The URL can be used to link to this page

43-08 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Form Vo. Ordinance No. 43-08 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.48 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CROMDALE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF MEMORIAL DRIVE, TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (DUBLIN LEARNING ACADEMY -CASE NO. 08-029FDP/Z). Passed 20 NOW, THERE ORE, 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 (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development 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 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 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this ~ day of , 2008. I~ ~ . -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Reference to "east" corrected to " ~i-est" Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, t_)H 43017-1006 CITY OFDUBLIlV_ Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo TO: l~iembers of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City A~Ianager DATE: June 26, 2008 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 43-08 Rezoning -Dublin Learning Academy (Case Na. 08-029FDPf`Z) Request This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan fora 1.48 acre site located on the north side of Cromdale Drive approximately 500 feet west of the intersection of Memorial and l~luirf"ield Drives. The application, if approved, will add child daycare as a perniitted use and allow the construction of a 3,600 square-foot playground. The site is ~i~ithin the Muirfield Village Planned Unit Development District. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On June 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a combined rezoning/preliminary and final development plan application and recommended approval of both. The rezoning,%preliminary development plan is being forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation, with the condition that an access easement be provided for the vacant parcel to the east. This condition t~-ill be fulfilled at the building permitting phase for the playground. History The site was constructed as part of an amendment to the original Final Development Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in November 1989 for afour-phased office development. Phases 1 and 2 were constructed, and make up the subject property. The applicant has revised the text to incorporate child daycare as a permitted use in conjunction with the uses permitted «--~ithin the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional and NC, Neighborhood Commercial districts of the Zoning Code. The applicant is also proposing to construct a playground to be used in conjunction with the proposed school and daycare. The purpose of the rezoning is to approve the text amendment and modifications. Description The proposed rezoning t~-~ould permit the construction of a playground to be located in the southeastern portion of the site of approximately 3,600 square feet in size. There are to be five activity zones within the playground for different ages, including slides, climbing bars, swings and a shade canopy. The proposed equipment colors swill be in neutral shades as are typical far playgrounds in Dublin. All areas of the playground are to be covered by an 8-10 inch deep bed of wood mulch. Na changes to the existing grade ar drainage are proposed. Memo to Council -Ordinance 43-08 Rezoning -Dublin Learning Academy June 26, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The applicant is proposing to enclose the playground area with a 48-inch high, wrought-iron, matte black fence with egress gates on the west and north sides. The fence will tie into the existing stone walls in the southeast corner of the site. There will also be a section of fence placed bett~~een the southt~~est corder of the eastern building and the adjacent «~all to the south. In addition to the existing landscaping along the north, south and west property boundaries, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the eastern property boundary of a single hedgerow of arbor vitae. The arbor vitae is to be six feet high at time of planting, and spaced at three feet on center. The Planning and Zoning Commission required that the four Norway Spruce be omitted from the landscape plan in favor of this hedge. A single full access point to Cromdale Drive is located in the south«~est corner of the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission also required that the applicant commit to an access easement for any development on the vacant parcel to the east. Recommendation Planning recorninends Council approval of Ordinance 43-08 at the second reading,/public hearing on July 1, 2008. CITY OF DUBLIN.. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1006 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~~~.SS~ DATE: June 12, 2008 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo RE: Ordinance 43-08 Rezoning -Dublin Learning Academy (Case No. 08-029FDP/Z) Request This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan fora 1.48 acre site located on the north side of Cromdale Drive approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of Memorial and Muirfield Drives. The application, if approved, will add child daycare as a permitted use and allow the construction of a 3,600 square-foot playground. The site is within the Muirfield Village Planned Unit Development District. