The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 34-11RECORD OF ORDINANCES Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 34 -11 Passed . 20_ AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXESIATELY 105 PARCELS FROM R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT; RI, RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; LI, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT; PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT; AND PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO TF, TECHNOLOGY FLEX DISTRICT. (TECHNOLOGY FLEX - AREA REZONING - CASE NO. 10-074Z) NOW, TAREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (parcel numbers) 273000175, 273008179, 273008098, 273000351, 273000352, 273000331, 273000354, 273000356, 273000328, 273000343, 273000353, 273000355, 273000179, 273000176, 273000178, 273000326, 273000885, 273000297, 273001533, 273001534, 273001049, 273002144, 273001535, 273001585, 273001591, 273001592, 273001532, 273001593, 273001709, 273004509, 273004514, 273004515, 273004513, 273004544, 273006686, 273006687, 273006795, 273006956, 273006999, 273007012, 273007419, 273007469, 273005321, 273005369, 273005320, 273008089, 273008090, 273008092, 273008093, 273005322, 273005323, 273009605, 273011341, 273005582, 273005585, 273005581, 273005584, 273005586, 273005587, 273005588, 273005589, 274000153, 273011551, 274000158, 274000102, 274000107, 273012243, 273012244, 274000028, 274000068, 274000069, 274000015, 274000045, 274000103, 274000096, 274000100, 274000104, 274000105, 274000106, 274000120, 274000047, 274000084, 274000099, 274000101, 274000119, 273005720, 1460000015000, 1470000019000, 273001905, 273002476, 273003679, 1470000019001, 273010461, 273001899, 1470000021000, 14713010010 , 14700 0 0020000,1470000021602, 273001894, 273004516, 274000130, 274000157, 274000004, 274000047, and 274001317, (see attached map marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned TF, Technology Flex District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That the following described real estate (parcel number) 274000001(see attached map marked Exhibit "A "), as defined by the western portion of the parcel delineated by a north extension of the western property line of parcel 274000047, situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned TF, Technology Flex District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 3. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C ", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 4. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this a W11 day of 2011. Mayor - P si ing Officer Attest: Lyww� � Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 CITY OF DUBLIN- Phone: 614- 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo To: Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager Date: June 9, 2011 Initiated By: Dana McDaniel, Deputy City Manager /Director of Economic Development Re: Ordinance 34 -11 - Rezoning Approximately 105 Parcels from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, RI, Restricted Industrial District, LI, Limited Industrial District, PCD, Planned Commerce District, and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex District. (COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning.) (Case 10- 074Z). Summary Ordinance 34 -11 proposes the rezoning of 105 parcels in the general area of Shier Rings Road between Avery Road and I -270 and other outlying areas to the Technology Flex District to coordinate with the Future Land Use Map and the business district concept for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. The ordinance includes the conversion of multiple zoning classifications along the Shier Rings Corridor to establish one consistent zoning district that will enhance marketability of properties through a broader range of permitted and conditional uses and more flexible development regulations as established by the recently adopted zoning district. Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed zoning changes were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 2011, and received a positive recommendation to City Council with no discussion. Recommendation Planning and Economic Development recommend City Council approval of Ordinance 34 -11 at the second reading/public hearing on June 27. City ntDublin 100742 Land Use and Co l c Technology Flex District Long Range Planning Area Rezoning Existing zoning Fee[ 0 1 ,000 2000 , City ntDublin 100742 " Land Use and co l c Technology Flex District Long Range Planning Area Rezoning Proposed zoning 0 1 ,000 2000 , February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153.232) Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shler•Rings Rood Dublin. Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-41 D•4600 Fax: 614 - 410.4747 Web Site: www,dublin.oh.us I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Informal Review ❑ Final Plat (Section 152.085) ❑ Concept Plan ❑ Conditional Use (Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) ❑ Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) ❑ Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ® Standard District Rezoning (Section 153.018) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign (Section 153.115) ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment ❑ Other (Please Specify): Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. PropertyAddress(es): See Attached Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): See Attached Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 754 acres Rural (R), Restricted Suburban Residential (R-1), Suburban Office & Institutional (SO), Restricted Existing Land Use /Development: Industrial (RI), Limited Industrial (LI),General Industrial (GI), Planned Commerce District (PCD), Planned Industrial Park PIP Planned Unit Develo ment PUD High Density POD HDP IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use/Development: Research Office District (ID -1), Research Flex District (ID -2), Research Assembly District (ID -3), Mixed Use Tech District (ID -4) Total acres affected by application: 754 acres III. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): Please attach additional sheets if needed. Name (Individual or Organization): See Attached Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: Page 1 of 3 IV. APPLICANT(S) This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): City of Dublin Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin 43017 Daytime Telephone: 614 - 410 - 4706 Fay.: Applicant is also property owner: yes ❑ no 614 - 761 -6512 Email or Alternate Contact Information: chusak @dublin.oh.us and ccombs @dublin.oh.us V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Claudia Husak, Planner II and Carson Combs, Senior Planner Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): City of Dublin Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 5800 Shier Rings Road, Dublin 43017 Daytime Telephone: 614 - 410 -4600 Fax: 614 - 410 -4747 Email or Alternate Contact Information: chusak @dublin.oh.us and ccombs @dublin.oh.us VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S) If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. Marsha Grigsby, City Manager . the owner, hereby authorize Claudia Husak, Planner II and Carson Combs, Senior Planner to act as my applicant or representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: \N\ I Date: -s + q r I I ❑ Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representatives) is attached as a separate document( I Subscribed ao sworn before me this day of — ,20// State of LINDA L. GLICK County of' Notary Public ! Nolary Public, State of Ohio My Cumn fission Expires May tg, 2o14 VII: AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City • F6 Q(i. es are essential to process this application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. 1 Claudia Husak, Planner II and Carson Combs, Senior Planner . the owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: 4e i ez,,� I Date: -5 Page 2 of 3 VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. I Claudia Husak, Planner II and Carson Combs, Senior Planner , the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: / lg�r' J a'6 Date: IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT. This section must be completed and notarized. I Claudia Husak, Planner II and Carson Combs, Senior Planner , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Date: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 40 70- State of &—W County County of Notary David L. Marshall Notary Putr'lic, State of Ohio My Cofrlm!Wm EOes W25.2012 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received: $o Application No: 11-012Z P&Z Date(s): 5_ /q - // P &Z Action: Receipt No: NIA Map Zone: 4 Date Received: April 13, 201 1 Received By: Claudia Husak City Council (First Reading): City Council (Second Reading): City Council Action: Ordinance Numb er: Type of Request Rezoning N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of: Located generally west of U.S. 33 in the area south of SR 161 and north of Shier Rings Road between Avery and Houchard roads. N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: Distance from Nearest Intersection: Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: Research Office District (ID -1), Research Flex District (ID -2), Research Assembly District (ID -3), Mixed Use Tech District (ID -4) Page 3 of 3 Economic Advancement Zone: Area Rezoning Site Addresses PID OWNER PROPERTY CITY, STATE, ZIP 1460000015000 CITY OF DUBLIN ST RT 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000015603 CITY OF DUBLIN ST RT 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017000 7001 POST ROAD LLC 7001 POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017001 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017603 CITY OF DUBLIN POST RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017613 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017623 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017633 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017643 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000017653 CITY OF DUBLIN POST ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000018000 CITY OF DUBLIN SR 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000018603 CITY OF DUBLIN ST RT 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000019000 PEWAMO LTD ST RT 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 1460000019602 CITY OF DUBLIN ST RT 161 DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 000302 WILLIAM L BAKER 6360 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273- 000303 JON C KUNDTZ 6419 OLD'AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 000304 NORMAN L MONSKA 6480 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 000316 WILLIAM L BAKER 6390 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273- 000317 I A COMPANY 6430 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 000327 CORELOGIC ATTN: KAREN LYONS 6245 OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273- 000330 MICHAEL D DRANICHAK 6255 OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 001896 CITY OF DUBLIN EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 001897 CITY OF DUBLIN POST RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 -001897 CITY OF DUBLIN POST RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273- 001903 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, REAL ESTATE PROPERTY MGMT EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 004516 NESTLES USA INC TAX 1C 6625 EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 005595 LIPS PROPERTY TAX SOLUTION STE 100 6355 OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 005596 LIPS PROPERTY TAX SOLUTION STE 100 6365 OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 005597 ANDERSON CONCRETE CORP OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 005598 SS DUBLIN LLC C/O PTA 6405 OLD AVERY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 005939 STEELE LAND CO EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 008174 STEVE & SALLY YOUNG EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 008175 STEPHEN A YOUNG EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 008176 STEVE & SALLY YOUNG EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 009727 CORELOGIC ATTN: KAREN LYONS 6430 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 011256 STEELE LAND CO COMMERCIAL DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 273 - 011342 BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING INC 7003 POST RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274- 000010 PEWAMO LTD COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000130 33 /DUBLIN INDUSTRIAL PARK 6500 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000132 STEELE LAND CO DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000133 STEELE LAND CO 6490 DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000134 STEELE LAND CO DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000135 STEELE LAND CO DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000138 CITY OF DUBLIN 7001 DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000139 ROBINSON 6500 DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274- 000149 STEELE LAND CO DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000150 STEELE LAND CO 6100 DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000660 SR ASSOCIATES COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274- 000660 SR ASSOCIATES COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 000895 STEELE LAND CO 6480 DUBLIN PARK DR DUBLIN, OH 43016 274- 001006 CITY OF DUBLIN 6259 COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001007 CITY OF DUBLIN COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001008 CITY OF DUBLIN COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001009 CITY OF DUBLIN COSGRAY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001112 ANTHONY GIOFFRE EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001113 GIOFFRE ANTHONY 6262 EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001114 JOHN RIEGLE 6600 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001114 JOHN RIEGLE 6600 SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001115 JON RIEGLE SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001312 TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON 6200 EITERMAN RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274- 001353 LS DUBLIN REALTY LLC SHIER RINGS RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 274 - 001453 COSTNER CONSULTING CO DUBLIN PLAIN CITY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 275- 000001 CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN PLAIN CITY RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 275- 000002 CITY OF DUBLIN HOUCHARD RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 275 - 000005 COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER, TAX DEPT 27TH FL WILCOX RD DUBLIN, OH 43016 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N b J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J v J J J J J v v J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \O 00 00 00 Ch Vi V) Ch Ch .A Vi vi vi lh O O W W N O O 00 O�,o 00 �1 W N— O I'D 00 �1 C� Ch 4� W N J 01 P W N W N O J \O N J m C rn IJ rn r N �rx�ro�0 2 r4 :5 045C 0 0xo �z ��xy�oc��Z�Z °ronz�0� x�r �y H OH mtnr�G�G1yH�7op� CA cn cn cn ��dtd�z °xcz ymy ��o C2 c) t7' CA Cn cn >x r� �� b yrb r y H cn H M 4 v, v, w v, � v, vA v, v, (,) v, v, v, v, v, QA v, vA w C� J v v, � v, J vA vA C� � b 00 00 00 O J 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O O N O O W "o O - vi \O O p N w N P O I'D O O O N N W .A - P:- cA C� N O�� W N vA C� 01 C\ O w "O \,O O' N -A. 00 4� O C� N O � - N O O O 00 00 �+ O v, N Z J J N xx�x�xxxxxxxxxxxx��o��a�o� aa�aaaaaaaaaaaaa� 0 0 > 4 0 G) G) C) C) 0 G) C) G) G) C) H HH �H HHHHHHHHHHHHp �� H � z OOb�o�oo0000000000z� �� z �� '� r zzHz zzzzzzzzzzzz m �z � z cncn�v�r'�rn�v�rncnv��rnv�v�v�� as a '�C� r xx �� 00 rr rrrrrrrrrrrrr' zz zzzzzz�zzzz a a a a a a a a a a a aaaaaa r rr r r tr r r rr rr r r r r r r r r 00000000000000000 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x w w w w W w w w w w w w w w w w w O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �°°�� r r r r r � o w o 0 o x x o o p o r o O o w N N c�ii J � N N r- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 10 � �.c \O 00 00 00 00 J J J J (A (!i lh (J] (JA (h (A U, (n (A <n (n In Cn to v, cn � W w W N N N— A O O O J W N N N N N -- F Cn W J J W o0 00 M W J oo J J O, c!i O O O \,c �c �'o \%o �.o �o l0 \%o O, O, N ( - n 4�,. W O�c oo vC'� cn A W N a] C m D 1! rn r :�x >xn: 44 pz :�woox0 N C� m M m m n td t--1 y j m> a 9 n O o O mr�mmt��d�b�r� 7�rn > >yr�ZyC� �� z °o d ° c ° c °� � z�omo �� c > a r ti ti 7d M m G) y a r4 r 0O�a r� d � O It y O, O, O, (, v, o, rn (A N v, v, O, O, O, v, a, O, O, o, O, O, O, O, U Q, O, vA vA v, (n C w O w 1 10 `D w O N O, - P , d, 00 00 N cA N O O O O O O oo 00 00 00 C W 00 W vp N (A 4�1 O, \10 N J O O � O O, N O �o 00 �c �c O O O O - O, vi � 4� O, O J (h (h O (A O O W - W (-A r- (h 00 W �l W ( --1 \p .— W W C h (-A >a > > a > >axxxx tr1 r trJ r ,�rJ c - d �i-� O O y tr1 v� moor yyxy.r rrrrrrrbddd r�mcaxN�� >>��yym c c c c c c c cZZZ C r r r y 0 x n n z z�d r r r r r r r r r y 7>7d>C �m tom x00 z yyyy �r�r�zm�d rb 0000 �odomyy�� m y m zzzz y y H y H y y y y 00 0 O ndddddnddt � trt � d yrdatz etz) ddddd c-I r mrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr 4. o �Z� 2222 222> �2 2 25 222222 �00000 �Ooo y oz�PCI0000000xoo0000 r w l w w w w W w w W w w w w x 0 0 0 0 0 x O O O N O O O r� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.--i 00 W W J J Q1 O W O, O, O, O, O, Q, O, N N N J y W �- �- N W 00 0 ° t -P W 0 0 N r rn X 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N a1 01 a1 01 01 0\ 0) 0� 01 W W N N .- .� 0- �-` O O O O O O O w N N O 00 0o 00 00 00 coo 00 0o J 0\ CIA 00 w Vi W N N N N `p w N O lJi �o N to �1 C\ Vi � W N — O �c �c -P� \�o 01 \�o 01 03 C rn 4 D 1/ rn r x x G �17' � � x H 7� C� v'�Oya t7 d m v � cn ��v�v�v�v�v�H nO v�v� 7 � �'T�zO a HH HH C �/H x�ZZ�aaaaaa aa r yaprz H H H H H r H H b m�yyt��t7t7t7t7t7r`bz t7 t7 � �7� �ao�aa ccp m mmmm rpy yr00000 00 ACC yb�v� dvm�„ roro o� b b d m m m m r C r m m z p y b� n yy m a\ a, lh 0\ 0\ � - n � - n vi (A — N — � � P, 01 — to Vi (.A vi to b � a1 c.n <n 0\ a\ w � 01 J W W Vi W W J �l J J J A 0 0 0 J --1 J J J 0\�o — J J N N N F cw 0 w oo —�� w N J w O O w N . . N N N w N N N w J w 0 m O �o w v, O z �o W O O O O O w CA O O w w O n Cpn uo v, CA � aa a aaaaoazaaaa�orox 00000000ooyxx�ommm�mW��-C�m -,!� HH C Cz� cncn y CA mmpmm0000 En td m �bzb�zzzz�� ar�m�ro �� bobzd r r r r a a a m o o Q p 0 dtZ)tz) t�t7t7 t7 t�ddd �dn ud r r r r r r r r r r' r r r r r rr rl r-r r r r m y rr 000000000 xo00o O� x x x x x x rn x y x x x x ra x x x� O O O -P- Q w w w w w 0 w p o w w w w N m w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x x x O x 0 0 0 < 0 x 0 0 0 0 N O x o,o�Q,o� °wwwwwC�C�CNC,C, o,a,a,a, ch N W uj � N 00 � N 0 0 N rn r rn x 0 N n 00 C rn D rn r ' N N N N N N A A A J J J v J J -- �- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — — O O O O O O O O O W W 00 J ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( - A N to \0 \10 O O N N — — — - �o 00 J � N 00 W — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �x� a cn � °� y ° z m oor� x y x�yDO rr O CA r 00 1 10 00 — N O O N N J J 00 N U 01 QA J O O O N w N C\ O C/) cn � N - d - d bd "d 't x H y x d cn cn OO X00 OO ayy CA C/) '-dyyt--�tZ�1z�y00 �zzz cn. 0C C d t7 b t7 t7 t7 'b d t7 d t7 t) t7 t t7' @� 17' �t7' ooy000y000000 xxCxxxCxxxxxx 000 0 o x o o x o 0 0 0 0 0 a,0 W Ocr) - -I --jo�C�cr) , .A .A 0 0 N r m X 0 n TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 1 of 12 153.044 TECHNOLOGY FLEX: (TF) DISTRICT (A) District Purpose and Intent The Technology Flex (TF) District provides for a broad range of research, office, laboratory and clean manufacturing uses that will foster a well- rounded and diverse economy for the City. The TF District supports appropriate light- industrial options, while encouraging greater opportunity for research and office uses that will improve Dublin's competitive edge within the region. Flexible architectural spaces are desired that will accommodate the expansion and changing operations of small to medium size companies. (B) District Uses Uses in the TF District are as shown on the following table. Descriptions and characteristics of use categories can be found in § 153.044(1) - Definitions. Additional development requirements for particular uses are contained in §153.044(C) as referenced below within the "Use Specific Standards" column. (1) Permitted Uses. Uses denoted as "P" in Table 153.044(B)(4) indicate that the land use is allowed by right, subject to compliance with the use - specific standards referenced in the final column of the use table and all other applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (2) Conditional Uses. Uses denoted as "C" in Table 153.044(B)(4) indicate that the land use is allowed only upon approval of a conditional use permit as required by § 153.236, compliance with use - specific standards referenced in the final column of the use table and all other applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (3) Size or Time Limited Uses. Uses denoted with an "S" or "T" in Table 153.044(B)(4) indicate special limits regarding size or time duration of the use and are subject to compliance with the use - specific standards referenced in the final column of the use table and all other applicable provisions of Chapter 153. (4) Table of Uses. P= Permitted C — Conditional Sdize Limited T=Time Limited USE . 1 D , M , Commercial Uses Animal Care- General Services P, T 153.044(C)(1) Animal Care- Veterinary Offices P, T 153.044(C)(2) Animal Care- Veterinary Urgent Care and Hospitals P, T 153.044(C)(2) Data Center P Entertainment and Recreation- Indoor C Medical and Diagnostic Laboratory P Office- General P Office- Call Centers C Office- Flex P, S 153.044(C)(3) Office- Medical P Parking Structures C Personal, Repair and Rental Services P 153.044(C)(4) Retail P 153.044(C)(4) Transportation- Park - and -Ride P 153.044(C)(5) Civic, Public & Institutional Uses Day Care- Child P Educational Facility P 153.044(C)(6) TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 2 of 12 P= Permitted G Conditional S — Size Limited T=Time Limited USE PRIMARY USES SPECIFIC STANDARDS Government Services- General P Government Services- Safety P Government Services- Service P 153.044(C)(13) Parks and Open Space P Industrial Uses T Construction and Contract Service Trades P Manufacturing and Assembly P 153.044(C)(7) Mini - Storage C Motor Vehicle Repair- Major P 153.044(C)(8) Research and Development P Utilities- Renewable Energy Facilities C 153.044(C)(9) Utilities - Electric Substation C 153.044(C)(10) Utilities- Essential Services P Utilities- Wireless Communications see Chapter 153.044(C)(11) Wholesaling and Distribution C 153.044(C)(7) Residential Uses Dwelling- Single Family P 153.044(C)(12) P= Permitted G Conditional S=Size Limited T-Pime Limited USE ACCESSORY/TEMPORARY USES •STANDARDS Accessory uses are permitted only in connection with a permitted or approved conditional use on the same property and must be clearly subordinate and incidental to that use. No accessory use maybe operated when apermitted or approved conditional use does not exist on the property. Permitted primary uses are permitted as accessory uses Bicycle Facilities P Day Care- Child P, S 153.044(C)(13) Comm unity Activity T Construction Trailer /Office T Corporate Residences P Entertainment and Recreation- Indoor C Patking Structures P Special Event T Trans ortation- Transit Stop P Utilities - Renewable Energy Equipment P Utilities - Renewable Wind Equipment P Vehicle Charging Station P Wholesaling and Distribution P (C) Use Specific Standards The following requirements shall apply in addition to all other applicable development regulations for specific types of uses in the Technology Flex (TF) District: (1) Animal Care - General Services. Services shall be provided indoors and may include grooming, sitting (daytime only), training and accessory retail sales of pet care products, or other similar uses. Overnight boarding is not permitted. Outdoor pet service areas shall be located at least 50 feet from any property line and 500 feet from any residential district or residential subarea of a planned development district. Use of outdoor pet service areas shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 P.M. (2) Animal Care- Veterinary Offices and Veterinary Urgent Care and Hospitals. Boarding of animals shall only be permitted for the ongoing care of animals in treatment and must be provided within the principal TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 3 of 12 structure. All outdoor pet service areas shall be located at least 50 feet from any property line and 500 feet from any residential district or residential subarea of a planned development district. Use of outdoor pet service areas shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 P.M. (3) Office -Flex. Flex office must include a minimum of 30 percent office use. Remaining space may be used for any combination of research & laboratory space, clean manufacturing and assembly, wholesaling and /or related showroom, warehousing and or distribution purposes. Any showroom component shall not exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure and shall not count toward office calculations. (4) Personal Services and Retail. Only those uses present as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted. Once removed, no further uses shall be permitted as a primary use. (5) Transportation- Park - and - Rides. Park and ride facilities shall provide only one shelter per bus route. (6) Educational Facility. These uses shall have no rooms for the regular housing or sleeping of students. (7) Manufacturing & Assembly and Wholesaling & Distribution. Any auxiliary showroom areas associated with the primary use shall not exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. (8) Motor Vehicle Repair- Major. A vehicle may not be stored for more than 30 days. All inoperable vehicles must be parked in a defined service area providing screening in accordance with §153.133 - Minimum Landscape Requirements. (9) Utilities - Renewable Energy Facilities. Renewable Energy Facilities shall be located at least 750 feet from all residential districts or residential subarea of a planned development district, unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Property owners must sufficiently demonstrate that adequate measures are provided to minimize off -site impacts relating to the facility's operation. (10) Utilities- Electric Substation. Electric substations shall be located at least 700 feet from all residential districts or residential subarea of a planned development district. (11) Utilities- Wireless Communications. For regulations governing wireless communication uses, Chapter 99 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances shall apply. (12) Dwelling- Single Family. Only residential uses existing as of the effective date of this ordinance are permitted. Once removed, no further single - family dwelling shall be permitted. (13) Child Day Care. Day Care components shall not exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area of the principal structure. (D) Site Development Requirements. In addition to the provisions of §153.070 through §153.076, the following requirements for arrangement and development of land and buildings shall be met: TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 4 of 12 (1) Intensity of use. Lot size shall be sufficient to provide the yard spaces required by this section and the following provisions: (a) Maximum Lot Coverage. Lot coverage for structures and impervious surfaces shall not exceed 70 percent. (b) Building Height. The height of principal and accessory structures shall be limited based upon setback requirements of this District as identified in § 1 53.044(D)(2)(c). Structures greater than 56 feet in height shall require conditional use approval in accordance with §153.236. (2) Setback Requirements. Placement of structures and improvements shall provide sufficient separation to the adjacent site or use accordingto the following provisions. Setbacks shall be provided as necessary to accommodate any additional site requirements such as landscaping, mounding and buffering: (a) Lot width. Lots shall provide a minimum of 60 feet in width at the public right -of -way. (b) Frontyards. The required front yard setback for principal and accessory structures shall be determined in accordance with §153.072. (c) Side and Rear yards. The following setbacks for components of principal and