approve the Corridor Development District
with some conditions which he would have to defer to someone who knows more
about landscaping. There seems to be alot of problems with the interior
parking lot landscaping. He stated that would be the only condition that he
would recommend. Mr. Jezerinac asked if he would consider the condition of
eliminating the curbcut on Sawmill. Mr. Berlin responded no. Mr. Hale in-
terjected that they would be willing to say that they will take a section of
the Continental parking lot and they will do the parking lot landscaping ex-
actly the same as they have done theirs. Mr. Jezerinac asked for a second.
Motion failed due to lack of second.
Mr. Geese made a motion to disapprove the plan for the reason submitted
in Paragraph F of the Staff Report dated November 5, 1987. Mr. Reiner
seconded the motion. Vote was as follows: Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Berlin,
no; Mr. Jezerinac, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Geese, yes.
4. Informal Review - Frantz Road Corporate Center
Ms. Clarke showed slides of the site and surrounding area. She stated
that the original application was for two buildings near the rear of the
site and a third building, in a linear fashion up front, and now they are
proposing two buildings. This is an informal review, and the applicant is
interested in getting input from the Commission before doing the redesign
work that will be necessary for this particular project. The first project
that was reviewed was a little tight on the site, and now they are going to
reduce the square footage and consolidate structures. The applicant was
present to make his presentation.
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1987
Page Twelve
Mr. Robert G. Smith, representative for the applicant reported that
they have eliminated the building in front, but enlarged the building in the
rear, so as not to block the view of the buildings that Daimler built. He
stated that they are here for input before they go back to the drawing
board. There will be approximately 9,000 square feet with this drawing, but
of course, that is subject to change in that it could be a little more or
less, but will be under 10,000 square feet per acre.
Mr. Jezerinac clarified that there were three buildings on the site
originally, and now they are being consolidated from three buildings into
two buildings. It looks like you have brought these two up more toward the
front of the site, and the footprints of the these buildings are alittle bit
bigger too. Mr. Smith affirmed that and stated that he thought they had
widened each building 8 feet and lengthened from 92 or 93 feet to 110 feet
to pick up additional square footage but did so to leave the front open.
Mr. Jezerinac stated that he knew there were deed restrictions and
needed some kind of approval from some developer. Mr. Smith said that they
had met with these people and they are working with the developer. The
developer had reserved plan approval by Mr. Jim Willis, who had bought the
lot, and they had a problem with this because of the precedent that had been
set before. Therefore, they have consolidated the buildings.
Ms. Clarke interjected that Staff feels that this new plan will work
better in regards to blending in with the surrounding buildings, it won't
look so tight, parking will be better, etc.
Mr. Jezerinac. thanked the applicant for working with all of the people
involved and compromising this before it came before the Commission
5. Conditional Use - CU87-010 - Eiterman Road
Ms. Clarke showed slides of the site and surrounding area. The appli-
cant proposes to cul-de-sac this property and to divide it into four indi-
vidual parcels. The subject site is currently zoned R, Rural. The rezoning
classification went to Council and was approved. Mr. Amorose asked if the
lot split had been made, and Ms. Clarke responded that it had not. At this
point we are dealing with an individual user, a sprinkler installer. The
applicant has come before the Commission previously, and wanted to have a
Limited Industrial District; we talked to him and negotiated between the
applicant and Staff. Staff felt that the Restricted Industrial District was
more appropriate, and the applicant said that he had a prospective tenant
that had outdoor storage as a portion of his development plan. In this case
the applicant is a lawn sprinkler company and there is some 2500 square feet
of exterior storage which is the Conditional Use Permit which is the subject
of this application to night. With all Conditional Uses, the Planning
Commission works as an advisory board and submits a recommendation to the
Board of Zoning Appeals which makes the final determination on all
Conditional Uses. Staff feels that the exterior storage is appropriately
sited behind the building and should be screened from view. There were some
discussions that had do with removal of the billboard, and the property
owner said that they would do that if it were at all possible. At some
point, we are going to have to see a complete landscape plan and if it
complies with Code, Staff feels that this is appropriate.