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On June 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a combined rezoning/preliminary and final development plan application and recommended approval of both. The rezoning/preliminary development plan is being forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation, with the condition that an access easement be provided for the vacant parcel to the east. This condition will be fulfilled at the building permitting phase for the playground. History The site was constructed as part of an amendment to the original Final Development Plan approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in November 1989 for afour-phased office development. Phases 1 and 2 were constructed, and make up the subject property. The applicant has revised the text to incorporate child daycare as a permitted use in conjunction with the uses permitted within the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional and NC, Neighborhood Commercial districts of the Zoning Code. The applicant is also proposing to construct a playground to be used in conjunction with the proposed school and daycare. The purpose of the rezoning is to approve the text amendment and modifications. Description The proposed rezoning would permit the construction of a playground to be located in the southeastern portion of the site of approximately 3,600 square feet in size. There are to be five activity zones within the playground for different ages, including slides, climbing bars, swings and a shade canopy. The proposed equipment colors will be in neutral shades as are typical for playgrounds in Dublin. All areas of the playground are to be covered by an 8-10 inch deep bed of wood mulch. No changes to the existing grade or drainage are proposed. Memo to Council -Ordinance 43-08 Rezoning -Dublin Learning Academy June 12, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The applicant is proposing to enclose the playground area with a 48-inch high, wrought-iron, matte black fence with egress gates on the west and north sides. The fence will tie into the existing stone walls in the southeast coiner of the site. There will also be a section offence placed between the southwest corner of the eastern building and the adjacent wall to the south. In addition to the existing landscaping along the north, south and west property boundaries, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the eastern property boundary of a single hedgerow of arbor vitae. The arbor vitae is to be six feet high at time of planting, and spaced at three feet on center. The Planning and Zoning Cotntnission required that the four Norway Spruce be omitted from the landscape plan in favor of this hedge. A single full access point to Cromdale Drive is located in the southwest corner of the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission also required that the applicant commit to an access easement for any development on the vacant parcel to the east. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 43-08 at the second reading/public hearing on July 1, 2008. PUD ?'G ~~ O PUD F ~O PUD ~R~~F \. PUD n SATE CROMDALF, ~R~~F PUD PUD PUD ~~J~ MEMOR P~' O PUD ~ PUD PUD '~ I-__. / ~ N 08-0292/FDP City of Dublin Rezoning/Final Development Plan Land Use and Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy Long Range Planning 5920 Cromdale Drive o 200 400 Feet PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~`------ --- ' ~ TINO FLAG POLE ~ ~' ~+....~~ ~T CEN7ERUNE'RIDGE pF MAIN DUBLIN LEARNING ACADEMY L0. SIGN ` EARTH AtObND BUFFER ~"\ N 1 PROPOSED TEXT DUBLIN LEARNING ACADEMY PLANNED UNIT DE`~ EL(~PNIENT (PUD} JUNE ~, 2008 I. Introduction The subject site consists of approximately 1.48 acres located on the north side of Cromdale Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Memorial Drive. The site is generally flat and contains two office buildings and associated parking. This Planned Development will serve to maintain the office buildings and parking, and add daycare as a permitted use and allo~~~ for the construction of a playground area. II. Permitted Uses A. The permitted uses outlined in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. If any conditional within this district are requested , a conditional use application must be filed and uses processed in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. In addition photographic studios (including commercial photography}, beauty shops, and barber shops shall be allowed and considered as permitted uses under Section 153.026. B. The permitted uses outlined in Section 153.027 {Neighborhood Commercial) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, however, that the following uses contained in that section shall not be permitted: Restaurants Bars Grocery Stores Liquor Stores Convenient Food Stores Carry-outs Pizza or Similar Stores Self-Service Laundry Health Club Facility C. Day care shall be allowed and considered as a permitted uses within this Planned Development. III. Permitted Density The maximutn aggregate density for permitted and conditional uses on this site shall not exceed 13,000 square feet. The initial development shall consist of the existing 10,000 square feet of building area. IV. Setbacks A. Unless otherwise set forth in this text or approved as a part of the final development plan, all setback, encroachment, and height requirements shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B. Required minimum Setbacks shall be as follo«~s: 1. Along Niui~eld Drive, there shall be a minimum building setback of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the northern property line. A fifty {SQ) foot parking lot setback from the northern property line is also required 2. Along Cromdale Drive, there shall be a minimum building setback of thirty-five (35) feet from the southern property line. An eighteen (18) foot parking lot setback from the southern property line is also required. 3. Along the western property line, there shall be a minimum building setback of twenty (2~) feet from the property line. A five (5) foot parking lot setback from the western property line is also required. 