accessory structures shall be determined based upon the height of each individual component. Buildin Hei ht Required Minimum Setback _ <15 feet 15 feet >15 — 29 feet 20 feet >29 — 43 feet 35 feet >43 — 56 feet 50 feet Required side and rear setbacks for principal and accessory structures shall in no case be less than 25 feet from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in §153.016. (d) Side Pavement Setbacks. Required side yard setbacks for pavement, which includes open storage, service and loading areas, shall be at least five feet, except for common access drives or shared service courts. Required side pavement setbacks shall be at least 25 feet from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in §153.016. (e) Rear Pavement Setbacks. Required rear yard setbacks for pavement, which includes open storage, service and loading areas, shall be at least ten feet, except for common access drives or shared service courts. Required rear pavement setbacks shall be at least 25 feet from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in §153.016 TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 5 of 12 (E) Additional Outdoor Requirements (1) Outdoor Operations. Uses shall operate entirely within an enclosed structure, unless it is determined by the Director that operations are harmonious to the surrounding area and are adequately screened. (2) Outdoor Storage. Exterior storage shall be screened in accordance with §153.133(C)(1). Storage must be located to the side or rear of all buildings and shall not be visible from adjacent properties or from the public right -of -way. (3) Off -Site Impacts. Uses must be conducted in a manner harmonious with the surrounding area and comply with minimum requirements as set forth by the provisions of §153.076 of the Zoning Code and §132.03 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. (4) Service Areas. Overhead doors shall be located to the side or rear of structures to minimize visibility from public streets. Open service areas and loading docks shall be screened by walls a minimum of six feet in height, but not greater than twelve feet. Walls, fences or landscape screening shall have 100 percent opacity to effectively conceal service and loading operations from adjoining streets and from any residential zoning district or a residential subarea of a planned development district as listed in §153.016. Compliance with the provisions of Section 153.133(C) shall also be required. (F) Architecture and Design Requirements (1) Architectural Intent. In order to provide for flexible space required for uses within the district, architectural standards are intentionally non - prescriptive. However, all structures within the district are expected to be thoughtfully designed with materials, detailing, scale, and proportion that is intentional and carefully thought through and with specific attention toward aesthetics. Buildings may utilize any combination of exterior materials from the list of permitted materials however, in all cases, such materials shall be applied in a manner that provides well - detailed and aesthetically pleasing fagade surfaces. Characteristics of a well - detailed fagade include, but are not limited to, deliberate joint patterns, finished edge detailing, and durable, rust and fade resistant finishes. (2) Applicability of Architectural Requirements. Architectural requirements as specified by this Section shall apply to new construction. Design of additions to structures existing as of the date of this ordinance may coordinate with architecture of the existing structure, but to the extent possible shall meet the requirements of this Section. The City may contract with a qualified architectural consultant to determine compliance with the Architecture and Design Requirements contained in this Section. (3) Rooftop Mechanicals. Mechanical equipment and other functional components shall be screened from view from the ground by parapets not lower than the height of the roof equipment, screens with a materials and details compatible with the building's facades, pitched roof areas, or special architectural features. Parapets on flat roofs shall not be included in the calculation for building height. (4) Materials. At least eighty percent of exterior walls shall be constructed of one or more of the primary materials listed below. The following are TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 6 of 12 acceptable primary and secondary building materials, as noted. (a) Primary Materials (1) Brick. Brick shall be uniform in color within any one specific color range but using more than one color range to create patterns is acceptable. Bricks that have been flashed to change color in the individual unit, distressed bricks and wood mold bricks are not acceptable. (2) Glass. Transparent, tinted, reflective, coated, opaque, translucent, and textured glass, are permitted (3) Stone. Stone such as limestone, granite and marble are acceptable. Synthetic stone of a high quality that is indistinguishable from natural stone is also acceptable. (4) Pre- Cast Concrete Pre -cast concrete panels developed with shadow lines, reveals, textural changes, color variations and /or exposed aggregate are acceptable. (5) Architectural Metal Smooth face, and textured face insulated or un- insulated metal panels are acceptable. Careful attention to how the panels are joined, detailed at edges and corners and attached is required. Use of corrugated or long span, high - profile fluted or ribbed metal panels is not encouraged. (6) Synthetics Synthetic siding materials such as cementitious siding and EIFS are acceptable if carefully integrated into the building's design and detailed with a high level of shadow lines and reveals. Pre - approval is recommended. (7) Concrete Masonry Units Architectural Masonry Units with special aggregates and finishes are acceptable. Split face masonry units may be acceptable if combined with other masonry products to raise the level of visual quality. Pre- approval is recommended. (8) Tilt -Up Panels. Concrete tilt -up panels are acceptable if they contain ahigh degree of detail by the use if shadow lines, textural variations and /or applied projections and limited to large footprint buildings. Pre - approval is recommended. (9) Other primary building materials may be approved if demonstrated to be of similar quality to the permitted primary materials. (b) Secondary Materials. In addition to the permitted materials above, the following may be used as secondary building applications: (1) Gypsum Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC). Fiber reinforced concrete products may be used for trim or architectural features. TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 7 of 12 (2) Frost- Proof Ceramic Tile. Porcelain or other frost -proof ceramic tiles may be used as accents or to create special features. (3) Architectural Metal. Metal extrusions, panels and structural components may be used as accents or for special features such as canopies and sunshades. These materials must be finished to prevent fading, staining, rust or corrosion and shall be carefully detailed with attention toward aesthetics. Use of corrugated or long span, high- profile fluted or ribbed metal panels is not encouraged. (4) Split Faced Block Split faced block shall be used in limited quantities for components like foundations or site walls. (5) EIFS. Exterior Insulated Finishing Systems may be used. (6) Other secondary building materials may be approved if demonstrated to be of similar quality to the permitted secondary materials. (5) Color. Structures shall incorporate combinations of color that will provide visual interest and be harmonious with the surrounding area. (a) Base Colors. Main building colors shall be neutral, off -white or earth tone. Base colors shall constitute a predominance of the visible building exterior and be muted with low reflectivity. (b) Accent Colors. Building trim and /or detailing may utilize brighter accent colors to create visual interest and /or to identify main public entrances. Application of accent colors may be used up to an amount not to exceed ten percent of the total area of all building elevations. (6) Accessory Structures. Accessory structures shall be constructed of identical materials, style, quality and appearance as the principal building. (G) Landscape Requirements (1) Compliance. All sites shall be required to comply with applicable Code requirements for landscaping in Chapter 153 with the following modifications: (a) In cases where §153.132(B) requires full landscape compliance for site and /or building modifications exceeding 25 percent, the following landscape components shall apply to those structures when the exterior materials, finish or design of the building facades are being improved without expanding the overall footprint of the structure: (1) 153.133(A)(5) Vehicular Use Perimeter Requirements (2) 153.133(C) Screening of Service Structures (3) 153.133(D) Additional Site Landscaping (4) 153.134 Street Trees TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page s of 12 (b) To encourage maintenance and marketability of existing structures, in cases as noted in paragraph (a), Section 153.133(A)(3) and (4) Perimeter Buffer Landscape Requirements and Section 153.133(B) Interior Landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas may be deferred until such time as the building is expanded or the site redeveloped further. (H) Alternative Energy & Design (1) Alternative Energy Integration. Use of on -site alternative energy sources for greater self - sufficiency is highly encouraged. Other types of alternative energy not addressed by this Code may be approved if demonstrated to be of similar character or impact of those types permitted. (a) Wall and roof - mounted or applied thermal and PV solar units are permitted within the TF District and shall include side and rear screening as applicable for supporting infrastructure; (b) Ground- mounted solar units are permitted, in accordance with applicable setback requirements and shall include side and rear screening for supporting infrastructure; (c) Due to proximity to residential areas, commercial wind turbines shall not be permitted within the TF District; and (d) Residential -scale wind turbines shall be permitted in accordance with applicable setback requirements. (2) Alternative Design Methods. Integration of architectural and site design methods and materials that promote sustainability and lower energy use are strongly encouraged. (I) Use Dermitions For the purposes of § 153.044, the following definitions shall apply to interpret uses unless specified otherwise: Commercial (1) Animal Care (a) General Services. A facility providing grooming and daycare for household pets. (b) Veterinary Offices. A facility for medical, dental, or other health services related to the diagnosis and treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments. These facilities shall not include crematory services. (c) Veterinary Urgent Care and Hospitals. A facility for emergency care for the treatment of animals' illnesses, injuries, or physical ailments, but shall not including crematory services. (2) Data Center. A facility with typically lower employee counts than general office uses that houses computer systems and associated data and is focused on the mass storage of data. (3) Entertainment and Recreation- Indoor. A facility or area providing opportunities for physical exercise, physical training or improvement of health for the general public or members of an organization. TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 9 of 12 (4) Medical and Diagnostic Laboratory. A facility for sampling, photographing, analyzing or testing bodily fluids and other medical specimens, These facilities may not include laboratories for the sole purpose of research. (5) Q) ice (a) General. A facility providing executive, management, administrative, or professional services. This use includes corporate office, law offices, architectural firms, insurance companies and other executive, management or administrative offices for businesses or corporations. This facility does not include medical offices. (b) Call Centers. A facility providing customer service or sales requests by telecommunication or other data means. (c) Flex. A facility including office, research, laboratory, manufacturing, clean assembly, warehousing, or other related activities whose configurations and construction methods allow for easy conversion of interior and exterior space. (d) Medical. A facility providing medical, dental, or other health services relating to the diagnosis and treatment of human illnesses, injuries, and physical ailments treated in an office setting. This includes outpatient surgery, rehabilitation, incidental laboratories and other related activities, but does not include overnight patient stays. (6) Parking Structure. A facility used for vehicle parking and where there are a number of floors or levels on which parking takes place, either freestanding or integrated into a building. (7) Personal, Repair, & Rental Services. A facility or establishment that provides services associated with personal grooming, personal instruction or education, the maintenance of fitness, health and well- being, or the rental, servicing, maintenance, or repair of consumer goods. This use includes but is not limited to yoga centers, beauty salons, barbers and hairdressers, meditation centers, massage centers, dry cleaning shops, tailors, shoe repair, and electronics repair shops. This facility does not include motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, or heavy equipment repair or rental. (8) Retail. Sale of general merchandise or food to the general public for direct use and not for wholesale. This use includes but is not limited to sale of general merchandise, clothing and other apparel, flowers and household plants, dry goods, convenience and specialty foods, hardware and similar consumer goods. (9) Transportation- Park - and -Ride. A facility providing parking and shelter for transit passengers or carpooling that typically includes parking lots and associated structures located along or near public transit routes. Civic /Public /Institutional (10) Child Day Care. A facility for the provision of non - medical care and supervision outside the home for minor children, provided the supervision is less than 24 hours per day and the facility is licensed by the State of Ohio. TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 10 of 12 (11) Educational Facility. A facility offering classes, training courses, or skill development to the public or to members of an organization. This use includes, but is not limited to, public or private educational facilities such as vocational, business, or technical schools, training centers, colleges or universities. Elementary, middle or high schools are not included in this definition. (12) Government Services. (a) General. A facility providing the administration of local, state, or federal government services or functions. (b) Safety. A facility providing police, fire, or emergency medical services to the surrounding community. (c) Service. A facility providing government services that includes vehicle and equipment parking and /or service or maintenance yards. (13) Parks and Open Space. Public or private land that has been identified for active or passive parks or property to be left in a generally natural state. Industrial (14) Construction and Contract Service Trades. Facilities used for the repair of machinery, equipment, products or by- products. May include outdoor storage of materials, supplies or equipment as an accessory use. (15) Manufacturing and Assembly. A facility used for the fabrication, assembly, finishing, packaging or processing of components and /or finished goods. (16) Mini - Storage. A facility of leased or owned structures available to the general public for the storage of goods. (17) Motor Vehicle Repair, Major. A facility or area where major mechanical (engine, transmission or other major mechanical systems) and body work is conducted on vehicles and /or trailers. (18) Research and Development. A facility or area for conducting scientific research, investigation, testing, or experimentation, and including the fabrication of prototypes and support facilities, but not including facilities for the manufacture or sale of products except as may be incidental to the main purpose of the laboratory. (19) Utilities. (a) Renewable Energy Facilities. Commercial -scale operations for the collection of solar, wind, or geothermal energy and its conversion to electrical energy for sale to a public utility. (b) Electric Substation. The component of an electricity generation, transmission and distribution system where voltage is managed through the use of transformers. (c) Essential Services. Facilities used to provide utility services to a building or property, including but not limited to water pipes, sewer pipes, electric lines and boxes, telecommunication lines or fiber optic equipment, gas regulator stations, and storm drainage pipes. This use does not include major utilities such as TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 11 of 12 water or sewer treatment plants, electric generating plants, and other facilities that are primary rather than accessory uses of the sites on which they are located. Wireless communication facilities are also not included in this definition. (d) Wireless Communications. All communication components and facilities regulated by the FCC and Chapter 99 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances. (20) Wholesaling and Distribution. Facilities and accessory uses for the mass storage and movement of goods as well as transportation, logistics, maintenance and fleet parking. Residential (21) Dwelling- Single Family. A building arranged or designed to be occupied by one family, the structure having only one dwelling unit. Accessory /Temporary Uses (22) Bicycle Facility. Equipment and structures including bicycle racks, lockers, and showers to assist either recreational or commuter cyclists. (23) Community Activity. An activity that is open to the general public and sponsored by a public, private nonprofit or religious organization that is educational, cultural, or recreational in function. This use includes but is not limited to school plays and church fairs. (24) Construction Trailer /Office. A trailer or portable building used to provide work space for construction staff during the construction of a building or facility from no earlier than 30 days prior to construction to no later than 60 days after construction concludes (25) Corporate Residences. An accessory use integrated as part of a primary structure or an accessory structure available in conjunction with a nonresidential use that provides housing for personnel or visitors and is not available to the general public. (26) Special Event. A temporary outdoor use of land for the purposes of a gathering, including but not limited to a fair, festival, celebration, or fundraiser, that reasonably may be expected to attract more than 100 persons at any one time. (27) Transit Stop. An incidental area either along the public right -of -way or on a private site with shelters or other related amenities for patrons waiting for buses or other forms of public transportation. A transit stop shall not include a bus or train station, park- and -ride, or other major transit facility. (28) Utilities- Renewable Energy Equipment. Equipment for the collection of solar, geothermal energy or other forms of renewable energy (excluding wind) and its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is accessory to a permitted or approved conditional primary use of the property. (29) Utilities- Renewable Wind Equipment. Equipment for the collection of wind energy or its conversion to electrical energy or heat for use on the same property or for incidental sale to a utility when that equipment is TECHNOLOGY FLEX CODE Page 12 of 12 accessory to a permitted or approved conditional primary use of the property. Includes both building mounted and ground mounted units. (30) Vehicle Charging Station. A facility or area at which electric powered or hybrid powered motor vehicles can obtain electrical current to recharge batteries, when accessory to a permitted or approved primary use of the property. QSTI21 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Zoning Map Amendment 10 -074Z Proposal: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN. District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; R -1, Restricted Laridg.eand MAY 19, 2011 Long Range Planning and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex 5B Shier -Rings Road District to modernize the city's aging industrial districts, conform to Dubin. Ohio 43016.1136 the adopted Future Land Use Map and coordinate with plans for Phone / TDC: 61 x410.4600 the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. F 61 x410.4747 at Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Web Site:..doblin.et,,s Zoning Map amendment under the provisions of Zoning Code Creating a L egacy Sections 153.232 and 153.234. QSTI21 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Zoning Map Amendment 10 -074Z Proposal: Rezoning105 parcels comprising an area of approximately 371 acres from RI, Restricted Industrial District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; PCD, Planned Commerce District and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex District to modernize the city's aging industrial districts, conform to the adopted Future Land Use Map and coordinate with plans for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Map amendment under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Location: Generally along the Shier Rings Road Corridor between Avery Road and Interstate 270 to the east, including outlying properties in the vicinity of Post and Holt roads; Liggett Road and Avery Road south of Woerner - Temple Road. Affected Parcels: 1470000020000, 1470000019001, 1470000021602, 1470000021000, 1470000019000, 1470000019603, 273 - 000175, 273- 000176, 273- 000178, 273 - 000179, 273 - 000297, 273 - 000326, 273 - 000328, 273- 000331, 273- 000343, 273 - 000351, 273- 000352, 273 - 000353, 273- 000354, 273 - 000355, 273 - 000885, 273 - 001049, 273 - 001532, 273- 001533, 273 - 001534, 273-001535, 273 - 001585, 273-001591, 273- 001592, 273 - 001593, 273 - 001709, 273 - 001894, 273 - 001899, 273- 001905, 273- 002144, 273 - 002476, 273- 003679, 273 - 004509, 273 - 004513, 273 - 004514, 273 - 004515, 273 - 004544, 273 - 005320, 273- 005321, 273 - 005322, 273- 005323, 273 - 005369, 273- 005581, 273- 005582, 273 - 005584, 273 - 005585, 273 - 005586, 273 - 005587, 273- 005588, 273 - 005589, 273 - 005720, 273 - 006686, 273 - 006687, 273- 006795, 273 - 006956, 273- 006999, 273 - 007012, 273 - 007419, 273- 007469, 273 - 008089, 273 - 008090, 273 - 008092, 273 - 008093, 273- 008098, 273 - 008179, 273 - 009605, 273 - 010461, 273 - 011341, 273- 011551, 273-012243, 273- 012244, 273010593, 274 - 000001, 274- 000004, 274 - 000015, 274- 000028, 274 - 000045, 274 - 000047, 274- Page 1 of 2 Q MIDI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 19, 2011 4. COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment MOTION: VOTE: RESULT: To recommend approval to City Council of this Zoning Map Amendment. 6011 Approval will be recommended to City Council of this Zoning Map Amendment. 61 K1991601 NI19 COCA I 7a1 Carson C. Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner Page 2 of 2 000068, 274 - 000069, 274 - 000084, 274 - 000096, 274 - 000099, 274- 000100, 274 - 000101, 274 - 000102, 274 - 000103, 274 - 000104, 274- 000105, 274 - 000106, 274 - 000107, 274 - 000119, 274 - 000120, 274000122, 274000123, 274000128, 274000129, 274 - 000157, 274- 000158,273- 000356 Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contacts: Carson C. Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner and Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, ccombs4dublin.oh.us and chusak4dublin.oh.us MOTION: VOTE: RESULT: To recommend approval to City Council of this Zoning Map Amendment. 6011 Approval will be recommended to City Council of this Zoning Map Amendment. 61 K1991601 NI19 COCA I 7a1 Carson C. Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 2011 — Minutes Page 1 of 1 DRAFT 4. COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Zoning Map Amendment 10 -074Z Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this application involving an amendment to the Dublin Zoning Map to rezone approximately 105 parcels comprising over 371 acres from the following zoning districts: Restricted Industrial (RI) District, Limited Industrial (LI) District, Suburban Office and Institutional (SO) District, Limited Suburban Residential (R -1) District, Planned Commerce (PCD) District, and Planned Development (PUD) District. She said the zoning to TF, Technology Flex District is proposed to modernize the City's aging industrial district, conform to the adopted Future Land Use Map and coordinate with plans for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC). She said the Commission needed to make a recommendation to City Council for final action. Carson Combs said this rezoning is focused along the Shier Rings Road corridor and includes some outlying parcels. He said the rezoning coordinates with the business neighborhood concept for the COIC. He said that based upon the Commission's recent review of the Technology Flex District ordinance, the focus of this request is to encourage flexible space and uses for portions of the city that have more traditional industrial development. He said that the Future Land Use Map calls for a mix of different uses that include office, research and development, municipal and neighborhood center uses. Mr. Combs said that the zoning will result in a more unified classification for the area that will simplify the zoning map for greater consistency. Mr. Combs said that the proposed area rezoning is consistent with the Community Plan, the neighborhood concept for the COIC, and larger city -wide goals to encourage economic development. He said the zoning change will increase marketability with more flexible standards and provide a greater understanding of development requirements. Mr. Combs said that the zoning will also reduce nonconformities and illegal uses and that Planning recommends approval to City Council for this request. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application. (There were none.) Amy Kramb confirmed that nothing was being done with the code text and it was a rezoning. Mr. Combs said the request is to recommend changing the zoning designations for properties to City Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited any other comments or questions for the Commissioners. (There were none.) Motion and Vote Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this Zoning Map Amendment. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms, Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 5 - 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m 7 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF DUBLIN- Planning Report Thursday, May 19, 2011 Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4301 &1236 Zoning Map Amendment - Technology Flex District PhonetlDD:6144104600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site:w .dublin.oh.us Case Summary Agenda Number: 4 Case Number: 10 -074Z Proposal: Rezoning 100 parcels comprising an area of approximately 360 acres from RI, Restricted Industrial District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; PCD, Planned Commerce District and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex District to modernize the city's aging industrial districts, conform to the adopted Future Land Use Map and coordinate with plans for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. Location: Generally along the Shier Rings Road Corridor between Avery Road and Interstate 270 to the east, including outlying properties in the vicinity of Post and Holt roads; Liggett Road and Avery Road south of Woerner - Temple Road. Affected Parcels: 1470000020000, 1470000019001, 1470000021602, 1470000021000, 1470000019000, 1470000019603, 273- 000175, 273- 000176, 273- 000178, 273- 000179, 273- 000297, 273- 000326, 273 - 000328, 273 - 000331, 273 - 000343, 273 - 000351, 273 - 000352, 273 - 000353, 273- 000354, 273 - 000355, 273 - 000885, 273 - 001049, 273 - 001532, 273 - 001533, 273 - 001534, 273- 001535, 273-001585, 273 - 001591, 273 - 001592, 273 - 001593, 273 - 001709, 273 - 001894, 273- 001899, 273- 001905, 273 - 002144, 273 - 002476, 273 - 003679, 273 - 004509, 273 - 004513, 273- 004514, 273 - 004515, 273 - 004544, 273 - 005320, 273 - 005321, 273 - 005322, 273 - 005323, 273- 005369, 273 - 005581, 273 - 005582, 273 - 005584, 273 - 005585, 273 - 005586, 273 - 005587, 273- 005588, 273 - 005589, 273 - 005720, 273 - 006686, 273 - 006687, 273 - 006795, 273 - 006956, 273- 006999, 273 - 007012, 273 - 007419, 273 - 007469, 273 - 008089, 273 - 008090, 273 - 008092, 273- 008093, 273- 008098, 273 - 008179, 273 - 009605, 273 - 010461, 273 - 011341, 273 - 011551, 273- 012243, 273- 012244, 273010593, 274 - 000001, 274 - 000004, 274 - 000015, 274 - 000028, 274- 000045, 274 - 000047, 274 - 000068, 274 - 000069, 274 - 000084, 274 - 000096, 274 - 000099, 274- 000100, 274-000101, 274 - 000102, 274 - 000103, 274 - 000104, 274 - 000105, 274 - 000106, 274- 000107, 274 - 000119, 274 - 000120, 274000122, 274000123, 274000128, 274000129, 274- 000157, 274 - 000158, 273 - 000356 Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Zoning Map amendment under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234 for a City initiated, area -wide rezoning. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contacts: Carson C. Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner and Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, ccombs@dublin.oh.us and chusak@dublin.oh.us Planning Recommendation: Approval. Planning is requesting a recommendation for approval to City Council to modernize the city's aging industrial districts. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -074Z I Zoning Map Amendment Technology Flex District Thursday, May 19, 2011 1 Page 2 of b #10.074 Technology Flex (Area Rezoning) Proposed Zoning City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -074Z I Zoning Map Amendment Technology Flex District Thursday, May 19, 2011 1 Page 3 of 6 Facts Site Description Zoning F — case Background Case History The parcels to be rezoned are generally located along the Shier Rings Road Corridor between Avery Road and Interstate 270 to the east. Other properties included with this request are located generally at the southeast corner of the U.S. 33 /SR 161 interchange and along Avery Road between Woerner - Temple Road and Corporate Center Drive. The parcels identified for the Technology Flex District are zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; PCD, Planned Commerce District and PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Dublin's industrial zoning districts have not been substantially changed since the 1970 Zoning Code. This new district is intended to enhance Dublin's economic competitiveness, provide for a broader range of uses, impose flexible requirements to encourage business expansion and retention, and incorporate minimum architectural requirements not currently available. The area zoning will implement a modern zoning approach for properties along the Shier Rings Road corridor as one of seven business neighborhoods that comprise the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC). Planning and Zoning Commission • October 7, 2010: Planning introduced the Technology Flex District and reviewed the goals and intent of the proposed Code. • March 3, 2011: At the request of Planning, the Commission tabled the Technology Flex District to provide additional time to correct language, review definitions and modify architectural standards to ensure that they achieve the quality of the images presented. • April 7, 2011: The Commission recommended the proposed Technology Flex District to City Council for approval. The Commission suggested important modifications to the Code, including selecting a preferred version of architectural language that permits greater design flexibility. The Commission also requested that the required buffer distances from electric substations to residential districts be reduced from 750 feet to 700 feet to allow future expansion of the Shier -Rings Substation should demands in the COIC require additional capacity. City Council • April 25, 2011: Ordinance 18 -11 was discussed by City Council. Issues included accent colors, the application of metal as a building material and compliance with landscape provisions of the Code. • May 9, 2011: City Council reviewed modifications to the Technology Flex District and proposed language to permit, but not encourage, ribbed and corrugated metal as a building material. The amended code also allows for the deferral of compliance with perimeter buffer landscaping and interior vehicular use landscaping for exterior architectural enhancements that do not increase the building size. The ordinance was tabled to resolve accent color issues and is scheduled for a second eading and vote at the May 2 3 City Council meet City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -074Z I Zoning Map Amendment Technology Flex District Thursday, May 19, 2011 1 Page 4 of 6 Details This is a request for review and recommendation to City Council of a Zoning Map Amendment involving 100 parcels comprising an area of approximately 360 acres from RI, Restricted Industrial District; LI, Limited Industrial District; SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District; R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District; PCD, Planned Commerce District and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to TF, Technology Flex District to modernize the city's aging industrial districts, conform to the Community Plan's Future Land Use and implement plans for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. The purpose of the rezoning is to eventually repeal existing industrial districts from the Zoning Code and to better align zoning regulations with efforts to promote the business neighborhood concept for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. All non - conforming uses and structures will be subject to the requirements of Section 153.004(C) of the Dublin Zonina Code. Zoning Map Amendment During 2010, the City of Dublin's Land Use and Long Range Planning and Economic Development departments proposed the creation of a new Technology Flex (TF) Zoning District to modernize the city's aging industrial zoning districts that date back to 1970. The update of Dublin's Zoning Code with this new zoning district and the subsequent elimination of the RI, Restricted Industrial and the LI, Limited Industrial Districts was initiated to address three critical goals: 1. Modernize uses to match what is desired today within the city (offices, research and laboratories) while eliminating heavier industrial uses; 2. Make requirements more flexible to speed development timelines by reducing conditional use and variance requests for valued uses and minor building additions /alterations; and 3. Consider modest architectural requirements to establish a base level of quality while requirements of the Zoning Code. Since initiation of this Code Amendment, significant efforts have been made to work with interested property owners and develop a zoning district that meets the intent of the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC), to modernize the city's aging industrial districts, and conform to the I� Proposed City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -074Z I Zoning Map Amendment Technology Flex District Thursday, May 19, 2011 1 Page 5 of b Details Zoning Map Amendment Uses The TF District implements a new system of land use identification that will be consistent with codes for the Economic Advancement Zone and Bridge Street Corridor both in format and intent. The TF District includes a use table with supplemental requirements that address design issues specific to a particular use. Permitted uses have been expanded to allow office, research and laboratory uses. A new "Office Flex" category has been added to address the need for flexible space that can be modified over time to serve different business /use functions as companies grow and I` change. The Code also addresses accessory and temporary uses. Site Development Regulations have been modified to ensure greater clarity, ease of Regulations administration and flexibility. The TF District includes a height limitation that is currently not included in the Code. Side and rear setbacks have been converted from a mathematical formula to established ranges of setback distance based on building height. Pavement setbacks have been further refined to clearly address shared access and service courts. Architecture None of the existing Industrial Districts have architectural requirements. Given the focus of this district toward small to medium size tenants that are growing, the purpose of the Code is to establish at least a base level of appearance standard that maintains quality development yet provides economic viability for flexible spaces. The Code includes general intent language, materials and color requirements and other supporting language that will be administered through the building permit process. Landscaping r The Zoning Code requires complete conformance with the landscape provisions of the Code once a 25 percent, cumulative alteration of a building and /or site is proposed. Since many of the existing industrial properties do not comply with many of the current Code requirements, this provision has likely discouraged some property owners from improving the exterior appearance of aging buildings or grounds. The TF District permits building exteriors to be upgraded without requiring full landscape compliance, as long as the building footprint is not expanded. Compliance with vehicular and service screening, street tree requirements and other site requirements would be required at time of expansion; however, perimeter property buffering and internal parking lot landscaping would be deferred until site or building modifications exceeding 25 percent are Alternative Energy The proposed TF Code is the first zoning district in Dublin that addresses And Design renewable energy methods. The Code identifies appropriate applications for wind and solar uses and also encourages alternative site design methods that are more sustainable. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -074Z I Zoning Map Amendment Technology Flex District Thursday, May 19, 2011 1 Page b of b Analysis Process Compatibility with all applicable land use policies for the City. Zoning Map Amendment Code Section 153.232(B) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to review "amendments to the zoning map and to the zoning ordinance and recommendation of action to Council." The Commission should review the proposed amendment, provide input where necessary, and vote on the proposal. The draft Zoning Map amendment will be forwarded to City Council for final review and action. Future Land Use. The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan shows a majority of sites as Office /Research & Development with some scattered locations identified as Neighborhood Office and General Commercial. Implementation of the Technology Flex District will promote a broader range of non - residential uses that focus on office, research and laboratory uses that are more in line with development expectations. Central Ohio Innovation Corridor. The Shier Rings Road corridor generally between Avery Road and 1 -270 is identified as part of the Shier Rings Flex District, a distinct business neighborhood within the COIC intended for the promotion of small to medium size businesses. Spaces are intended to be flexible and accommodate changing needs as companies grow and need different operational space. The proposed zoning will streamline a variety of zoning districts into one core district that is more flexible and marketable for development. Recommendation Adoption of Zoning Map Amendment Approval As part of efforts to align zoning with the Community Plan and coordinate development regulations with efforts to promote the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor, the proposed area zoning will simplify the adopted Zoning Map and enhance the use and marketability of properties. Planning recommends approval to City Council of this proposed area zonino req uest. r� X9 6 UNI"VN COUNTY O W �i x fz O 4 rU v� x fx Q I N Is q �z q fQ 1 I'C k f4 Y I I I f f 1 1 i Shier Rings Industiral Corridor Central Ohio Innovation Corridor -�. - Streams / River Highways Roads + Railways -1 County Boundary Oo City of Dublin 11 `& ORIAL r '11 �HJlr� ORIAL DR144. �p > >,99NLl gi m O R.1 \F SELtS O1��L @ ypARK1VAY N City of Dublin Central Ohio Innovation Corridor Land Use and Ra Planning District Map F Long 9 9 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 I ^ \r{ Y?EW ROAD � apY{f �'(OUDS C ELg t� KAYO RRAO 1 {6 � I( � Urban Core I I I MARRN ROAD i petY� l� 1 o Co w o Q Cu C O ^ C m C E 1p C CO t O to U + U O O C N O O � U ca ' O N Co N O C f` E co 0 C . Co m E a� (O O N C CD U C -C i O � ` U Q2 o O ' C � ca U U U O C U o N 4-1 8 0 V_ 0 0 ° V 01 N a-j C � Q CL) X L N V) LL mdment y Flex District i� 1. 1 il Area Kezomng an .� .0 to Co m O C U o �n Co E R - m C CO E to U C O in a� E U U C C ✓ p N Co � 'C U O r < o y Q C N p cn cn U N X N }{ Q •qp o Co w o Q Cu C O ^ C m C E 1p C CO t O to U + U O O C N O O � U ca ' O N Co N O C f` E co 0 C . Co m E a� (O O N C CD U C -C i O � ` U Q2 o O ' C � ca U U U O C U o N 4-1 8 0 V_ 0 0 ° V 01 N a-j C � Q CL) X L N V) LL mdment y Flex District i� 1. 1 il Area Kezomng RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Held and a .129 Acres, More or Less, mporary Construction Lt McKUng Page 3 10 Zment from TALG, AAf. Hammersmith stated that r ates to acquisition of land at 72 Fishel Drive North for a sewer extension pZ.1-1 Total compensation for the asement will be $11, 361. Vote on the Ordinanc r. Boring, yes; Mr. Keen , yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher yes; Vice Mayor S y, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Ma r Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, s. Ordinance 117ell f Authorizi the City Manager to Exec 8 Necessary Conveyance umentation for the cquisitivn of a 0.117 Acr ,Mars or Less, Sanitary ewer Easement, and .086 Acres, More or Less emporary Construction E ement from Fishel I stments, LLC. Mr. Hammersmith stated t this is related to the ne portion of an easement necessary for the Centr hio Innovation Center san' ry sewer Phase Two. Thi acquisition and ease t are from Fishel Investme s, LLC, located at 7680 Fi el Drive North. The ppnsation for the easement ` $9,045. Vote on the Orflinance: Mayor Lecklider, yKs; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vicee"or Salay, yes; Mr. R er, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. eenan, yes; Ms. Chinnici -Zu cher, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 18 -11 Adopting Section 153.044 of the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Establish the New Technology Flex Zoning District. (Case 10- 064ADM) Ms. Gilger, Economic Development Manager stated that in the Dublin Code, Restricted, Limited and General Industrial zoning districts have limitations that have hampered economic development. In order to remain competitive, the City needs diverse building stock at varying price points and predictability of process and end building results. By broadening the uses in a Tech Flex district, small -sized businesses can become competitive by keeping a growing operation under one roof in a flexible environment. This will facilitate expansion and modernization of uses, which maintain diversity in the building product. Mr. Combs, Senior Planner stated that when staff reviewed the industrial districts, they found that those districts date back to the 1970s and have not been updated. Businesses have changed significantly since that time period. In upgrading these districts, three goals were identified: (1) to ensure that the Industrial Districts match the uses preferred in the corridors; (2) to ensure that the standards are sufficiently flexible to accommodate the growth of a business and their need for additional space without adding substantial approval time to the development timelines; and (3) to determine if modest architectural requirements could be Included in the process and yet continue to maintain economic competitiveness. The proposed Code for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC) addresses the area around Shier Rings from Avery to 1 -270, as shown in the PowerPoint. He identified the properties that will be within the Restricted Industrial District and the Limited Industrial District; those that will be within the new Tech Flex District; and those that will be addressed by the Bridge Street Corridor or the Economic Advancement Zone. The proposed Code will also provide for a much broader range of uses, An attempt has been made to match those with the processes underway for Bridge Street and the EAZ to ensure the ability to have the desired uses in that corridor, which are Office, Laboratory, Research and Flex space. The Code also includes Accessory and Temporary uses, so there is more predictability for the developers. They have also addressed Additional Use standards, depending on the use, to achieve the desired requirements, depending upon what that use might have In terms of impact. The proposed Code also includes an upgrade to building heights, as there is currently no limitation within the district. The height will be set at 56 feet. A greater height would require Conditional Use approval. That height will be regulated via setbacks, which will be a tiered structure based on the height of the buildings. As the building height increases, there is an established setback 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Meet Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 4 _ 20 required. Currently, the Industrial Districts have a sliding formula, so it is difficult to convey to the developer exactly what setbacks they need to adhere to, depending on the type of building they are considering. They essentially have to create the architecture and then determine if it can be accommodated on the site. The intent is to keep the residential buffers consistent, but also clarify the pavement setbacks, so that it is possible to demonstrate clearly to developers what the requirements are. Included in the proposed Code are also Outdoor requirements. One of the key implementation items is the requirement that overhead doors are on the side or rear of the structure, for overall aesthetic reasons. The major component studied and discussed with residents, property owners and the Planning Commissioners was the intent of architecture for that district. The goal was to find a minimal level that would provide the City with a higher quality but still maintain competitiveness within the region. The regulations initially proposed focused primarily on additional requirements to the elevations that face public streets or residential districts. However, the Planning Commission believed there was a need for more discretion for architects to have design flexibility. Planning and Economic Development believe this is a good route, giving them flexibility while still having an architectural intent in the Code that can be applied. Therefore, the Commission recommended a generalized approach that addresses all four elevations and allows designers to have more flexibility rather than prescriptive requirements. Significant feedback was received from property owners and developers regarding the materials requirements. Currently, the Code as it is drafted would require architectural metal, prohibiting the standard corrugated and ribbed metal as a building material. The architectural metal panels shown on the PowerPoint generally have a much higher cost than the traditional ribbed construction because of the application of It and costs. That created concerns for the property owners and for Economic Development and Planning In maintaining viability for the types of businesses desired in the Technology Flex District. The corrugated /ribbed metal is typically a vertical or horizontal application of ribs, generally having exposed fasteners. However, those are usually not seen from the right -of -way because of the coloration of the materials. Most of the area that will be zoned for Tech Flex is already developed with that metal construction, and so in large part, the requirement would primarily apply to minor additions and upgrades to buildings. The Tech Flex District will accommodate small to midsize start-up businesses that need to grow in place up to a certain level. An example would be the Hidaka building, which has the ribbed metal construction. There are other industrial uses toward the interchange area that have more concrete slab or tilt -up type of construction. (He shared examples of these styles.) Ribbed metal construction can be done in an aesthetically pleasing manner. In the larger picture, this District will correlate with the Economic Advancement Zone underway, which will include three tiers of districts. Along US 33 where there is interstate visibility, larger office development is desired, which will include some of the architectural metal panel work, as well as glass and other primary materials, but will have an office focus. The corollary to the Tech Flex would be the Research Flex District within the EAZ. A variety of different metal architecture /metal panel applications, as well as some other materials, will be permitted. The final correlating district within the EAZ would be the Research Assembly District, which will be located to the west. This will include a focus on architecture for Industrial Assembly uses. A mix of the architectural panel as well as the ribbed /corrugated materials will provide a mix of price points. The Code also addresses base colors, making those generally consistent. The Code also waives full site compliance for landscaping. There Is currently a 25 percent rule, whereby If an upgrade to the outside of the building exceeds 25 percent, it triggers compliance with upgrading the entire site to meet all Code requirements. This Is fairly onerous in view of malntaining the older buildings In the district. Therefore, the Code proposes waiving that for exterior finish upgrades. The Code also requlres that Accessory Structures have coordinating design and materials. It also addresses integration of renewable energy as part of the site design standards. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS �Ria�Eilc� ��f Meeting Dublin City Council Held April 25, 2011 Page 5 _ _ 20 Based on the considerations In the Code, staff believes that with minor adjustments to the materials, the proposed Code is a great improvement over the existing Code, Much positive input has been received from property owners. it will keep the City more marketable with other Industrial areas and suit the needs of growing businesses. Therefore, staff recommends approval with two modifications to ensure Dublin's economic competitiveness: (1) That Section 153.044(F)(1) be modified to remove "concealed fasteners;" and (2) That Section 153.044(F) (4) (a) (5) and 153.044(F) (4) (b) (3) be modified to state the following: "Use of corrugated or long span, high- profile fluted or ribbed metal panels is not encouraged. Included in Council's meeting materials tonight is a copy of a letter from a business owner who could not attend tonight's meeting. The letter addresses the materials issue. In addition, there may be some business owners in the audience who would like to testify. Mayor Lecklider invited public comment. &ch_1 relan, Dublin Bulloing Syftm. s. 523 Avery Road stated that they support the new zoning text. As a developer, business owner and owner of vacant land in this district, the new zoning will make it much easier to attract new businesses and for them to be aware of the requirements. Without the modifications that staff has recommended, the materials requirement would prohibit buildings such as Hidaka and Applied Innovation in this area. Therefore, they strongly support the modifications recommended by staff. Mark Chaffin, Hidaka USA stated that they also support staff and Dublin Building Systems' position. The Hidaka building is constructed of the material in question. They could expand on approximately half of their land, but if they could not do so with the same type of material, it would create a problem for them. Council Comments Vice Mayor Salay stated that a couple of businesses in this area have recently remodeled, using some very garish colors — a very bright gold and bright orange. She is somewhat confused about the color palette encouraged. She would prefer the use of more subdued colors, in keeping with the overall Dublin look. She asked staff to comment. Mr. Combs stated that the philosophy of the proposed Code keeps that particular requirement as flexible as possible for the designers to work out. The proposed Code provides for the use of a neutral or earth -tone base color, but permits the use of brighter colors for detailing and trim. If there is an issue with the overall chroma of the colors, perhaps the review process can include a means to mute that. Vice Mayor Salay indicated that a more subdued color palette is her preference. An exception is always possible, but she would prefer the regulation Include a more neutral color palette. Mrs. Boring concurred. Trim can be of different sizes, and therefore, she would prefer that the Issue be further examined. Vice Mayor Salay suggested that Planning discuss the matter with Economic Development staff to ensure modification of the color requirement will not cause issues. In regard to landscaping, there was a slide shown as an example, and in this case, she believes perimeter landscaping would make the building more attractive. What are the landscaping requirements in the proposed Code? Mr. Combs responded that the Code generally defers to the Landscape Code. What is shown on the slide is an older building constructed prior to adoption of the current Landscape Code. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS hlinu €es of Meelino Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 6 Held _ _ 20 Vice Mayor Salay stated that the building shown was constructed in the mid 1990s. The front is landscaped, but the side that face Innovation Drive is not landscaped. There is also another building in this location. The buildings are acceptable, but would be more attractive with the addition of landscaping. There is another issue she has observed related to outdoor display. At the corner of Shier Rings and Avery Road, large equipment is on display, and some of it is rusting. This is a primary comer, and that is not the appearance desired for this location. How is that type of issue addressed in the Code? Mr. Combs responded the area on the west side of Avery Road would be included in the Economic Advancement Zone district. That Code amendment will be forthcoming. Vice Mayor Salay noted that, based on past experience, she assumes the existing business would be grandfathered, if a new district is created. If this business relocates, any future development on the site would have to comply with the new regulations. Ms. Chin nici-Zuercher referred to the Landscaping provisions on page three, which state that the Technology Flex District would allow exteriors to be upgraded without full landscape compliance, as long as the building footprint is not expanded. In that type of situation, the site would never be brought into compliance with the landscape code. It would seem desirable to require the landscape code to be met if there is an upgrade to the building, even if the footprint does not change. Why is it being suggested that an applicant could upgrade the exterior but still not meet the landscape code? Mr. Combs responded that many of the properties were developed some time ago and have lot coverage substantially beyond what would be permitted today. When an older building is upgraded, the Code requires them to install all of the perimeter buffers and interior landscape islands for the entire property. When the property owner is attempting to upgrade a building, to repair the deteriorating skin of a building to attract companies to locate into the building, it can be onerous to be required to do more. The concern is that property owners will allow the buildings to go into decline if the City does not provide an avenue whereby they can upgrade the exterior. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired if a phasing situation for landscape would be a possibility. Perhaps there needs to be a special landscape code exclusive to this area, not as extensive as the existing landscape code, due to the industrial nature of the area. She understands the cost issue, but it would seem the process would work toward a totally improved appearance. At a minimum, she would like to have discussion about a phased -In approach. Mr. Combs responded that staff review this, and based on the different criteria in the Landscape Code, determine which requirements could be more easily met In the short term, and identifying a way to Implement that in revised text for a second reading, Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated her understanding is that, originally, the text was more prescriptive in architectural requirements, but the proposed text would be more flexible. She Is not certain how that achieves the goal of reducing the length of the process by providing clear instructions to interested developers. Mr. Combs responded that instead of being prescriptive and providing quantitative requirements, a generalized approach will be taken. This will enable staff to work with the developer upfront to ensure they come in with a complete proposal through the permit process. It doesn't add any additional review time. It allows Planning and Development Review staff to work directly with the developer to quickly achieve a desired look, and then move them quickly through the permit. process. That philosophy is consistent with the EAZ zone as well. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher inquired if the difference is that the process does not include a review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Combs confirmed that is correct. This is a standard district, so it would be an administrative review process that staff would work through Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked how a level of integrity and consistency is ensured in the process, when there is no overview involved. Various staff members may analyze a case differently. What is "the look" that this is designed to attain? 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1�111![II�`ti ,ll �•11l'l'l l ll� Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Combs responded that whenever dealing with architecture, there would be opportunity for interpretation. The intent is to compile a working set of various architectural examples. If at any point in time, there is disagreement with this process, there is the Administrative Appeal process available. Mr. Gerber stated that with the COIC process, if an application meets requirements and criteria, the application proceeds with permitting, subject to the review of staff. If it does not meet the criteria, it is forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. What occurs in a case where staff and the architect do not agree on an Issue? Mr. Combs responded that when there is disagreement, the applicant has the right to appeal. It would be an Administrative Appeal of a staff decision. Those generally go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gerber asked if it would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Mr. Combs responded that it would not, unless specific language is written in the Code to direct that. Mr. Reiner stated that he is in agreement with the proposed text. An applicant using rolled metal, assuming it is framed correctly, can be an attractive look. Who is responsible for ensuring that the City obtains the attractive appearance? Mr. Combs replies that it would be the permit review staff, a combination of staff members from different divisions — planners, engineers, Fire Department — the same people who would typically review a building permit. There would also be the capability of adding architects to the review process, if desirable. Mr. Reiner stated that the opinion about color palette is subjective. He is not certain that only neutral colors are desirable. Adding striping to some buildings can enhance them. In regard to the landscaping issue, many of the older buildings do have extensive landscaping, including large trees. It would not be desirable to discourage a client from expanding a building, as such an expansion would improve the City's tax base. Is there a means of conducting an analysis on a building? In some cases, it wouldn't be necessary to lock the applicant into a landscape code when updating their building. However, if the building appearance were beginning to deteriorate, the existing landscape would provide a good service in screening the building until a new tenant buys It and makes improvements. The City should not require anyone to add a lot of plant material that is not necessary, if it has adequate landscaping from an older installation. Mr. Combs responded that staff would also evaluate that aspect, and consider how best to address It in the revision that is brought back for the second reading. Mr. Gerber stated that with a planned district, the City would certainly have some criteria regarding aesthetics, architecture, fit within a community, etc. How can that be codified in some manner? While the process may work well for many cases, there may be some when the application does not fit within the given area. Is there something else that could be included to address that situation? Mr. Combs responded that it would depend on the type of approach Council prefers to take. Given that this is within a standard district with a building permit process, the desire is to find a way to stay within that process in terms of the overall timelines. There are different processes available. The Economic Advancement Zone has a special architectural review team. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan implements some of the same philosophy. That is handled by an administrative team, as well, so it would serve the same function as what is proposed through the building permit process. The issue is whether Council desires to establish a different approach to any appeals, if there is disagreement about the proposed architecture. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated that in this draft, there is redlined language proposed by Planning Commissioner Hardt as alternative architectural language. Is that part of the draft that staff is requesting feedback from Council tonight? 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS minuns of Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Combs responded that it is the language that was crafted into the final ordinance. Most of the language in the green color was reviewed by the Planning Commission, except for the architecture portion. The architecture language In green addresses the elevations that face public streets or residential districts, and contains specifics, regarding fenestration and office components. The Planning Commission approach, which is In red type, Is a more generalized approach. It allows the designers for the property owners to devise a workable solution, to address the details based on the specific needs of the flex space, which can change over time. The proposed ordinance has the red language. Adopting the ordinance will adopt that language — including the modification to permit ribbed or corrugated metal, which is the typical construction method at this time. It is staff's opinion that modification is necessary in order to remain economically competitive for the types of uses that would be proposed for these buildings along the Shier Rings corridor. Mayor Lecklider stated that there are strictly defined boundaries to this district, beyond which this type of construction would not be seen. This language appears primarily to capture what Council has been trying to achieve in this location. This ordinance will provide much more guidance to development than what currently exists. Mr. Combs responded that is correct. Currently, the Restricted Industrial and Limited Industrial districts have no architectural requirements. The intent is to provide a minimum level of requirements. It is hoped that this ordinance, in combination with allowing more office uses as permitted by right, will provide the opportunity for more office -level architecture to be integrated. The Code is flexible in terms of the overall materials, allowing those that are common for industrial architecture. Mr. Keenan requested the slide be displayed that depicts the remaining area to be developed versus the area to be rezoned into the Flex District. He asked if the ribbed metal is already incorporated Into that area. Mr. Combs responded that it exists In most of the area. This legislation will address primarily minor building additions. Hidaka and Mr. Valentine, who owns the property next to the 5800 Building, are considering the possibility of future expansion of their industrial -type operations. That expansion could hinge upon the permitted building materials. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if those businesses expanded, wouldn't they upgrade from the existing building material, as matching the existing material would not be possible. Mr. Combs responded that, in general, the buildings have the traditional ribbed metal construction, which can be custom matched. Achieving a match for an addition to an existing building is not usually difficult. Staffs concern is that businesses will be encouraged to undertake expansions, because it is cost efficient to do so. Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that the hesitancy is due to the fact that this Is a major departure from what has been the practice in Dublin. She anticipated the Code would be more prescriptive. Her only concern, however, is the extent to which the timeframe of the process has been reduced. A primary goal was to allow development to reduce the timeframe substantially from the outset to completion. Can it be anticipated that, with this change, months could be reduced from the current approval timeframe? Mr. Combs responded that the real time savings is reflected in how permitting of a Conditional Use is addressed. Currently, most of the preferred uses in Industrial Districts require a Conditional Use permit. That additional public process can add three months or more to the process. Often, retaining a tenant who desires to expand their space by a few hundred square feet Involves side yard /rear yard and other development standards requiring Board of Zoning Appeals variance approval. In the past, there have been a few economic development agreements that hinged on their ability to obtain approval of variances, which could require a couple of months to obtain. This Is where a timesaving can be achieved. Staff Is also reviewing the architecture, because the Code currently has no requirements. It would be desirable to achieve a base level agreement, which staff can then use to work with the developers to obtain a quality appearance. 10 -0742 Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Ntlllvws of IV1�Clln;! Dublin City Council April 25, 2011 Page 9 Hrlll 10 There will be a second reading /public hearing at the May 9 Council meeting. X 9- he City Manager to Execute utual Aid Agreement with t ity , City of Powell, City of sterviile, Village of Ashley, age of illage of Shawnee H Viitage of Sunbury, Gena vwnsh p, ounty Preservation arks Authority, Ohio Wesl n University he Ohio Health uric. Mr. Gerber introduced the Inance. Chief von Eckartsber tated that this renewed agr ant would provide for cooperation with ai a various municipalities within elaware County. When the services are pr ed in an emergency situation would be on a no -fee basis Dublin's sent s would be provided subject to ailability and can be recalled at y time. Th greement is non - binding and d not impose any liability upon City for fail a to actor respond in an emerge y situation. � Or. Keenan inquired if there are istics available on the services Or6vided by Dublin to other entities and the sere e6s provided to Dublin by other ities for Council to review prior to the next eting. The City has been a p y to these mutual aid agreements for quite a w years. Chief von Eckartsb responded that he does have sprellminary information, but there are not y calls for services. The great occurrence is with the Sheriff` office, whit as contacted Dublin Police fora stance on 16 occasions. Mr. Kee stated of th greement. that it Is Important that entity be taken advantage of a result ice Mayor Salay inquired if t 's'basicaily involves most of the ' risdlctions within Delaware County. The Villa of Sunbury is quite a distance fr Dublin. Chief von Eckartsberg re onded that Delaware County isla sting the agreement for consistency purpose Every municipality in Delaware County will be signing an agreement, f' X ThereWII second reading /public hearing the May 9 Council meeting. »11 he City Manager to ecute Necessary Conveyance ocumentation Dedication of a . 33 Acres, More or Less, Fee pie Interest, a 0.076 Acres, More or Less erpetual Multi -Use Easement d a 0.243 Acres, More or Less, Tempor Construction Easement from ke Realty Ohio, and Declaring an Emer cy. Mr. Gerber lntrod ed the Ordinance. Mr. Hammers h stated that the City has been orking cooperatively with the Ci of Columbus improve Emerald Parkway between Rings Road and Tuttle ssing Boulev d. This has involved discusslo $"with various property owners, d one of the rimary property owners is Du Realty of Ohio. They have ' dicated their Iingness to donate right -of -wa d easements necessary for t execution of the project. This ordinance will a pt a land dedication at 6397 E aid Parkway, at the southwest corner of EmereeParkway and Rings Road. De tion of this parcel has been accelerated becpoe Duke Realty desires to set a building, and the City desires to acquire t right -of -way prior to the transfe f ownership. Therefore, staff requests that Cgw6il dispense with the public he ' g and adopt this ordinance as a emergency. Mr. Rgirreinquired why a temporary ea ant is proposed. Mr ammersmith responded that th emporary easement is for grads purposes. A tired - use path will be constru d along this side of Emerald P way, which will require modification of the gr ng of the turf area along that pro rty 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 9. Code Amendment - Technology Flex District 10- 064ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: The addition of Section 153.044 to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of approval of amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.534. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4669, ccombs @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this amendment, as modified to establish a new Technology Flex District by adding Section 153.044 to the Dublin Zoning Code. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Code Amendment, as modified, was recommended for approval to City Council. STAFF C TIFICATIO k Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION LITli OF DUBLIN- Land Use and APRIL 7, 2011 Long Range Planning SSW Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin,oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 9. Code Amendment - Technology Flex District 10- 064ADM Zoning Code Amendment Proposal: The addition of Section 153.044 to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of approval of amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.534. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4669, ccombs @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this amendment, as modified to establish a new Technology Flex District by adding Section 153.044 to the Dublin Zoning Code. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Code Amendment, as modified, was recommended for approval to City Council. STAFF C TIFICATIO k Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning 9. Code Amendment - Technology Flex District 10- 064ADM Zoning Code Amendment Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application which involves modification to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District to replace the RI, Restricted Industrial District, and LI, Limited Industrial District. She said the Commission will need to make a recommendation to City Council for final action. Carson Combs presented this proposed Zoning Code Amendment and provided the project goals, which includes modernizing uses in the Industrial Districts to match the desired development within this area of Dublin. He said the proposed requirements are intended to be flexible and reduce the timelines for approval, and also include modest architectural requirement while still maintaining economic competitiveness. Mr. Combs said the proposed Code will be utilized with the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor, COIC in the Shier Rings Flex District. Mr. Combs said the names of the categories in the primary uses table in Paragraph B were changed based on the format used for Bridge Street Code. He said the time and size limited requirements have been added. He said a major change was the removal of animal breeding and boarding uses, because it does not meet the intent of the District. He noted day care uses will be permitted to ensure an existing daycare is not made non - conforming within the District. Mr. Combs said the proposed accessory or temporary use category was modified to match the Bridge Street Code with a few notes. He stated the entertainment and recreation uses were limited to indoor use only, because outdoor use can become more intensive. He said the Code also proposes Transit stops as permitted uses. He said based on the overall goal to implement transit throughout the City in the long term, the Code permits the use through site plan review. Mr. Combs said Park and Rides are currently limited to one shelter per bus route within the Zoning Code, with the proposed TF Code park and rides were broadened out to include one bus shelter per route. Mr. Combs said with regard to substations, the existing substation on Shier Rings Road would become non - conforming and be allowed to run and operate as it exists. John Hardt said he brought up the issue and he wondered what would happen if that substation needed to be expanded. Mr. Combs explained the expansion would have to go through the variance process. He said in the EAZ planning area, City Council has dedicated five acres for the creation of a new substation. He said it was up to the Commission to decide if additional use requirements were necessary. Mr. Hardt said he wanted to ensure adequate facilities are available to serve the COIC. Mr. Combs said a potential Code modification could be to review the buffer requirement and reduce it enough to gain additional expansion area. Steve Langworthy agreed with the proposed modification as a means to address Mr. Hardt's concern. Mr: Combs said based on the Commission's discussion at the last meeting, the proposed Code was modified to provide corporate residences as both an integrated area within a building or as a detached unit. Mr. Combs said based on the last meeting's discussion regarding building height, the Code was modified to state that buildings over 56 feet in height would require conditional use approval by the Commission. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 - Minutes Page 2 of 4 Mr. Combs said in terms of the side and rear setbacks, again the required setback was reduced in the second category from 25 feet to 20 feet, based on additional analyses. He said the proposed Code continues to require a 25 -foot setback from residential districts, as is in the current Code. Mr. Combs noted very few TF properties were adjacent to residential districts with the two largest properties owned by the city or the school district. Mr. Combs said the Outdoor Requirement language has been clarified to reflect that the Director would determine what is harmonious, consistent with the existing Code in terms of nuisance regulations. Mr. Combs said large service doors are required on the side or rear of the building, so the office components of the structure can front the street. Mr. Combs said under the Accessory Structure section there needed to be discussion about whether accessory structures should be similar in material style, quality, and appearance or should be identical. He said he would like to understand the Commission's preference at this meeting. Mr. Combs explained the Definitions section has been modified to match the format for the Bridge Street Corridor. He said all the definitions generally refer to facilities, because it is buildings or the components of the site as well, the use or activity on the site. Mr. Combs said they tried to incorporate as many of the other comments provided by Commissioners. Mr. Combs said Architecture was the biggest topic for the Commission to address. He said they are trying to find some level of architecture. He said the current RI and LI Districts have no architectural requirements in the Code. He said Planning is looking for a baseline that would maintain Dublin's competitiveness with the other Central Ohio areas, but not become cost prohibitive for developers. He noted most of the areas planned for rezoning to the Tech Flex District are developed, so these buildings are primarily use the new Code for expansions. Mr. Combs said the undeveloped parcels were highlighted to show the parcels available for new construction. Mr. Combs said the proposed Code provides two different approaches to architectural design within the proposed District, which the Commission needed to provide direction. He said the first approach was based on the comments provided at the last meeting, which focused on the design elements that faced the public street or the residential district. He said another approach was highlighted in the Code and boxed in red, which focuses on the general intent and materials, colors, and minor design elements. He said Planning is open to the approach in red, but had one concern about the Materials section, addressing the item that dealt with Metal. He requested feedback from the Commission. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment with respect to this application. (There was none.) Richard Taylor said in regards to the two approaches to architecture, his preference was the direction that Mr. Hardt proposed, which was proposed in red, although he did not know if the proposed language was sufficient. He said he liked it because in a very basic sense, it allows the designers to design and had the greater potential for great architecture, as opposed to a building that meets Code. He said there is more room for invention. Joseph Budde, Warren Fishman, and Todd Zimmerman said they had no comments. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 -Minutes Page 3 of 4 Amy Kramb preferred the recommended version provided by Mr. Hardt. She said she already provided corrections to Planning. John Hardt said he did not expect his approach to be brought forward literally, but it was okay that it was. He said for the benefit of those who did not see the exact response he gave Mr. Combs, his fundamental concern was similar to Mr. Taylor's in that he was afraid if they put in prescriptive architectural requirements such as 'must have a cornice at the top of the wall', he thought the tendency will be to provide those things so that you can check the box and say you provided it, regardless of whether that particular item is appropriate for a given building. He said his intent was buildings that can be built out of any number of materials, all of which are affordable, but are designed and details are paid attention. Mr. Hardt said on the rest of the text, he thought it had vastly improved since last time they saw it and he appreciated all Mr. Combs' work. Mr. Hardt referred to Use Specific Standards, Item 8, Motor Vehicle Repair, Vehicles may not be stored for more than 30 days, and said it sounded like there could not be vehicles on the site for more than 30 days, and he said it should read 'any one vehicle cannot be on -site for more than 30 days.' He referred to the same section, Item 12 - Dwellings - Single Family Dwellings, 'Only residential uses existing as of the effective date of this ordinance are permitted. Once removed, no further uses shall be permitted.' He said that sounded like once you took the single - family home away, you cannot do anything else with the site and he said it should read 'no more residential uses are permitted'. Mr. Hardt said regarding the identical versus similar materials for accessory structures, he suggested the words 'identical materials and similar style' be used. He explained an accessory building should incorporate the same brick as the principal building. He clarified a dumpster enclosure did not need to have windows just because the building had them. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. Mr. Combs said the remaining issue was the discussion of the corrugated metal versus the metal panels. He said Planning had discussed it and did not have a preference. Mr. Hardt referred to the graphic showing a continuum of an affordable building versus a high - end office building. He said he thought corrugated metal panels were indicative of pre - engineered metals buildings that should continue to be permitted on existing buildings and used for those building expansions, but new buildings should not be permitted to use it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had seen some attractive metal buildings. Mr. Hardt said the use of an architectural metal panel was the finish was different and it is not an industrial finish, but an architectural finish with sheen to it and a color range that provides a greater number of options. He said the fastening system is concealed and the joint pattern is specific in design, rather than accidental. He said in the meeting packet, the Fiat case included a good architectural example, even though it was not part of their review. He said the building is very simple, straightforward, and affordable. He said someone had clearly paid attention to how the joints in that material aligned with the edges of the windows and the pattern of the window aligned. He said those panels where architectural metal panels that had been designed, which he thought was different that the corrugated engineered. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the Commission was being asked to vote on this tonight. Dana McDaniel asked if the Commission wanted to see the changes before voting. Ms. Kramb said the Commissioners had seen the revised version indicated in red and they could vote accepting the red version. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 7, 2011 - Minutes Page 4 of 4 Mr. McDaniel said he appreciated everyone's effort on the Code and the Commission's understanding of vision for the area, particularly as it relates to the uses. He thanked especially, Mr. Hardt for the proposed architecture language and also from preventing the City from hurting ourselves by trying to be too prescriptive. Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this amendment, as modified to establish a new Technology Flex District by adding Section 153.044 to the Dublin Zoning Code. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. 10 -0742 Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning CITY OF DUBLIN. lw a. aer Lar Mw+w 5800 Shlx -Rings Rood Dubin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ iDD:614- 410 -4M Fax: 614 - 410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MARCH 3, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Code Amendment — Technology Flex District 10- 064ADM Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District to replace the RI, Restricted Industrial District and LI, Limited Industrial District. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of approval of amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.534. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4669, ccombs @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Code Amendment to give Planning additional time to refine definitions based on input from the Commission and to modify architectural standards to ensure that they achieve the quality of the images presented. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Code Amendment was tabled. STAFF TIFIC TION , Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 20 Ms. Hu said that a public eting regarding Parki in the Historic Di 6:30 .m. on Tuesday, Marc 5, 2011. dEninistrative Busin s Ms. Amorose briefl xplained the rules an rocedures of the C/ission. the cases would b eard in the order of published agenda. Code Amendment — Technology Flex District 10- 064ADM Itj11 hP h_1A .+ She an Code Amendment Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Code Amendment for the Technology Flex District. Carson Combs presented this case. He said in October 2010, this was before the Commission for feedback regarding the updates to the Industrial Codes. He said the general goals Planning worked from were to make sure that Dublin's industrial districts are more in tune with what businesses are looking for, given the current economic situation. He said they were looking for a code that will provide for broader uses that still match the character of the district with more flexible standards that are more proactive for business needs. He said that Planning discussed this intent extensively in public meetings and looked at whether there are minimal architectural standards that might be employed with the new district. Mr. Combs presented an overview map showing the current industrial properties in the RI, Restricted Industrial and LI, Limited Industrial categories, most of which are located along Shier -Rings Road. However, he said there are other pockets around the City. He said that they are trying to align a lot of Dublin's zoning with the larger concepts for the Central Ohio Innovation Corridor (COIC). Mr. Combs explained a graphic with a pyramid that presented provided a sense of the overall development approval timeline. He said that they were trying to provide for different levels of speed in terms of the development process. He said on the base of the pyramid is the Planned Development District (PUD), which is the primary development process that was used for projects within Dublin's perimeter service area and the Emerald Office Zone along I -270. Mr. Combs said two standard districts are in the middle of the pyramid, the OLR, Office, Laboratory, and Research District primarily in the Blazer Research District and the TF, Technology Flex in the Shier -Rings Flex District. Mr. Combs explained that at the top of the pyramid, the Innovation District or Economic Advancement Zone (EAZ) is the portion of the City that City Council has targeted for the Administrative Approval for the quick -to -build type of development. Mr. Combs said in the Shier -Rings Flex District, the focus is on flexible architecture, broader uses and the capability for small to medium sized businesses to change over time as needed, so that Dublin can retain businesses. He presented examples of smaller flex -type development and larger manufacturing and clean assembly in the City. Mr. Combs said the Emerald Office Zone is an area where they are striving primarily for office development because of its proximity to I- 270 and the Emerald Parkway Corridor. Mr. Combs said the EAZ will be focused on quick -to- build development on the western periphery of the City. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 —Minutes Page 3 of 20 Mr. Combs explained that this proposed Code is the first step of the project to update the Industrial Districts and the Commission will look at the Technology Flex Code tonight. He said once the Code is implemented, Planning will return with a series of area rezonings. He said the first will be the Technology Flex area rezoning which will focus on the areas indicated in dark purple on the map, aligning the Shier -Rings Corridor with the COIC concept. He said the second area rezoning will be the Emerald Office rezoning identified in pink along Emerald Parkway which is those where the Suburban Office and Institutional District will be requested to align those properties with that particular portion of the corridor. Mr. Combs said the properties shown in green were City -owned that will be rolled into the Coffman Park Planned District. Mr. Combs said the three component process laid out for City Council to approve the Technology Flex District is the Code, the area rezoning to the Tech Flex District, and the Emerald Office area rezonings which will come in sequence over the next few months. Mr. Combs said that from the last time the Commission reviewed this Code Amendment, there was a series of public meetings where a lot of input was received that provided insights as to what the business owners are thinking. Mr. Combs said the Administrative Guide previously seen by the Commission has been revised as requested and simplified definitions have been added to the definition section of the Code. He said based on the work with Bridge Street, a full definition section is being implemented within the Code, so Planning is trying to accommodate and match the formatting and process used for that so that they are consistent in the list of uses for the Code. John Hardt asked if the definitions before the Commission and those being generated for the Bridge Street Corridor would end up in the same Code section. Mr. Combs said that Code Section 153.002 — Definitions would be broken into general terms and then a specific use section with the land uses noted in the Code that require definitions will be in that section. Mr. Combs said based on previous Commission discussion and much of the public input obtained, there is a list of seven different definitions, which for various reasons, have been pulled from the district, just because of the overall character they were trying to achieve. He said they also looked in the Use Definition section, at the question, what is the difference between Office and Flex versus Industrial. He said a graphic in the Definition section will help explain where those differences are. He said in terms of office, Delta Energy would be a good example of where there is basically a building designated towards office uses, it may have some small storage components, but in general those spaces are being used to help facilitate the operation of the office. He said the Office Flex category; they are particularly looking for application in the Tech Flex as well as the EAZ, a combination of uses within the building. He said that this use has flexible architecture, at least 30 percent office, but the remaining 70 percent can be any combination of warehouse, research, laboratory space, and other things as well, based on the Use Table. He said that allows those companies to switch spaces around and be as flexible as possible as they are developing products and changing the way they do production. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 —Minutes Page 4 of 20 Mr. Combs said the last category in the Code will be Manufacturing Assembly and the Wholesaling and Warehousing, the more traditional type of use. He said they are also looking at it in terms of difference of architecture and scale. Mr. Combs said only two changes were made in addition to the Use section. He said Single Family and Retail was added to address some of the existing non - conformities that Dublin has. He said they are trying to make sure that things are being made as conforming as possible. He said the Corporate Accessory Residence changed to a Permitted Use instead of a Conditional Use, which is something they would like encouraged but do not expect much of that. He said the Midwestern Auto Group (MAG) was the only example that might have a component of that. Mr. Combs referred to the Additional Use Standards in paragraph C and said the section provides more limitation on what those particular uses in the table can do. He said the Office Flex specifies the 30 percent gross floor area for office is required, allowing up to 70 percent of other uses. He said as part of that 70 percent, associated retail is allowed up to 10 percent of the gross floor area so that the front office area can showcase the products to clients. He said it was kind of a quasi - retail area, but they were not limiting that for businesses. Mr. Combs referred to Major Motor Vehicle Repair and said a good example of it along the Shier -Rings Corridor would be the existing body shop adjacent to the 5800 Building. He said one limitation in the current Code that is included here is to limit the outdoor storage of parts and vehicles to 30 days, screened per Code. Mr. Combs said that Manufacturing and Wholesaling provides the ability to showcase products, up to 10 percent of the gross floor area. Mr. Combs said regarding Lot Coverage, it is still maintained as 70 percent as in the existing Code. He said some businesses requested that the Lot Coverage be increased to 75 percent. Mr. Combs said regarding Building Height, at the last Commission meeting, they discussed 45 feet based on the height of Hidaka. He said however, after further discussion with the Commissioners and business owners, it would be left as it is in the current Code, based on the setbacks and other site requirements which will give flexibility if they do have a component of their warehouse or something that would need to be higher. Mr. Combs said at the last Commission discussion of this proposed Code, a density cap was suggested based on the Community Plan. He said after discussion with some of the business owners and having a mix of office versus industrial, that triggers different density levels which creates some inequity. He said based on that, they were considering removing that from this proposal, however all the sites would be limited by all the site requirements. Mr. Combs said in the current RI and LI Districts, there are difficult sliding formulas used. He said at the last Commission discussion, it was suggested that the setbacks be considered three dimensionally. He said after discussing it with the business owners, the setbacks have been modified as shown on the graph provided. He explained that traditionally, the way setbacks have been measured was that if a parcel had multiple buildings, the largest building that would 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011— Minutes Page 5 of 20 provide the greatest setback would be the required setback line. He said based on the discussion, they are now looking in at the individual structure, so based on the height of each individual building, the setback would be determined. He said if an existing building had a height that would require a 25 -foot setback and they wanted to add on a smaller addition that was lower in height, they could actually potentially meet a 15 -foot setback to be able to do that as long as all the lot coverage and other requirements are met. Mr. Combs said that gave added flexibility, but it still kept things in scale with the adjacent properties. He said in terms of the setback adjacent to residential, it is proposed to be kept at 25 feet which is the current setback for the RI District. He said given that they are primarily looking along Shier -Rings Road, almost all those properties are RI, so they are trying to keep the standards at least the same or more flexible so as not to create a lot of non - conformity. Mr. Combs said pavement setbacks have not been changed since the Commission last saw the proposed Code Amendment, a five -foot side yard and a ten -foot rear yard setback. He said adjacent to residential uses, it would be 25 feet. Mr. Combs said an allowance for shared access is included in the proposed Code which is typical. He said however, they would like to clarify that in the Code to include services areas because Planning is seeing from developers a lot of industrial development where they actually share the loading dock or service space so that they can be hidden in between buildings. He said that would help in screening, and Planning would like to add that to the Code as it moves to City Council. Mr. Combs said the outdoor requirements were generally the same as the current Code. He said the one addition made was the fourth paragraph where language from the RI Code was added to address the screening of service structures. He said language from the RI and LI Code was pulled into that. Mr. Combs said the last major section which was new since the last time the Commission discussed architecture in October was derived from input from business owners who attended the meetings. He said they were trying to find something that would provide a baseline, but given the overall scale of architecture from industrial to premium office, trying to make sure that they come up with some minimum of standards that will give us better appearance, but still not be cost prohibitive. He said first in the General Requirements, they are looking to have those regulations apply just to new construction. He said they were encouraging that an addition to an existing building should have flexibility so that business owners can match their current building, so that there is consistency. Mr. Combs said in the General Requirements, Planning wants to make sure that the facades that face public streets or residential properties have some element of visual relief and components on the building that are proportional to the size of the building. Mr. Combs said regarding Materials and Colors, the Code is trying to provide for a broad mix. He said one not in the current Code that was pointed out by some of the business owners was the potential for allowing EFIS as a primary material. He suggested that it be discussed at this meeting. He said they were trying to be as broad as possible in terms of colors, as long as the colors were muted and blend in and they have been widened to include white, off - white, and neutrals which can include anything from white -to- gray -to black, and then earth tones, which in 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 20 general can be all sorts of browns, oranges, or reds, as long as they are very muted and earthy type of tone. He said that gives a lot of flexibility, also allowing for some brighter accent colors as requested by the Commission for trim, detailing, or entry features to help enliven or enhance the overall appearance of the buildings. Mr. Combs said if the roof is pitched, it is proposed to have a minimum 12 -inch overhang and encouraging steeper roofs, allowing for that flexibility, based on the internal needs and the type of structure. He said flat roofs, typical to the current Code, incorporating parapets or screening for rooftop mechanicals. He said they would like to see some kind of decorative trim or cap on flat roofs to set off the top of the building. He said there are a number of examples in Dublin where that has been done on top of the buildings to provide a little depth. Mr. Combs said other key elements of this proposed Code Amendment include making sure those accessory structures use either similar materials, styles, quality, or appearance as is being used on the principle structure for consistency. He said looking at the ability to also be able to upgrade the exterior of the building without having to bring the full site into compliance for landscaping. He presented a photograph of an example of an older building built a long time ago that did not have the landscaping required by Code currently, but they may in the future want to upgrade the architecture, the exterior colors, and materials of the building. Mr. Combs said currently, if they do more than 25 percent of the outside of the building, they are required to bring the full site into compliance, and at that point it becomes so cost prohibitive that they are not willing to put investment into the buildings. He said that they want to ensure that some of Dublin's older buildings are actually able to be maintained and leasable. Mr. Combs said in terms of Alternative Energy, Planning receives more inquiries about it every day. He said they are looking to permit wall - mounted and roof - mounted solar, as well as ground- mounted solar, as long as those are being located according to the required setbacks on the property so that there is enough screening. He said if they have visible brackets, that they be screened around the side and back in some manner. Mr. Combs said wind turbines in commercial has been considered and given the Technology Flex where it would be applied, they do not think that large commercial turbines like on Sawmill Road are appropriate, but they may have instances where businesses might want a residential type of unit. Mr. Combs said that they are proposing that they are permitted as well, as long as they are placed with appropriate side and rear yard setbacks. He said any kind of alternative design methods are encouraged. He said examples that would be encouraged would be bio retention rain gardens, rooftop gardens, and alternative stormwater designs. Mr. Combs concluded his presentation and said given the proposed Code and the considerations in it, Planning thinks this is something that is going to be much more beneficial to the businesses in the Corridor, still maintaining the character and quality that Dublin is looking for, but make the City more marketable in terms of the regional economy. He said Planning recommends approval of this proposed Code amendment. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public continent from those wishing to speak in regards to this proposed Code Amendment. [There was no one.] 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 —Minutes Page 7 of 20 Amy Kramb said the concept was great and she understood the intent, but she did not think it was reflected in the Code. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the numbering of the proposed Code because they did not reference the right things. She said for example, the District in their packet is Section 153.037, and she noticed in the presentation slides that it was called Section 155.004. Ms. Kramb said she understood why Planning wanted to place the definitions altogether, then, they will apply to all the other current Code sections and they use different terms. She said for example, in the Suburban Office and Industrial District, under Permitted Uses, it talks about something called Fitness and Recreational Sport Centers, Physical Fitness Centers, Gyms and we are adding a new definition for Recreation, Health and Fitness Facilities. She suggested that if these uses only apply and they are being defined for this Tech Flex District, that these definitions in this section clarify that, She said otherwise, they all those other sections need changed, because of multiple titles in different places. She said they need to have one set of uses. Steve Langworthy said that the same idea was discussed with the Bridge Street Corridor definitions. He said they probably will do as Ms. Kramb suggested. Kevin Walter confirmed that what Mr. Langworthy was saying was that the definitions in this section would remain and when the definitions for other sections are complete, that there could be a project to coordinate and move all the definitions into a general section. Ms. Kramb said regarding the new uses being termed, she preferred commas not be used to delineate for example — Municipal Facilities, General. She suggested a hyphen or parentheses be used as with other uses such as, Transit, Stops and Shelters. Ms. Kramb pointed out that on the illustration graphic including Office, Office Flex that those definitions again did not match the definitions provided, and they needed to be exactly the same. She referred to page 6 and said she did not think that was a good location for the small diagram. Ms. Kramb said the Dublin Zoning Code and Supplemental Administrative Guide was mentioned on page 12, under B. She said the Commission had not seen it and could not comment on it. Mr. Combs explained that it would now reference Code Section 153.002. Ms. Kramb reiterated that the definitions should look and read the same. She said that they some have full sentences and others have combinations of fragments. She said a use is a verb so they all should be verbs. Ms. Kramb suggested the definitions should use the same kind of pattern. She said she thought the definitions should be numbered instead of putting them in all the paragraphs because it was harder to reference. She said she thought each definition should be numbered, and underneath could be A, B, and C, like bullet points or the fragments could be stuck together as long as they are readable so the intent or meaning of what you are trying to say is lost. Ms. Kramb suggested Animal Care Facilities, General Services- General Animal Care Facilities be reworded, "It is a business that operates between normal business hours, providing household 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011— Minutes Page 8 of 20 pets' basic services such as grooming and daycare." She said page 15, Number 14, The use shall be limited to no more than ten percent, could be simplified by saying `The use shall not exceed ten percent.' She suggested on page 15, Number 13, It shall be located no less than SO feet away, could be simplified by saying `must be at least 50 feet away." Ms. Kramb suggested some of the wordiness should be eliminated and things should be shortened to make it more clear and not lose the intent. Richard Taylor said the definitions do not say what they wanted them to say. He said it seemed like they were trying to make them into sentences and readable like a book. He said Code should be really boring, factual, and direct. He said that he did not think it appropriate to use the term that was being defined in the definition itself. Mr. Taylor pointed out that different terms were used to describe building which included building, facility, establishment, business, premises, locations, and residences. He said if they are talking about buildings, they should be very specific. He said the current definition, Above ground pool — Any confined body of water, is what it should read instead of Above ground pool — A pool in which ... He reiterated that the term needed to be taken out of the definition for the term. He suggested that very quick bullet points be used. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed. She said then it would read more like a dictionary. Mr. Taylor referred to Industrial Services — Businesses providing repair or service industrial business or consumer machinery, and suggested that if that included lawn mower or computer repair, they were very different kinds of businesses. Mr. Taylor asked why Manufacturing and Assembly on page 3 was changed. Mr. Taylor referred to Municipal Facilities, where in all three categories, municipal facilities and government buildings were included. He said because municipal implied government, he did not think government needed to be repeated. He referred to Municipal Facilities — Safety and said if township facilities were under their jurisdiction, but they were not municipal facilities. He suggested that it needed to be addressed. Mr. Taylor said that the graphic on page 6 added a layer of confusion because it included definitions that do not exactly match what is defined earlier in the Code and it provided two interpretations of the same thing. Mr. Taylor suggested Hair Salons, Nail Salons instead of read Personal Services... worn or carried about the person or a physical component of the person. He referred to page 8 — Transient Park NRides, and found the definition confusing and too wordy: Mr. Taylor said in all the categories with `Energy' in it, and he used Utilities Alternative Energy Facility as an example. He said there are non - traditional ways of generating energy. He suggested it say, Commercial scale operations for the generation of energy by non - traditional means, such as solar or wind. Mr. Taylor referred to page 15, Number 10, Parking Structure where Section 153.220 was referenced, and suggested it should be Section 153.200. Mr. Combs said he would check. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 20 Kevin Walter questioned why some uses are allowed over other uses and some uses have changed. He referred to the Use Table on page 12, and pointed out that Corporate Accessory Residences changed from a Conditional to a Permitted Use. He asked what the rationale for the change was. Mr. Combs explained that if there is an office or flex building it can constantly change internally. He said change would be inside an existing structure and it could not be seen if it was different from anything else happening inside, and there really are no off site impacts other than the provision of onsite parking. Mr. Walter said there may be some external uses for a corporate accessory residence that may have impact to adjacent properties and he was not sure that all of them will be as well done as the MAG one is where most of Dublin will not know it is there, but he could see a tech flex space being converted to a corporate residence internal that maybe has a single story, has a basketball hoop, their camper is stored there, and cars are parked there. He said whether that was appropriate or not, he thought it should remain as a conditional use, so those things can be reviewed. He asked to hear the other Commissioners' comments regarding it. Mr. Walter said regarding the elimination of the outdoor retail displays, he recalled a discussion about outdoor play equipment businesses. He said he was okay with maintaining that as a conditional use, but he wanted to hear feedback from the other Commissioners. Mr. Walter said he thought Major Motor Vehicle Repair should stay as a conditional use. He said there is too much potential in that kind of business to do things that would be impactable to neighboring properties if it was not a conditional use. He said depending on the business, a variety of criteria could be added as conditions to the use and the Commission should have the ability to continue to do that. Mr. Walter referred to page 18, Architecture, F) 1. Applicability — Architectural requirements as specified by this section shall apply to all new construction, unless determined to the satisfaction of the Director that the requirements would conflict with the architectural design or the interior functions of the business operation. He said he did not find that as an acceptable way to determine whether the architecture standard should be applied to the building. He said that provides future directors the opportunity for too much discretion for that to apply to architectural standards. Mr. Walter said he would like to see an elimination of that. Mr. Walter asked that Mr. Comb comment further about density. Mr. Combs referred to page 16, (D)(1)(c) Development Intensity. He said last time the Commission reviewed the Code, the language made reference to having a density cap in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. He said if it was an office or industrial use, depending where it was on the map, that the Land Use Map would set the density. He said when they talked to business owners, they felt giving the flexibility of uses in this district, how that would be applied industrial versus an office use created some inequities, not knowing where you might have office versus industrial. Mr. Combs explained that because of that and because we do have all the other site development requirements that would limit the intensity of 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 20 development, that section was stricken. He said as well, the Land Use Map can change over time, which also creates some inconsistency. He said limitations would be all the setback requirements, parking requirements and all the other development standards that would apply. Mr. Walter said he agreed with Mr. Combs. Mr. Walter asked about the setback to the residential property being retained at 25 feet. Mr. Combs said it was as currently shown in the RI Code because most of the area that will be rezoned to the Tech Flex District. He said they did not want to make a lot of properties non - conforming. Mr. Walter asked how many existing properties that would be covered in the Tech Flex District could potentially be adjacent to residential properties. Mr. Combs said examples were provided in the packets. He said primarily, it was a southern line between the industrial properties and the area of Heather Glen. He said it might be upwards of ten to twelve properties. He said one of the original goals of the Code Update was to make sure that they are not creating more limitations. He said if nothing else, they are keeping it the same as it is. Mr. Walter said he would like to recognize the desire to not to make properties non - conforming and to do the same thing that was done with the others, which is to say properties that were developed or that had an occupancy permit as of the date of this Code be permitted. He said however, he thought there should be some relief on those properties that are abutting residential properties and move the setback line off the residential property a little. John Hardt said he understood and supported what they were trying to do. He said it was great for businesses. He said he agreed with the comments previously made in terms of the wording and potential for misinterpretation. Mr. Hardt referred to page 3, Manufacturing and Assembly. He said there was language in the old definition about dust, fumes, and odor which was an important component that should be maintained. Mr. Hardt referred to pages 5 and 7. He compared the definitions of Office Flex and Research and Development and said the distinction between them is potentially quite blurred, maybe conflicting and unclear. He said if 30 percent of a building was occupied by people sitting at desks with computers doing payroll and out doing business functions, and the rest of the building was occupied by a research.lab, he did not know if it was an office flex building or a research building. He said the two definitions seemed to overlap or conflict. Mr. Hardt said on page 6, he agreed with the earlier Commissioner comments about the table and the examples. He said the photographs were very problematic because they imply that the type or style of building is somehow inherently relevant in the definition of the uses. He did not think that was their intent. Mr. Hardt referred to Utilities and Electric Substations. He said electric substations tend not to involve generation, and it seemed that electric should be removed. He said electrical generation 100YI Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 —Minutes Page 11 of 20 stations are entirely different than what they are talking about in this District. He said also in this definition, switch stations for backup power, are something that often exists in or on or next to large commercial properties, should be stricken because it exists all over the place and is not part of an electrical substation. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Mr. Walter's comments regarding the table on page 12 and 13 and Major Vehicle Repair. He said not only are mangled vehicles, but the potential for spray booths and odors and that kind of equipment involved, and that it should remain as a conditional use. Mr. Hardt referred to pages 14 and 15 Veterinary Offices. He recalled that the requirements for Veterinary Offices and requirements for Animal Care Facilities and Veterinary Hospitals used to be different, and now they are the same. He said they have been changed to 500 feet, 50 feet from the property line, and currently 7 am to 9 pm in both cases and he was not sure why they were distinguishing between the two uses. Mr. Combs explained that at the last meeting it was shown differently, and a request was made to make both of them the larger buffer of the two. Mr. Hardt said if the requirements, setbacks, and everything else for both are the same he did not know why they were being defined differently. He suggested they be one category. Mr. Combs explained that the definitions were being looked at in terms of a broader application as well, so while grooming, pet sitting, pet daycare, and those kinds of things may seem the same in this particular district, it may be something that they would find inappropriate or appropriate in other districts. He said they want to make sure they have the flexibility for that. Mr. Hardt referred to page 17, Setbacks. He asked if in Mr. Combs' presentation he showed a slide or something that said there was a potential for a setback as small as five feet. Mr. Combs said that was regarding pavement. Mr. Hardt confirmed that the smallest building setback anywhere would be 15 feet as proposed. He pointed out that generally, in the Building Code when within 20 feet or so or sometimes within 30 feet of a property line, the fire ratings come into play on the sides of buildings to protect them from adjacent buildings. He said they have a potential where a building starts to get 15 feet away from the property line, they probably will end up with a windowless fagade. He said that he did not think that was what they wanted, but they might potentially get it. Mr. Taylor asked if Mr. Hardt interpreted the chart on page 17 that Greater than 35 feet, as long as it was 50 feet back, as allowing unlimited height, and is that something they wanted. Mr. Hardt said taken by itself that was the way he would interpret it. He asked if there was provision in the Code that would put an ultimate cap on things. Mr. Combs said based on the Commission's last discussion, there was a lot of talk about what if there was a lot of specialized equipment with extra high lifts that might go beyond 45 or 50 feet. He said because of that and not knowing what that might be it was left open- ended. He said if 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 —Minutes Page 12 of 20 there is specific industrial equipment that might have components that are higher, or if higher base ceilings are needed. He said in the case of office, you are getting into multiple floors that deal with parking and the setbacks to limit the overall mass of the building. Mr. Taylor said his concern was because on the chart, if you had a building that stepped back, then a 50 -foot building might not look too bad, but it could be only at 50 feet, so they could have a 50 -foot or 100 -foot tall wall that was set back 50 feet. He asked if the height of buildings were limited elsewhere in the Code. Mr. Combs said in the Residential Code, the height is limited to 35 feet. He said that was why at the last meeting, they proposed 45 feet because it was based off Hidaka, which is the tallest existing use in that particular district. Mr. Taylor suggested they think more about it so that they do not have situations where they can have a tower that is not a building. Mr. Walter said this might be one that they would not necessarily want to conditional use, but one that the Administrative Officer could use judgment. Mr. Hardt suggested a threshold of above a certain generous height be used and above that height, it be considered as a conditional use. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested 70 feet or above. Mr. Walter said the reason he was saying not a conditional use is to respect what they are trying to do with the Code, and provide some sort kind of secondary approval, and an Administrative Approval probably would be okay because if they looked at a 300 -foot tower, they would probably say that was not what we want. Mr. Taylor said it would be more likely that if the requirements of the internal use of the building required a 70 -foot tall building, then that might be something a check in the box for `Yes' could be used. He said if that was an architectural bit on the building that was obviously there just to draw attention to the building, in that instance they would say there was no really good reason for that. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if a communication tower or device located on top of a building counted towards the building height. Mr. Combs explained that it would be regulated under Chapter 99 — Wireless Communication. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if it was a water tower. She said she was trying to maintain the intent of what they were trying to do, but provide some protection for dealing with weird things. Mr. Walter said a 200 -foot tower could easily be built with a top opening with communication towers at the top. He said they needed to cover that in some way. Mr. Combs said looking at the Shier -Rings Corridor, they are really looking more to the small to medium sized flexible space. He said if they were getting more of the intensive use that might go to 70 feet in height, they probably want them to be farther west into the EAZ where they are more proximate to the rail line where manufacturing and larger scale assembly is more 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011— Minutes Page 13 of 20 appropriate. He said looking at the existing properties in the district, Hidaka is the biggest example and he did not think they wanted to see anything larger. He said the patterns of undeveloped properties are small overall, so there is not the capacity to do something the size of Hidaka. Mr. Walter referred to the picture provided of Irelan Place which had a 30 -foot setback. He said if moved 20 feet from the road and 20 feet the other way, there was a spot for a huge tower. He said they cannot predict what may happen and so specificity is needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that parcels are often assembled into one. She said it would be very short sided of the Commission to be ill prepared to deal with that. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested it be subject to a review of some sort if it was over 100 feet. Mr. Hardt referred to page 17. He suggested that the stricken section, ...facades greater than 100 feet in length, possibly increasing the setback... remain, and `continuous' be added. A setback of 75 feet is required for principle structures where a continuous building fagade greater than 100 feet. He said that was a large facade and some kind of relief ought to be encouraged. Mr. Taylor agreed that probably the intent was to prevent a continuous one, but if it was broken up and variegated, it was more appropriate. Mr. Hardt said his biggest concern was in the Architecture section of the proposed Code. He said the images provided are fantastic with examples of high bay, efficient, affordable buildings that look great. He said there was nothing in the proposed Code that told them that was what they would get. Mr. Hardt said he was not in favor of a prescriptive approach and he did not think they should try to regulate architecture, but he thought they should make an attempt to describe the quality of architecture that is expected. Mr. Hardt said there was nothing included that prevented someone from building a metal or a brick box. He said the proposed Code was devoid of any details. He said he knew these buildings were different than those in other areas in Dublin, and they are not after faux residential architecture, but the Commission is looking for quality buildings. He said the Code should describe what we want. Mr. Hardt commented about Materials on page 19 under 3) a). He said metal was listed, and although he had no problem with it, but there were different kinds of metal. He suggested it say `architectural metal panels," because the panels have designed and regular joints with a finish that protects against fading, chipping, and rusting. Mr. Hardt suggested Decorative Block be changed to Decorative Masonry, which could be any number of masonry products. Mr. Hardt referred to paragraph B, Building trim or detailing may use brighter accent colors. He said the word `brighter' should be stricken. He referred to paragraph 4)B) where it talked about four -inch overhangs. He said he preferred more descriptive language that describes the quality of architecture they are after and avoid the descriptive paragraph. He said it was the only thing in the entire Code that said a building must have this detail and it seemed out of place. He said it was also a residential - centric requirement which would not apply to most of these buildings. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that most of the buildings shown did not have overhang treatments. 10 -0742 Zoning Map Amendment COIC 'Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 14 of 20 Mr. Walter asked if the Architectural section and the attempt to describe it was based upon the types of building preferred by the Commission. Mr. Combs explained that it was based on the Commission discussion in October and meetings with property owners. He said what is seen is a distillation of the things that were commonly seen as okay or not significantly impacting them. Mr. Hardt said there was nothing in this proposed Code that would prevent a pre - manufactured metal building, as long as it had a 12 -inch overhang, it met the height and width requirements, and had a trim piece around the top. He said he understood there were existing buildings which they wanted them to be able to add onto in a way consistent with the existing building. He said he wanted to ensure undeveloped sites are developed or redeveloped in a significant way. He said the images provided show the intent. Mr. Taylor said good architecture is extremely hard to codify, however he recalled the Commission identifying the desire for the front of a larger manufacturing facility to contain an office or entrance with a much higher level of architecture than the rear of the building. Mr. Hardt reiterated that there could be an intent statement included in the proposed Code. He recalled the Commission discussed the Administrative Guide as an appropriate location for some examples, therefore he was comfortable with it because he knew there would be a document to reference. He said if that had gone away, he did not think this proposed code would get the wanted results. Todd Zimmerman referred to page 16, Number 15 — Corporate Accessory Residences. He said he had friends that used freestanding corporate residences near their office complexes. He said he did not want to preclude detached corporate housing. Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized the Commissioner's comments and concerns regarding grammar and clarity issues, expectation of the quality, and consistency of the text. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Commission will continue to think critically about the proposed Code language to ensure the best outcome. She said she appreciated the work done on this and she did not want to belittle that in any way. She said if they are to achieve their end of having a `speed to build' process, the Commission needs to ensure it is appropriately designed. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what more can the Commission do to help. Mr. Combs said a lot of good feedback was received that will allow them to go back and take another look at the proposed Code. He said given the number of Commission comments made he requested a tabling so they would have time to address the issues and get it into a polished form. Motion and Vote Mr. Fishman made the motion to table this Code Amendment to give Planning additional time to refine definitions based on input from the Commission and to modify the architectural standards to ensure they achieve the quality of the images presented. Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2011— Minutes Page 15 of 20 Mr. Walter seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; and 'Mr. Fishman, yes. (Tabled 7 - 0.) 2. COIC E nOmZ t Z e (EAZ) Plan Informal Discuss" n 11 -U1 DM Are fanning & Impleme lion Ms. orose Groothis informal cussion regarding Economic Ad cement Zone Plfuture character f planning elements w' to the general ea of Shier Rings Roost Road to e north, US 33 and Av Road to the east, and Houchard Road to Carson Combs plained that previously, a Commission discu ss the Shier -Rings area of e Central Ohio nnovation Corridor and w, they were looking a e western end. He sai hen the Com ssion first heard about t COIC and reviewed th ode associated with it a focus was o the particular area that eluded the particle the y development. He s " since that ti , they were starting to mote the whole I -270 'US 33 Corridor as a ger marketing ,pfcce based on the analy and input received fro consultants who have each these types of developments arou the country. He said y had looked at differe areas and how they might break out ba d on the type of the dev opment that we might s , the types of codes tha would be appli how Dublin can mar individual portions of a City to address busi s ; needs, whet it is a larger type of o cc development with tage onto I -270, or so ing hat need o be quickly built based research funding. Mr ombs said previous w focused on the interc ge area which has also een called the ublin Innovation Park.' He said a large com en t of that was the a lishment of the successful Dublin E epreneurial Center wh' has received award om the Economic Development Coun " over the past two years a said looking at the o rall structure, they wer really looking the piece of the puzzl here a business can ally come in quickly et approval an egin construction. He xplained they were no ooking to change the iew structure, t to base the plan and gulations on the idea of nick to build. He said 'ven this object' and the economic ch , it was decided to take other look at the 1,150 res. r. Combs said some of a work has been done n the interchange, Lig t Road has been realigned, some of In strial Parkway has bee realigned, and some o e upgrades of Post Road have been do . He said City Counc' as dedicated funding d time in infrastructu improvements s as 2M gallon water at Darree Fields. a said the purpose of e upgrade of t tank was to complete t water system there and also allow the Post Ro tank to be rem ed along SR 161 becaus of the prime use of that d for future developm Mr. ombs explained the Co ission would see mul ' 1e components of this oject over the xt few months. He sai a first is to review adopt a plan for the 1, 0 acres. He said when the Community P was done, they really oked at a very macro 1 el and now, they are trying to look at tha n more detail in terms a road network and a e infrastructure piece to figure out how a actually want to pro and set priorities for redevelopment. He id in addition, t Code will need to be ated to reflect the ch es to the plan. He sai hen 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION CITY OF DUBIJN- OCTOBER 21, 2010 Umd %%& cod tow •aw• "-d"9 5800 gierfirngs Road Dubim Ohio 4"!016 -1236 Phone/ MD: 614-41G4600 Foic 61 44 104747 Web Ste: wwwAubfirwhan Creating a Legacy The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting. 1. Code Amendment — Industrial District Modifications 10- 064ADM Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District to replace the RI, Restricted Industrial District and LI, Limited Industrial District. Request: Review and feedback regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.534. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, Interim City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4669, ccombs @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Code Amendment. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This draft Code Amendment was tabled after discussion. The Commissioners requested that the proposed zoning district be amended as discussed. Based upon comments from the Commission, Planning will proceed with stakeholder meetings to obtain public input prior to final review and recommendation from the Commission. STAFF E TIFICA3'ION c . Carson Combs, AICP. ASLA Senior Planner 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dub_ lin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 2 of 18 Ms. " explained that t three prioritized fife from the list will be ed over to the ne y .She said that the C C consists of John R er, Cathy Boring an y salay. Mr. Walter asked y there were no C recommendations r the Commission's ' t when they had done so or the other Boards Commissions. Ms. H explained that PI "g g was not aware t CDC took up the t is at their last meetin She said the coma person in the City anager' s office hea d' g up the lists had mov to a different dep nt. As a result, mat als were not made a tlable to the CDC fo ce tderation. She said t Commission should ear back in early 201 . Ms. Husak also raced that she will on leave through Ma , and Jennifer Rauc will be assuming the Co fission liaison respo ibilities until then. Richard TO" suggested the Co mission should beg planning a date for a annual staff luncheo Ms. Amorose Groo asked that Mr. Tay r poll the Commissia 'available dates and . Lannworthv coordi c plans. 1. Code Amendment — Industrial District Modifications 10- 064ADM Code Amendment Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application for informal review and feedback regarding proposed amendments to the Dublin Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. 153.044(A) Purpose Carson Combs said a brief overview of the amendment was provided at the last meeting to explain the intent for updates to the industrial districts. He said the meeting packets include the current Li, Limited Industrial District and RI, Restricted Industrial District provisions, the Planning Report with a section -by- section review and a supplemental guide that describes some of the terminology used within the draft regulations. He said Planning is requesting general feedback that can be combined with public input at upcoming meetings to develop a final version of Code language for formal review in the future. Mr. Combs said the LI and RI Districts are standard zoning districts in the Code that are generally not reviewed by the Commission. He said property owners can directly submit for building permits to begin construction. He said the Commission has seen a number of conditional use requests in the past and the Board of Zoning Appeals has had to address many variances over the years. Mr. Combs said there are a number of goals associated with modernizing the Code. He said the proposed uses will be expanded to match more of what is seen, versus what was in the Code decades ago. He said the standards must also be more straightforward. Mr. Combs said requirements are now difficult to administer, given the formulas in the Code. He said providing some minimal acceptable architecture standards are being considered that would provide a baseline for new construction. Mr. Combs said uses in the current Code are more detailed, but focus on traditional manufacturing, wholesale and warehousing. He said for economic development purposes, a 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 3 of 18 greater focus is needed on office and laboratory uses. He said office has traditionally been acceptable adjacent to residences, so there should not be concern for its inclusion in industrial areas. He said flexible space is also becoming more important over time. 153.044 (B) District Uses & 153.044(C) Additional Use Regulations Mr. Combs said the proposed code includes a list of uses that look holistically at all potential uses to determine what would be appropriate within an industrial area Given that determination, further consideration is provided as to whether the use should be permitted or conditional or even have additional development requirements. He said the old Code refers to the Standard Industrial Code, which includes a general category; however, the way subcategories are selected in the Code seems somewhat random, making administration difficult. He summarized the proposed regulations would focus more on office, laboratory and flex space, as well as clarifying some of the service -type uses. Kevin Walter asked if there was guiding language that would explain the difference between Major and Minor Motor Vehicle Repair. He also asked how the Administrative Guide would be made available to the general public. Mr. Combs said the Supplemental Guide provides an explanation based on the intensity of the mechanical work that would be completed. He said battery stores or oil change shops where there is minimal repair would be considered as "minor" versus establishments like body shops. He noted the proposed categories were developed keeping in mind their application to other zoning districts in the future. He said the "minor" category would include lighter intensity. Mr. Combs said as the Code goes forward, a determination would be made as to what venues such as the City website would be made available for the Guide. Amy Kramb said she realized the intent of the proposed Code, but the Guide is not all - inclusive of some of the uses in the existing Code. She said as an example that the existing Code includes a section on Service industries (i.e. builders, contractors, plumbing, heating and air conditioning) that is now called Construction and Contract Service Trades. She questioned whether the Guide is an all- inclusive list or just a suggestion because many things are not in that list that she thought would be still acceptable. Mr. Combs said no matter how much detail is placed into a definition, uses will fall into a gray area He said the Guide is intended to be used by the Zoning Administrator to make a final determination as to what category a use will fall. Ms. Kramb said she thought the uses were okay, but she has issues with the Administrative Guide. She said the uses were extremely broad and would be very hard to enforce. Mr. Walter questioned whether the Guide was part of the Code, and Mr. Combs clarified that it is more of a separate handbook to help interpret. Mr. Walter referred to definitions like "Animal Care Facilities — Facilities providing for the indoor sale of household pets or pet related items greater than 25 percent of the gross floor area. " He asked if the definitions were administrative, could a future administrator say that the percentage could instead be 50? 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 4 of 18 Steve Langworthy clarified that both points made by Ms. Kramb and Mr. Walter occur today. He said there are continual interpretations in administering the Code. He said the definitions part of an administrative guide would allow for some degree of flexibility. He said if changes were needed, an ordinance amendment process would not be required every time. Ms. Kramb said she had problems with creating new terms such as "Office Flex" that are not defined in the Code. Mr. Langworthy said that kind of feedback is desired by Planning as the Code moves forward. Mr. Walter questioned the need for a new system when the federal government has developed the NAICS, which is very specific. He said businesses are required to report what they are, and the Code should reflect the classification system. He said the NAICS gives the opportunity to roll up a level and have the specificity, but does use general categories. Mr. Langworthy said Planning is trying hard to get away from that type of system because applying the former SIC has really hampered the City in the past. He said the uses are so specific that if one is forgotten, you need an ordinance to add it_ He said if the Code is that specific, you cannot deviate if a particular use is mentioned somewhere else in another district. Mr. Langworthy said the system should not be used in a Code because every single use must be listed. He also said you cannot refer to a system if not everyone has the document. He said if one desires uses in the 800 - series, every single one must be listed. He said Planning does not want a Code that requires going through 400 to 500 uses to determine which 300 should be listed in the document. Mr. Langworthy said using a general category can allow for some interpretation that will allow for new technologies and uses that come along that are not thought of now. Mr. Combs clarified the federal government created the system as a means to quantify industrial activity. He said while it's a very detailed system, it may not suit what is desired here in Dublin- He said with layers of specificity comes difficulty in trying to tailor everything to what is appropriate for the community. Ms. Kramb pointed out that other Code sections include definitions. She said adding definitions would make her more comfortable. She also noted "Wireless Communications" in the use table did not indicate the reference for the asterisk. She also noted that some wording appeared to be missing from the Office category. She said while she liked the use categories, she had a problem with not defining them in the Code, particularly those that are new. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that instead of defining the terms, something regarding the intent could be inserted. Ms. Kramb said some of the supplemental definitions need to be in the Code, but not necessarily for every common use and practice. Mr. Walter said it should either be specific or general, but the Guide includes a combination of both. Mr. Langworthy suggested the terms be more generalized, and Mr. Walter agreed- John Hardt said including specific numbers such as 25% within the Administrative Guide makes it feel more like a Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if he would rather see more general verbiage such as "not a majority of the business." Mr. Hardt suggested if specific numbers were necessary, it be placed in the Code. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 5 of 18 Ms. Kramb estimated the intent of the language was to be specific enough to prevent businesses from needing to come back every time a building is changed. She said the language should not be left completely general. Mr. Hardt noted the districts do not come to the Commission now for approval. Mr. Langworthy said to clarify that Ms. Kramb meant coming back to the Commission in terms of changes to the Code. He said that if the Code was very specific, if something was not covered in the language the regulations would need to be changed every time. Todd Zimmerman said the Commission was not talking about altering the square footage of the building. He said the discussion about uses impacts and what goes on in the interior of the building. He questioned how much the Commission wanted to control that aspect. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the exterior will be designed to suit what goes on inside the building, so the uses do affect more than just what goes on inside the building. Mr. Zimmerman asked whether a business would be required to come back to the Commission to request going from 70% to 72% in lot coverage. Mr. Langworthy explained that such issues are how Planning starts to divide between what is recommended as a permitted use versus conditional. He said permitted uses do not really have major external impacts, but conditional uses have a potential affect neighboring properties with traffic or other issues. He said higher levels of intensity would warrant extra scrutiny, as opposed to uses that one may pass by and not know what was necessarily happening inside. Warren Fishman said what is expected of the developer has been raised as a complaint in the past. He said it seems as though expectations have depended upon who is the administrator. Mr. Walter said the Guide should be descriptive and anything else with specificity should be in the Code. (Mr. Fishman agreed). Mr. Langworthy noted that specifics are noted in Paragraph C, "Additional Use Regulations." Ms. Kramb said all new terms and ones where specifics are needed should be added to the Code. Mr. Walter referred to the permitted use "Veterinary Urgent Care and Hospitals" and "Animal Care Facility- General Services." He recalled the Commission had previously discussed impacts on neighbors and suggested the use be listed as conditional. He asked for an explanation of "Outdoor Retail Displays." Mr. Combs said many industrial uses may have an accessory retail component as part of their front office. He said in some cases, an outdoor display area may be desired, depending upon the type of products being produced. He said Planning is trying to clarify those types of issues with the new use classifications. Mr. Combs said outdoor displays could have visual impact and should have some parameters. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it sounded like the furniture store on Cosgray Road and its outdoor gazebo display. She said uses like that should be conditional. She asked for clarification if the new construction at MAG was considered a "Corporate Accessory Residence." Mr. Combs 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 6 of 18 agreed and said Nestle in Marysville is another example where the facility has a couple of homes closely attached as a support use for travelling employees or other business guests. Richard Taylor said he concurred with the comments made by Ms. Kramb and Mr. Walter. Mr. Combs clarified for Mr. Zimmerman that "Animal Care Facilities" would be covered as a conditional use. Mr- Combs clarified that particular uses may need some additional limitations that are clearly proposed in the Code. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the proposed distances from residences for Animal Care Facilities and asked for clarification on the different buffers (350 feet versus 500 feet). He said he recalled prior discussions about urgent care hospitals and overnight boarding. He recalled a project in Muirfield where the dogs still needed to be walked and exercised. Ms. Kramb noted one had outdoor facilities and the other did not. Mr. Zimmerman said all three animal care categories should be the same at either 350 feet or 500 feet. He said he prefers 500 feet because of the potential noise. Mr. Walter asked about the implications of having specified buffers if the uses were changed to conditional status. He also noted hours of operation and said he had concern that putting limitations in the Code would make the conditional use review a moot point. Mr. Langworthy explained as a conditional use, the Commission would have the authority to modify the distances as part of their review. Mr. Hardt said if business owners have to wait until they get to the Commission to find out whether 350 feet is acceptable, a great deal of time and money has been wasted. Mr. Fishman concurred and said the required distance should be clear. He asked whether other cities had similar standards that could be reference. Mr. Langworthy said there are many examples because zoning codes differ throughout the country. He said the Code should reference what is appropriate to Dublin. Mr. Walter suggested the requirement be more restrictive with a clause stating "unless reduced by the Commission." He said he did not want to be in a situation where a greater buffer is necessary because of circumstances, but the Commission had no ability to request. Mr. Hardt referred to Section 10 under Animal Care Facilities — Breeding and Boarding and noted an inconsistency between the 500 foot buffer requirement and the 350 foot buffer noted in the previous paragraph regarding Outdoor Pet Services. Mr. Walter suggested rewriting those sections noted above. Mr. Hardt asked whether there was a presumption that no more than one of these uses would exist in any facility at one time. He said for example that Industrial Flex and Office Flex would not exist in the same place at the same time. Mr. Walter asked where a warehouse facility with 20% office would fall. Mr. Combs said percentages were used to try to find areas where it goes from being solely Office to Office flex to something else. He said the warehouse use with 20% office would be considered as 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 7 of 18 warehouse. He said Planning would revisit the definitions to ensure better coordination and agreed the definitions needed better synchronization. Ms. Kramb suggested they be listed in a table for comparison. Mr. Hardt said he was not sure why Outdoor Retail Display would ever be desirable. Mr. Langworthy said there is an example on Avery Road where the carwash sells papers in a small area in the back. Mr. Walter asked if a U -Haul rental could exist as a minor repair facility if they have all of the typical aspects of a rental facility. He said Outdoor Retail Displays allow for the outdoor display of products, vehicles and equipment for sale or lease, but the proposed language also requires display areas are fully screened from adjacent properties. Mr. Langworthy clarified that a rental facility would be covered under "Truck, Trailer and RV — Sales, Rental and Repair." Mr. Walter asked why it was not an outdoor display. Mr. Langworthy explained that as an ordinance one cannot use a general term to describe one that is more specific. He said someone could not argue an "Outdoor Retail Display" when they are in fact renting vehicles or trailers. Mr. Walter asked if they were an auto shop with U -Haul rentals being an accessory use. He also inquired how the accessory would be calculated_ Mr. Langworthy said Planning would look comparatively at the size of the auto shop versus the U -Haul rental. He said this example demonstrates for the Commission the types of interpretive elements that Planning has difficulty with all the time. Mr. Walter asked if the intent is to discourage this type of facility. Mr. Langworthy said if it was encouraged, it would be a permitted use rather than conditional. He said the idea is that if uses have external displays, they will come to the Commission for review. Mr. Walter said he agreed, but did not agree that display areas should be fully screened from adjacent properties. He said that it may be too restrictive. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it depended upon what they were trying to sell. She asked for an example of what he would not want to see screened. Mr. Walter said he would not want the U- Haul trucks screened and would appreciate the fact that he knew the business was there. He said the proposed language would discourage such businesses. He said it should depend on the specific circumstances. Mr. Langworthy said `if required by the Commission' could be added. Ms. Kramb said the use was shown as a conditional use, and asked why that needed to be stated. She suggested that screening be determined as part of the conditional use process. Mr. Hardt said if a conditional use came before the Commission, and they did not want it screened, they would not have that latitude because the Code required it to be screened. Mr. Langworthy said the Commission currently has the ability within the Code as one of the conditional use provisions to modify any of the requirements of the Code. He said if the Commission determines that the screening is not necessary or should not be done, it would have the ability to modify the requirement. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dubtin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 8of18 Mr. Combs said the language treats outdoor displays similarly to the screening of service structures. Mr. Langworthy clarified how the screening would be required, but could be modified by the Commission as part of the conditional use process. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought the more restrictive language should be left in because it is easier to ease restrictions than to request more. 153.044(D) District Uses Maximum Lot COYerR�e Mr. Combs said the first portion of Paragraph D addresses lot coverage. He said the Code currently permits a 70% maximum. He presented a chart demonstrating lot coverages from comparable suburbs. He said based on the age of Dublin's industrial areas, many lots and structures have non - conforming site development issues. He said a small increase is recommended to allow minor modifications that would accommodate business growth and upgrades that could help retain businesses. Mr. Taylor confirmed lot coverage includes building, parking and other improvements. Mr. Combs confirmed that it includes all impervious surfaces. Ms. Kramb and Mr. Fishman said that 70% was too high. Ms. Kramb said she would prefer a lower lot coverage, so it should be kept at 70%. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about impervious parking and suggested that the entire site could be covered. She said she was not in favor of raising the lot coverage. She asked if there is the ability to get a waiver from the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Combs said other site requirements such as landscaping, buffering and stormwater must also be accounted in the site design and would limit development. He said any waiver would be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Walter said he understands the intent to provide flexibility, but thinks that the change will result in larger buildings. Mr. Taylor inquired as to what types of additions are sought. Mr. Combs said the type varies. He said the expansion of Battelle is one example where a small addition was needed for expanding operations. He said trying to keep small to medium size companies in the City as they grow is a concern and if businesses run into obstacles and are required to get variances, the ability to expand is left up to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said there is a significant potential for companies to leave Dublin and find space in other municipalities that is readily available. Ms. Kramb said she was worried about new businesses building larger buildings. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Code provides the possibility for a great deal of redevelopment and that it would be less likely to see buildings with additions- 10-074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 9 of 18 Ms. Kramb suggested the City somehow accommodate by waiving fees for businesses it is trying to remain in Dublin. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that Dublin is competing with other cities for the business dollar and 5 percent can be a big issue. Ms. Amorose Groomes reminded the Commission that the charge of the Commission is to address the visual impact of the community, not economic impacts. She said 70% is visually very appropriate, and that 75% coverage like in New Albany is not what she would want. Mr. Hardt said 70% seems better, however, in order to get any relief a business would need to go to the BZA and prove a practical difficulty_ Ms_ Amorose Groomes suggested that maybe the appeal process should be changed rather than the lot coverage. Mr. Walter said the Commission heard a case this year where someone said their architect told them to say one thing and then come back in later to get more. He said changing the process will encourage more. Mr. Fishman said Dublin has a lot of land, so you make the building fit the site and allow for expansion. He said increasing the percentage will result in developers buying just what they can get by with and everyone will be at 75 %_ Maximum Building Height Mr. Combs said the current Code has no specific maximum height and is regulated through other development regulations. He said a 45 -foot maximum is proposed for simplicity. He said whether or not the 45 feet would be necessary depends upon the type of operation, whether a high bay facility is needed for particular activities or if multiple story office is proposed. Mr. Fishman was concerned all buildings would be built to the maximum and asked if the current limitation was 35 feet. Mr. Combs confirmed 35 feet was the maximum for residential districts. Mr. Langworthy also explained that industrial uses would need a reason such as specialized equipment to build higher. He said increased height does not increase industrial square footage; however, he said office uses were different_ Mr. Taylor said he thought a more complex definition of height using a three - dimensional envelope was needed to serve both the City and the building owner. He said a stepped interval based on heights would address some of the previous discussion about lot coverage. He said if someone was limited by the 70 %, they could take existing office on the first floor and convert to manufacturing by adding additional. office space back internal to the site. He said he assumes one of the goals trying to be achieved is to ensure as much as possible that manufacturing facilities and warehouses do not look so. He said the more buildings can be stepped, the more visual interest can be a good design factor. He said he could not picture a 45 -foot tall building, but it would be a monolith that is not desired. Mr. Fishman recalled when the Hechinger's building was demolished at Dublin Village Center. He said BJ's Wholesale had to have a higher building to accommodate their stocking equipment. He asked if there was a mechanism in the Code that would allow a higher building if architecture was visually pleasing and the business needed it, instead of just raising the maximum. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 10 of 18 Mr. Combs said Planning would look further. He recollected that Hidaka was the model upon which the 45 -foot height was determined. Ms. Amorose Groomes said in her experience, buildings that are higher usually involve conveyor systems for sorting. She asked what relief option would be available if more than 45 feet was needed. Mr. Combs reiterated as a standard district in the Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals would have review over variances. Mr. Hardt said Dublin will not get a new company if they know the BZA is where they have to start. Mr. Walter said he had no problem with the 45 -foot height, but did have issues with the setbacks. He said if the setbacks were greater, there would not be as great an issue. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed if businesses realized that they would need to go to the BZA to allow desired construction, they would look elsewhere. She said that may eliminate some companies the City would like to have. Mr. Zimmerman noted a 45 -foot building would not be built if it was not needed. Mr. Langworthy said there are regulations where a base number is established, and then for every foot taller, there are increased setbacks. He referred to Paragraph 2(c) where additional setbacks for buildings are based on height. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that might achieve a more aesthetically pleasing building that the Commission would like to have. Mr. Taylor said he did not have a problem with the setbacks, but if there are allowances for taller buildings, he said it should be done similar to cities that have Codes to protect light corridors by stepping the building back as it gets to a certain height. Mr. Walter questioned whether that approach is realistic and suggested that if a building has to be 45 feet tall, that a larger piece of land is needed. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that some form of relief for taller buildings be integrated, but that the bar be set high to achieve the kind of architecture that would be interesting. Mr. Hardt referred to the Planning Report and said that he did not think that linking the building setback to the building height as provided would eliminate the need for variances. He said developers will build up to the maximum and ask again for a variance because they are at the limit. He suggested provisions to exclude rooftop mechanical changes that will allow businesses to do what they need to complete modifications without altering the height of the building. Mr. Langworthy indicated that no matter the regulation, there will be a need for variances. Mr. Combs said the current Code uses two variables that fit into an equation. He said unless a specific floor plan is not known, the setback cannot be determined. He said in contrast, a sliding scale where the numbers are set would not cover every circumstance, but would be more straight - forward. Mr. Taylor said a three - dimensional approach to setbacks and building heights would encourage rooftop mechanicals to be located in the center of the building so they are less visually apparent. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 11 of 18 Ms. Kramb said a setback of 10 feet was too low when the old Code had 15 feet as a minimum. She said the setback should be at least 15 feet and she believes that number is too close anyway. Mr. Hardt also asked if there were any buildings in Dublin with setbacks less than 10 feet. Mr. Combs said many existing industrial buildings along Shier Rings have limited setbacks. He said that collected data could be reviewed further to see how many would fit that category. He said many cases of nonconforming setbacks occur where industrial properties are located side -to -side and not adjacent to residential uses. Ms. Amorose Groomes said many of the industrial buildings have gravel lots, which are considered as impervious. Mr. Walter referred to the residential component for setbacks: "Required side and year yard for principal and accessory structures shall he 50 feet from any residential zoning district, and 75 feet is required for principal structures with a faVade greater than 100 feet. " He said the setbacks were too small_ Mr. Combs said the Code would apply to all existing structures as well as new development. He said the concern was making sure properties can actually be economically viable. He said examples could be looked at for examples of measurements. Ms. Amorose Groomes said Shier Rings Road is adjacent to residential uses, and Mr. Fishman said that 50 feet was very close. Mr. Langworthy reminded the Commission that residential properties also have setbacks. He also noted that there are required landscape buffers that must be installed between uses. Ms. Kramb said pavement can be 35 feet away from residential properties. Mr. Langworthy said that happens quite frequently. He said the Commission must keep in mind that Planning does not want to create a significant number of non - conforming buildings. He said there are examples of these situations already existing, but the Commission must be careful about how big they make the distances. Mr. Langworthy said he did not know why 100 feet between the building and property line would be needed. Mr. Walter voiced concern that the Code is being built around the existing buildings and not really what the Commission wants to do. He said a better way to handle the transition was needed. Mr. Langworthy suggested that enhanced landscaping could address the Commission's issues. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that prior to the next review of the Code, that Commissioners take the opportunity to visit examples to make a more educated decision. Mr. Langworthy added that Planning can provide examples with distances marked. Mr. Zimmerman said he did not think that changing from 20 to 25 feet would have much of a visual impact. He said however, Mr. Walter said that 25 feet would make more landscaping possible. Intensity Provisions Mr. Combs said the proposed Code includes a section that incorporates the adopted Future Land Use Map from the Community Plan as a density cap, based upon completed modeliniz. He said 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 12 of 18 that areas south of Shier Rings are generally 9,500 square feet per acre and along the interstate at 16,500 square feet per acre. The Commission had no comment. Lot Width and Front Setbacks Mr. Combs said the Code requires a minimum lot width of 60 feet, typical to other Districts. He said this requirement avoids precluding the future extension of public streets as property develops. He said front setbacks for building and parking will also continue to be measured according to the Code as specified in the general development standards. The Commission had no comment- Side and Rear Setbacks Mr. Combs said the Code now uses a sliding formula of one -third the height plus the sum of the height and the width or depth (depending upon the property line). He said it is difficult to answer inquiries without having specific architecture. He said if someone is completing a preliminary assessment of the site or a general information call, Planning cannot say what the required setback would be. Mr. Combs showed a slide noting that other area suburbs have very defined and straight - forward standards that make administration easier. Those setbacks primarily range from 15 to 30 feet, with additional provisions adjacent to residential districts. He said that the proposed Code includes stepped setbacks that increase as the building height increases. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that Ms. Kramb did not want to see the minimum setback of 15 feet reduced. Ms. Kramb verified that direction, and Mr. Fishman concurred. Mr. Taylor recalled when the Commission looked at the parking regulations, they discussed calculations and that it was the developer or architect's job to do the math. He said it was the same here. Mr. Hardt said design professionals would have no problem because you have the formula and can sit down and figure it out. He said as an architect you know how the building design will impact the setbacks. He said, however, if you are a property owner or realtor without any design team and are just trying to investigate, then the Code can be problematic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the individual would have access to meet with Planning. Mr. Langworthy said Planning would not know what to tell them because the first question would be "how high is the proposed building." He said just wanting to know how much building they could fit on a property, the City could not answer that question. Mr. Taylor asked with that in mind, which of the two methods would be the most onerous: one setback that gives more of an increase, or one that gives the City more flexibility in making a building that steps back. Mr. Langworthy said is what was proposed in Paragraph C. He said he believes that the same thing has been accomplished, Planning is just proposing that someone calculate it once a building is known. Mr. Hardt said as a realtor, he would still not be able to figure it out without knowing the building height. He said with four categories, he said the difference between a 24 -foot tall building and one that is 25 feet would likely get some interesting architecture. Mr. Hardt said 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 2 t, 20t0 Page B of 18 the compromise might be to fix the setbacks more rigidly so that the land owner knows how much building they can put on the site in terms of area, but to have the building height tied into the architecture to encourage more step backs and interesting massing. Mr. Langworthy said right now, setbacks are measured to the nearest foundation for the principal structure. He said it could be measured according to proportions of the building, so that a building may be 30 or 35 feet from the nearest property line, but the building could then get higher the farther the distance from the property line. He said it means that the minimum measurement is made to the first wall, but the actual building height could be measured according to a portion of the building. Mr. Taylor said that more complexity might be part of the answer to all this. He said he was talking about a three - dimensional envelop that they building could fit into. He wondered if going to this type of regulation would help businesses to put in the building they wanted or if it would make it harder to construct a less preferred building. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think setbacks could prevent "bad" buildings. He said one problem experienced with this calculation was the Battelle building. He said by the time the setback calculation was applied, Battelle was required to have a 100 -foot setback from the property line, giving them only a 40 to 50 -foot wide development envelope. He said they could not have built the building at all. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed Planning would look at some three -dimensional kind of articulation. Mr. Taylor said lot coverage, setbacks, height, and architecture are linked together. Mr. Hardt wondered if architecture was really the key to what was being discussed. He said if someone wants to build a warehouse that is a box, but it is highly articulated with a nice facade and materials, he would be fine with that. He said when talking about industrial uses, he wondered if trying to force three dimensional articulation would prove to be a problem. He suggested it is the architectural treatment that is key. Mr. Langworthy said he was not thinking so much in terms of architecture as is the ability to manipulate height so the closer you are to the property line, the lower the building height. He said it may or may not result in interesting architecture; however, it provides flexibility for what could be built. Mr. Taylor said he was in favor of making it easier to market and use land, but he did not want to make it simpler to construct plain boxes in a community that has expectations for architectural quality. Mr. Langworthy noted that the proposed Code would give them an advantage by considering some basic architectural guidance. He said right now the Code has none that must be followed. Pavement Setbacks Mr. Combs said the proposed Code includes a five -foot sideyard setback along internal lot lines when industrial uses abut. He said this is consistent with the general development standards of the Code. He said the rear yard setback is 10 feet or is 30 feet if adjacent to residential. He said on any sideyard, the setback to residential will also be 30 feet. The Commission had no comment. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIL Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Co Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 14 of 18 153.044(E) Additional Outdoor Requirements Mr. Combs said the proposed Code generally addresses outdoor operations, storage and similar things to ensure that activities do not impact the surrounding area. Mr. Walter referred to the proposed language and asked if an operation with bulk -type goods would have to containerize materials. Mr. Combs said the language was intended to discourage more intensive general industrial uses that handle lots of raw materials such as gravel or concrete. Mr. Walter further asked if pallets of materials would be satisfactory. He said he found it curious that this type of restriction was called out. Mr. Combs said Planning would consider the language further and change any references to the old industrial districts. 153.044(F) Architectural Requirements Mr. Combs said Planning was seeking preliminary feedback about a variety of architectural topics to see how future Code language could address visual quality. He cautioned the Commission that the intent of the Code is to provide a minimum standard that could be reasonably incorporated while still being competitive in the marketplace. Materials and Color Mr. Combs said initial thoughts were to require muted earth tones as a base color or framework with the ability to utilize some- element of accent colors that would add more visual variety to the elevations. Mr. Combs showed example images. Mr. Walter said he thought color helped businesses to articulate individual branding and wayfinding and was a positive aspect. Ms. Amorose Groomes liked the example in the middle (Perio -6156 Wilcox). Mr. Taylor said the accent color can help focus on the entrance. He said he would like to see ` earthtone' taken out because it is an overused term that results in a boring form of beige or brown and stone. He said he understands that a bright red building is not wanted, but a building painted black could look fantastic. He said that earthtone limits the palette to dull colors. He said the ability for brighter accent colors can help identify a company and can identify places where the public interacts with the building. Mr. Taylor said the image on the right (Stanley Steemer -5800 Innovation Drive) was attractive with just enough color to distinguish the building, even though it is a warehouse/industrial-type structure. B- LS Mr. Combs presented an overview of roofs and indicated that some basic variation is sought to add variety to buildings, whether by parapets, change in roofline, type of roof, or incorporating smaller components such as bump -outs. Mr. Hardt said he did not think varied rooflines are necessary. He said a complicated roofline and complicated massing will drive up the cost of a building. Mr. Taylor said good design is hard to legislate. He said he has concern that being too specific will result in a checklist that would still result in bad architecture. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 15 of 18 Mr. Hardt said roofs are almost always ugly on industrial buildings. He said he would rather see a building with four quality sides. He said he would be fine with a flat- roofed building that looked really great. Mr. Combs asked for consideration of pitched roofs and whether any type of minimum overhang requirement should be considered to add depth and shadow to the building. He also asked if any minimum pitch requirements should be contemplated Mr. Taylor said Mr. Hardt had already addressed that question. Mr. Combs asked whether minimum requirements for parapet detailing should be considered such as requirements for trim or other element that would provide depth. Mr. Langworthy clarified the discussion was focused toward whether particular design details are required for a particular roof type not whether the Commission desired a particular type of roof. Mr. Taylor said the upper right picture is a good example of a big building where little money was spent on the industrial part, but the office looks great. Mr. Walter said the left example looks as if the designer is trying to hide a warehouse, but the right example is true to what it is. He said the trim/color band along the office component of the right example makes a huge difference. Mr. Zimmerman said the entrance on the left example is more clearly visible. Mr. Langworthy said he liked the parapet cap used on the upper left photograph. He said in Dublin we are lucky because with most recent buildings, developers generally recognize the character of the city and start with a pretty good building. Mr. Combs clarified for Ms. Kramb that proposed architectural language would be placed within the Code as a regulation. Ms. Kramb said she thought this was way too much detail to include. She said the private sector should design it themselves. Horizontal & Vertical Elements Mr. Combs said the incorporation of some horizontal elements can help break up the mass of the fagade as you look from the base to the roof. He said examples include watercourses, rows of windows, material changes, pin stripes and other color changes. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not a fan of banding or the appearance of the Dublin Service Center. She said she did not find them at all attractive. Mr. Hardt said any design approach could be good or bad. He said he was afraid the Code could get too specific and become a checklist. He suggested talking more generally about articulation and the surface of the facade, letting people come up with creative ways to design. Mr. Taylor suggested the Code be a general statement that Planning uses to meet with developers at which point, examples can be shown. Mr. Hardt suggested examples be put in the administrative guide. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIL 'Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 16 of 18 Mr. Walter asked how to get rid of a particular building example that is constructed with a block base and windows that creates a distinct visual separation line from the metal exterior of the upper two- thirds of the facade. He said too many of the industrial buildings do that. He asked if language could be included to limit that type of severe treatment. Entryways Mr. Combs said the idea of highlighting the public entrance portion of the building can provide a unique element separate from the rest of the building. Mr. Zimmerman suggested that public art could serve the same architectural purpose, and Mr. Taylor said "The Cabin in the Woods" building has a great entry with an inverted roof similar to the hospital. Mr. Fishman asked if different districts had different permitted materials. He asked if metal buildings would be permitted everywhere. Mr. Combs said as a flexible district focused on clean industrial and research uses, metal would be permitted. Mr. Langworthy reminded the Commission that metal can be used in any of the standard zoning districts (this would include office, industrial, commercial and residential). Mr. Hardt asked if other comparable communities with similar districts allowed these types of buildings to be built without design oversight. He said there are other areas in Central Ohio having great results, but he wondered if it was due to zoning requirements or process requirements. Mr. Combs said Planning would research other Codes, but it was highly unlikely. Mr. Fishman said he had concerns that metal buildings would discourage building anything more interesting. He said even with architectural restrictions, if metal buildings are the most economical, Dublin will soon have all metal buildings. He said one can only make a metal building so attractive. Mr. Langworthy said the discussion from the slides should be taken as a package and the Code is not about just picking out one of the features. He said even materials like EIFS can be made attractive, if done properly. Mr. Taylor said a significant proportion of buildings will be industrial and metal will be appropriate. He said he is not opposed to metal if used properly. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it would depend on where it was used. Landscaping Mr. Combs said the last topic addresses landscaping as a potential cost- effective way to break up larger building facades. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the width of landscape beds should be discussed as part of the Landscape Code. She said planting beds must be wide enough to support mature trees. Mr. Fishman said what bothered him was substantial landscaping that has to be cut down because it is affecting foundations or sidewalks. Mr. Zimmerme 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 17 of 18 Mr. Taylor said he did not want landscaping used to cover a poor building Public Input Mr. Combs said Planning expects to begin a dialogue with property owners and to place information on the website for additional feedback. He said the Code will be revisited based on comments, and Planning will bring back an updated ordinance in the future. He said following adoption of the Code, a City- sponsored rezoning will move forward. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited the audience to speak in regards to this application. Vic Irelan, Chairman of the Board, Dublin Building Systems and DBS Development, said he was not aware of the proposed changes until he read the Agenda in the newspaper. He said he was disappointed that landowners and builders/developers were not previously notified. He commended the Commission for working on the Code because builders, contractors, and developers find it difficult to work with clients without knowing for sure what can be done. He said the Code would really help clear up things, particularly with setbacks. He also noted the proposed uses are much better than the ones now that are 40 years old. Mr. Irelan suggested Planning work with landowners to get input about thoughts for future development. He said half of the land along Shier Rings Road is already developed under existing Codes and the Commission should be concerned about existing businesses that want to expand He said the architecture will be controversial because everyone has different opinions and existing buildings may be impacted. He said the existing building design must be considered to avoid terrible _architecture additions. Mr. Irelan continued, saying that from an economic development view, the Code will be good because it is more clear to prospective buyers. He said clearer requirements eliminate wasted time. He said projects are now slowed by the amount of time needed to get approval, and buyers in this economic climate cannot wait that long and will go elsewhere. Mr. Walter asked whether Mr. Irelan believes that a segment of his client base would be attracted to Dublin because of standards, or will it have a negative effect. Mr. Irelan said he thought the Code is heading in the right direction, because if it is too specific, it will become cumbersome. He noted no one will rent U -Haul trucks if they cannot be seen. Mr. Walter recommended key stakeholders such as Dublin Building Systems (DBS) meet with Planning. He said there should be a balance between what is needed for current development versus what is desired long -term. He said he did not have the experience in these matters as would someone like Mr. Irelan. Mr. Langworthy said Planning and Economic Development have been talking with site selectors and various people in the community. He said he did not like taking a Code out to the public and saying it is what is under consideration without the Commission providing general direction/guidance. Mr. Irelan said they could get by with more than a 10 -foot setback, and 15 feet was pretty close. He said the height setback was good and he agreed that as the building height increases, the further it should be from the sideline. He said he was not sure that it could not be 50 feet, but that the discussion should focus on the general effect. 10 -0742 Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 21, 2010 Page 18 of 18 Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Irelan for coming and sharing his thoughts Supplemental Administrative Guide Ms. Kramb said the grammar and writing style of the supplemental guide should be reviewed. She said the intent is fine, but the document should be improved. Mr. Langworthy said the focus at this point has been on the general content and intent of the Code. He asked for Ms. Kramb's mark -ups for detailed comment. Ms. Kramb declined. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked when the Commission would see what they worked on tonight back. She said her expectation was the next time the Commission sees the Code the review would be relatively short. She said given the Commission's comments, it is an appropriate time to meet with stakeholders. She suggested using a multiple color method with changes made this evening, as well as stakeholder changes marked so the Commission can weigh different options. Mr. Fishman asked if formal meetings would be set for the stakeholders. Mr. Combs said individual property owners and key stakeholders will be notified_ Mr. Langworthy suggested that a motion to table was needed because it was a case. Motion and Vote Mr. Walter made a motion to table this application. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr_ Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, ves; and Ms. Kramb, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION IwW Use and OCTOBER 7, 2010 tong Range manwo 5800 Wto -RhM Road Dublin, [Ohio 43016-1236 Phonel MD: 614. 410.4600 Fox: 614.41044747 Web 5Ele: ww. AuOn.obm The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following at this meeting: 3. Code Amendment — Industrial District Modifications Informal Discussion 10- 064ADM Code Amendment Proposal: Modifications to the Dublin Zoning Code to establish a new Technology Flex District to replace the RI, Restricted Industrial District and LI, Limited Industrial District. Request: Informal discussion of a future request for review and feedback regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Code under the provisions of Code Sections 153.232 and 153.534. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, Interim City Manager, City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Planning Contact: Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4669, ccombs @dublin.oh.us RESULT: Planning and Economic Development provided a brief update to the Commission outlining the need for modifications to the City's industrial zoning districts. This case will be scheduled at an upcoming meeting to review proposed Code language. STAFF CERTIFICATION Carson Combs, AICP, ASLA Senior Planner 10 -0742 Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 7, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 6of10 Ms. A rose Groomes clarifi that the Commission anted to have materia hat were similar in a earn a to those that existing. She said if ' was cedar, it did not cessarily have to be ee r, but it would have be similar in appear ce, and it would have be painted or stain ppr opriate color t atch the balance of development. Motion and Vot Mr. Taylor r- the motion to app ve this Amended Fi Development Plan /ppplication because it mplies with the p iminary and final elopment plans an the existing develop nt standards within th area. with four conditi . That the decks util' materials similar in pearance to the exist' g deck materials and be painted to ma the existing decks w' 'n the development; d t e four is adjacent to the ret ion ponds be requir to work with Planni to determin y appropriate addition eck area; t th p posed deck size b ermitted as an alte ive to the previously pproved deck es; d T an ew decks are ject to the same l scaping requirements s the original e elopment PI pproval. P a DeMoss agreed wi a above conditions. Mr. Zimmerman seatrt4ded the motion. The vote was a allows: Mr. Hardt, y Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr^. alter, yes; Mr. Fis, yes; Ms. Amoros Groomes, yes; Mr. Ziraffierman, yes; and Mr. aylor, yes. (Approve 0.) 3. Code Amendment — Industrial District Modifications Informal Discussion 10- 064ADM Code Amendment Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this informal discussion which was a general overview of objectives for a future request for modifications to the Zoning Code regarding the Industrial Zoning District requirements to create a new zoning district to address changing development trends. Dana McDaniel said that he initiated this Code Amendment due to the competitive environment that is faced in economic development. He classified the health of Dublin's economy as good, compared to some of its peer communities, because of the sound foresight from past Councils and Planning and Zoning Commissions. He said Dublin is competing within the region, statewide, nationally, and globally. He said one of Dublin's best tools over the years has been the ability to be agile in our response to opportunities, especially when it came to investing in infrastructure. He said there are many job ready sites available elsewhere to contend with in other communities. He pointed out that because of the recession; financing for new buildings has been turned upside down. Mr. McDaniel said that the good news is that Dublin has a vacancy rate of about 13 to 14 percent, which is where we want to be, yet as product becomes less available, there are fewer choices available in Dublin and some of those opportunities will leak to other communities, which is a challenge for us. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 7, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 7of10 Mr. McDaniel said tonight's discussion is about how Dublin stays competitive in this kind of environment. He said that the City always wants to live up to its high quality standards and will never let that go. He said the Commission needed to discuss how particularly around RI, Restricted Industrial, and LI, Limited Industrial Districts, the zoning prohibits Dublin from being as competitive as it could be. Mr. McDaniel explained that Council's goal was to attract and retain high technology based jobs. He said high tech today, is different from light industry of the past. He said similarly when the Commission reviewed the WD Partners building about a year ago, it was probably one of the most expensive, most beautiful distribution facilities found in the Country, however it sits empty today because the zoning was so tight around it, that the definition needed to be opened up a little to provide other opportunities. Mr. McDaniel said while it still sits empty, since the zoning has been changed, there have been exciting possible projects that could be marketed to that facility. He said also, as one of Council's goals, the City needs to diversify our economy a little. He said he believed that Council agreed that for the long run, we cannot be a community just based on Class A office buildings. He said some companies look for flex warehouse space once in while, they may need a truck for deliveries, and those kinds of things. Mr. McDaniel said the current trend in Dublin is a front office, a corporate administrative office with a scientist or two doing research or inventing new medical products, but in the back of their office, they are producing and manufacturing medical devices. He said medical devices are not like building new trucks and automobiles or creating smokestacks, but it is high tech knowledge workers doing very small component nano tech assembly and things of that nature that are high paying jobs. He said that Dublin wants to attract and retain that kind of company. He said such a company can exist on Tuller Road and Shier Rings Road. He said it was surprising how much laser technology was happening in Dublin where it is used to harden metal for advanced military equipment and to test polymers and resins that mask the outside of aircraft. He said those need to be housed in what the City considers traditional light industry, restricted industrial type buildings. Mr. McDaniel said we have to change up our definition a little. He said for informational technological type companies, medical type manufacturing, nano technology and those kinds of activities going on in Dublin, we have to have the ability to keep that and more so to attract it. Mr. McDaniel said that this discussion and dialogue is about that. Carson Combs talked in detail about the Code changes that Planning expects to bring forward to the Commission. He said the wide variety of different companies in Dublin range from small startups to the very large international headquarters and corporations. He explained that Planning is trying to look at diversifying the City's business space so that no matter what the company is or what size they are, somewhere in Dublin, we are promoting, advertising, and marketing sites that can meet any particular type of business need. He said in particular, with the Industrial Code update, they are looking to focus on the Shier Rings Corridor area where there is a lot of smaller industrial, easily modifiable space that can meet a variety of different needs for businesses that are not only growing, but are also in the very important technology areas. Mr. Combs said copies of the current industrial district codes were included in the meeting packets. He said the three zones were RI, Restricted Industrial, LI, Limited Industrial, and GI, General Industrial. He presented maps showing where the properties in the City fell within those zoning classifications. Mr. Combs said if a developer complies with all the development requirements, they could simply come to the Building Department and submit for permits, and 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 7, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 when approved, begin construction. He said the hope was to simplify the process and meet the changing needs of businesses. He said a key issue was the fact that a wholesale change of Dublin's industrial districts has never been done. Mr. Combs said they dated back to 1970 in the Code approved at that time. Mr. Combs said these were codes very typical to a variety of townships and other jurisdictions throughout Central Ohio. He said they are trying to position Dublin into being more competitive and to get ahead of the curve in terms of these particular types of uses and buildings. Mr. Combs said Dublin's Zoning Code also uses a very outdated Land Use classification system. He said the Code refers back to the 1954 SIC Code. He said while it has some advantages in breaking out uses very specifically, the fact that Dublin is using a system that old does not really address all the change and types of businesses we now have. He said something better needed to be found that matches the present economy. Mr. Combs said there are also many industrial uses within the three districts that are never seen in Dublin, for example: Canning and Preserving of Seafood, Greeting Card Manufacturing, Textile Dying, and Rental of Railroad Cars. He said our Code needs to address the types of uses that we are trying to attract, not what was prevalent in the 1950s. Mr. Combs said Planning is also looking at working with the types of spaces that have changed over time. He said there are many industrial zoned properties that have subdivided tenants that actually do not comply with Dublin's zoning regulations. He said there are a lot of small offices and small startup spaces that are not specifically allowed by our Code. He said they have no impacts on surrounding properties, and so the intent with this proposed Code is to make the uses more flexible to address not only what is in the field, but what the City wants to attract as well. Mr. Combs said our Code has some significant technical issues that hamper what can be done. He said Dublin's side and rear yard setback requirements are based on a formula that is a sliding scale, depending on the building height and depth. He said over time, tenants go into a building and as they develop and grow, they need to expand their office component or some of their clean manufacturing or lab space. He said the current Code hampers development by limiting the ability to add rooftop mechanicals or add bump outs to accommodate manufacturing or business processes. He said that results in many unnecessary trips to the Board of Zoning Appeals to gain variances just to remain in business and stay in Dublin. Mr. Combs said that as part of the project, they are looking at matching uses to meet the needs of businesses. He said currently, Office is a conditional use, so all those uses must come before the Commission for approval. He said laboratories are given more scrutiny as well, but given in the 1970s, laboratory meant a giant place with lots of scary equipment, but now, mobile labs can be rented and pulled into an overhead door that allows businesses to be very flexible and constantly changing. Mr. Combs said that the current Code does not address that flexibility. He said also flex space is more open space, more easily transferrable so that as businesses grow, the office component can grow or shrink, and likewise, that the warehousing, storage space, or lab space needs to be interchangeable and flexible. Mr. Combs said that the Code amendment will try to address those uses and needs as well. Mr. Combs said they are also looking to have more straightforward and flexible development standards, getting away from the sliding scale to something that is appropriate, but more straightforward so that businesses know upfront exactly what their standards are. He said they 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 7, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 are also looking at some very moderate architectural requirements so that while it is an industrial area, per se, there will be minimal requirements to ensure that they definitely meet Dublin's quality expectations, not only for architecture, but for also landscaping. Mr. Combs explained that as part of the Code amendment, they are going to be looking at the following objectives: 1) Adopting regulations for the new flex district that will address all these issues just reviewed, and 2) Following that adoption, initiating a City sponsored rezoning to look at changing zoning on properties shown on the map from the RI and LI Districts to the new Flex District so that there is one consistent set of standards for all industrial properties, and looking at a couple of the remaining GI District properties that are not going to be addressed specifically, redeveloping over time and phasing out the GI District as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was very important for the Commission to be able to work with today's business model. She asked when this language would come to the Commission. Mr. Combs said that it would be introduced at either the next or the following meeting. Richard Taylor noted that one area shown on the map was part of the Bridge Street Corridor. Mr. Combs said that they were having lengthy discussions as to how to work with OCLC and which process they will be placed. Amy Kramb suggested that the need for a lot of wireless communication equipment and towers be addressed. Steve Langworthy explained that was a separate ordinance in Chapter 99 where there is an administrative process for most of those. He said the ability to construct new towers is limited, but new towers go through more of a conditional use process, but most of the co- locations and the smaller wireless kinds of new upgrades that telephone systems are using are being done administratively. John Hardt said he was supportive of the intent. He said he had personal experience with a small Dublin company in the past that made a laser based aiming system for all the World's militaries, and it moved out of town without talking to anyone because they could not find a building that suited their growth. He said he thought this was a great thing to do. He said he would like to know how a change in the zoning districts will affect any existing planned districts where the allowable uses default to Code. Mr. Langworthy said that was a problem now because other planned districts refer to a previous Code, so the whole numbering system and some of the language will be different. Kevin Walter asked whether some of the new industry was actually supportable in the commercial office district, such as assembly, research, and things like that. He said you might say it was an industrial use, when it could also work fine in an office district. He said he was curious to see how uses are talked about and where those uses go. Mr. McDaniel mentioned that some of these bench level nano technology type labs, assembly, medical devices could very well go into office settings. He said they like to look at Class A office setting because they want a nice environment for their employees. 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 7, 2010 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 Todd Zimmerman asked if the Parking Code would be affected when three base uses were in one building. He said sometimes, that their parking requirement was a lot less. He asked if something in the code would be adapted to that type of use. Mr. Combs said when they look at the Parking Code, it was broken into different types, and depending upon how the Code is interpreted, it can be done as kind of a summation of the different uses. He said that they would check and verify them as this moves forward. He said that Dublin's traditional office parking requirements have been 1 per 200 or 250 square feet, but for warehousing and storage space, it is 1 per 1,000. He said it created challenges that will have to be considered. Mr. Walter said that it would be difficult to put hard and fast rules on the parking requirements, because each one of those businesses does something different and the same footprint could have 100 or 3 employees. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that was not different from any of Dublin's office spaces. She said some have converted to call centers. She said the Commission looked forward to that kind of insight into those things. She invited public comments with respect to this application. [There was none.] She said the Commission looked forward to seeing the proposed code language and to come up with something fantastic. Addi ' nal Communication M morose Groomes rec ize/andd eadership Dublin up who attended the eeting. Ms. Husak intend ed new PlannBeck, a f year graduate studen t the CRP program a he Ohio State U Ms. Arno se Groomes adjourned I pproved by the Plann�dg and Zoning 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning Existing Zoning Code (R -1 Suburban Residential, SO Suburban Office & Institutional, RI Restricted Industrial, & LI Limited Industrial) Existing Development Text (PCD, Planned Commerce District & PUD, Planned Unit Development) Available Online at: http: / /dublin.oh.us /planning /projects 10 -074Z Zoning Map Amendment COIC Technology Flex District Area Rezoning