4. Along the eastern property line, there shall be a minimum building setback of twenty (2Q) feet from the property line. A three (3) foot setback from the eastern property line is also required. V. Parkuig Unless otherwise stated herein or othei-~vise approved at the final development plan, all parking shall be regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. VI. Circulation A. The right-of-way along Cromdale Drive shall remain at fifty (50) feet. B. The right-of--way along Nluirfield Drive shall remain at its variable width between approxirnately one hundred seventy-five (175) to one hundred eighty- five (18~) feet. C. One curb cut shall be permitted on Cromdale Drive that will provide full access to and from the development site and shall be located as shown on the development plan. A cross access easement shall be provided to the east with any future development to reduce the number curb cuts along Cromdale Drive D. All internal circulation shall occur via private drives to lie maintained by the property owner(s) or its assigns or designees. Private drives shall be constructed using asphalt and shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet in width. VII. Screening A. A forty-eight (48) inch wrought iron matte black fence shall enclose the proposed playground on its no1-th, east and «~est boundaries. The southern boundary of the playground shall be enclosed by the existing ~i~all. B. All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a wall or screen in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls or screening shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. C. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened per Code from public vie~~~• ~~~~ith materials harmonious to the site. VIII. Landscaping Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall be in accordance ~-ith Dublin City Code. IX. Liglitvig A. All exterior site and building lighting shall comply t~-~ith the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. B. Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. January 2007 EXHIBIT "B" REZONIN G APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER y3 --~~ land U~~ and 5800 SRa~r Rag 4o tl CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) G -/G -~~ o Dublin. Oh`o 43016-1236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) "7- / - ~~ Phone/TDD:6:4.41GU:tx> fax: E'. 4-41G4747 CITY COUNCIL ACTION web $ile: ww.v.dublln.oh.us NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed- Applicationsthat are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointment for apre-submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ^ Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) ^ Other (Please It Dt7 r1DGGiTV INIGrIt]MATIr1fJ• 71.ra enn~rnn r...~e4 1•n rmm~rnfnrl PropeRy Address: Sg O O _ $q 20 Ctro,nr..da1 c fir: v G -'~~ h l ~ h btu . 0 4 3c t'1 Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): Z~ 3 - Parcel Size (Acres): ~ ..~ ~3 ExtstingLandUaelDevelopment: pV~ ~~„~.how-~ S..bv~trwK O~crt yl~w•}e~~Ct~~Sa•~(+oo Proposed Land UselDevelopment: ~V p _ R4~ ~k~e~a~ e,~:\a. ~..rC I Dal lo.v~ -~ ap~t,.-~~ usC Existing Zoning District: i~ VQ Requested Zoning District: `~ V D Total Acres to be Rezoned: 1 . ~ ~~ III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X t1) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. '~ Val ~ h \, tc....t~- l v~ t~~~~G~.y t'~'~.C rG..~ 'k~.a A. Please hriotty explain the proposed rozoning and development: C_1n,1 l:•+JtG+~~ o~CtS Wt-~a•vt-E ~[~.-]tape -Fo~!'~~vC 5"~d.Cr~S 'ln ~-~nC~)~OW1~ r~a+.YlCA.~TInC. VSC '~S {w-Q~v-1v.~.~ -b -N..e eLO~o.,._;~ 1~ca\.~rV- o..~~. v:u,; ~•~~~aJ~l~t~'d.s 'C1'TV rc ~~SIV.c tc-\ v ~K ar+ S wov\ t -~Fo ~ vc VXS Inc 4x~ C~..: ~ B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existin and potential future land use char cter of the vicinity: {fro ~c~'~ C.~.rv~t...~'~ ~ ~ov+S G.\ ~ `-~.,5v r Ls.... C~~c e c.r~ ~r' S'~ ~'~o rw.~ cr SCS Ihll o-~lr.2-~ tv~ S-ki-~.+~or•p.1,vSC ~ c o •, ~ S o-~~~ ~-r ~ o..` low C 1~.. ~CS. Co~vt ~ ~ .C. C 1~..,,tc ,,, ~ ~ a w C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezonlny rneots the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.0512(~B)J: 1 \ ` ~}v.lG\0.v-t~ J`am'. ~Wvlf7~e1 O~ QY.VGr"2 ~•+S'T~'7~TaMO-`-.CSC q~f~v~w~.c..\..t~..co~r:JO • O..~C- VG~ta.'~10~ 0.N- \1•~ YC J 1 D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Devel~~~~1~ the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated In [Section 153.055(A)] (SEE ATTACHMENT A): 7779K!!! rar.,. 1J'1~ ao~c,..~ior• eSc use o,~•l - ~~Sfh~c~c~c~o o.-e..~ ,. ~. c~ ra~t.,S Page 1 of 5 ~ ~- ~ ~al` ~/~'j\P ~~~~ C~1-- ~ ~ ONG RANIGF PLANNIN(.; Has a previous application to rezone the propety been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ Yes NO If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(Aj(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and smal- (11X17} sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and Collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. ^ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A 7AX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 3D0 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's curcent tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surcounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. ^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE {24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITEISTAKING PLANS SHOWING: a, North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, buiidinglunit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of--way, easements, and other Information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Ptan. b. Landscaping Pian. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and/or Stormwater Pian. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14i LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. ^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ^ MATERIAL/COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. Page 2 of 5 V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): This section must be completed. Please attach additional sheets if needed. Name (Individual or Organization): ~~ ~~ ~„ ~>r. S o +~ Mailing Address: r~ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) (iv 1"Zq ~L' ,wp~r ty,~ U ~f p t Daytime Telephone: {~ t ~ ~, 33c1 " ~ O 1 a Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: ~,C-~ C-f~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~T ~ l~v ~ ` I C1 ~ , u~-. Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who is requesting the rezoning if different than the property Name: Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Mailing Address: (Street, Ciry, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: ~ Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will receive cortespondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. Name: ~ ~C rn ~..Q.v~ Organization: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~ Mailing Address: p, + , L (Street, Ciry, State, Zip Code) ~ 11 - \ ~~"~ a `~ • ~ l , ~f' ~L ~ ~~ , Daytime Telephone: (~ ~ 1 - 33~ - ~ v1 ~ Fax. Email or Alternate Contact Information: ~ 1 t.~ _ r~ s c.~ .- S ZZZ Page 3 of 5 Vlll. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANTIREPRESENTATiVE(S}: If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. _~G P~ C r1 L~~ F-`y to act as my applicanUrepresentative(a) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be hound by all repreaentationa and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: l ~ ~` , ~' Date: ~ _ i ~ fj Subscribed and sworn to before me this y ~~~~V day of `~ LAC , 20 y_~ ,.,,,,. ~~-- 11I ~ State of V>{~ ~ O •'~O:~p, IAl~s~q`,I county of ~I~C~r1K..l~ Notary Public ` I ~~ C~- _`CZ - ROBYN D. HARP . Notary Public, State of Ohio .., .:. , s`~' >y~.: °-o,? My Commission Expires 09/09/2009 .'TgTF OF 0~~;. IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the propeRy described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the Clty of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant. ICI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized I ~"+C"~~t°-`n C- LC.n ~ ,the owner or authorized representative, have read and underst nd 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 ar authorized representative: ~ /(; _~ Date: ~~ .~ _ Uir _ .. .. 1-i -I-~.. Jan i. , _ _ ~ ~~L ....:: ~ e': ....,~ .................,..................~ ...., ....o - .... ,.. - , .... ~,~ :'~? 9!'i state of U h / U ROBYN D. HAAP ~` ~ -- ~ . County of ~~~% n ~ -,'1 Notary Public ~ _I _ ~. . ~ - Notary Public, State of Ohio ~,: :, s'gle of o~\o,;`My Commission Expires 09,109/2009 NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received: Application No: PSZ Date(s): f _ , P8Z Action: ~ ~ ~ _ V ~ l• ~~ Receipt No: -- os MIS Fee No: ~ Date Received: - S- 8 Received By: n M 2 oNF v Typo of Request: /1 ~ / ~ VC1h ~. I ~ ~'~.3-'Tilt' NjS~E, W (Circle) Side of: Lam/ ~ ~,~'L4~SS /-0 ~.. Nearestlntersectlon: Co..~f~.~~,s Distance from Nearest Intersection: O W~ Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA § 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) PreUminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonabry burden the existing street network; (3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vic[nity and will not impede the nortnat and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; (4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; (5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; (6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; (7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the sur- rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a sate, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes- trians; (9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; (10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overal! accept- ability of the development plans contrihute to the orderly development of land within the city; (11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; (12) The design, silo arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard devel- opment regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; (13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surtounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; (14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and Is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the Intended overall development; (15) The proposed development can be adequatey serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Page 5 of 5 PLAN UN1T DEVELOPMENT AMENllL+'D FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT 5900 5920 CROMDALE DRIVE APRIL 15, 2008 The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 153.052 of the Dublin City Code and include a total of 1.483+/- acres. IIi~: The site was originally developed by Commercial Properties of Muirfield and reviewed and approved by the Conunission, as revised in November of 1989. The Final Development Plan, as approved, consisted of 4 Phases. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were constructed, as approved by the Commission on the subject parcel, Phases 3 and 4 were never built on the adjacent parcel of land. The adjacent parcel of land, commonly known as 6059 Cromdale Drive, Dublin, Uhio remains vacant to this day; although Landscaping was installed for all Phases of the original application and in accordance with the approved Final Development Plan. Internal landscaping on the adjacent parcel was to be planted upon completion the construction of Phases 3 and 4 which are not part of this application. A. Changes in Use: The location and size of areas of educational use, business use, and the parking provided for each use: Gross acreage: ] .483+/- acres Total units: 2 single story multi purpose buildings totaling 10,000 sq. ft. Existing Parking: 69, including 3 accessible Required Parking: S5, including 3 accessible Educational L1se: 1 space/teacher, 1 space/6 students = 31 Business [1se: Staff (B/S): 24 The addition to the Development text for use to include child care is requested. Childcare is defined as follows in the Dublin City Code: CI-IILD CARE. Any place, home or institution which cares for young children apart from their parents when received for regular periods of time for compensation such as kindergarten, nursery school or class for young children that develops basic skills and social behavior by games, exercises, toys anal simple handicraft. "the Use group is permitted under the Rural Toning District but is not mentioned in the Institutional District. Dublin Learning Academy provides Pre-school from three to five years, all-day kindergarten, I5t through 5th grade, and infant childcare. The addition of the use which allows infant care is needed for less than 15% of the interior space used by Dublin Learning Academy for not more than 34 infants. ~~~~~~ '1 Il 5 7(1(18 ~~I I 1 UI' UvbLll~ ~ `/' ~' ~ ~ LAND USt: & ~.I~NG RA~!UE P! ANNtNIi B. Changes to site: The proposed size, location and use of playgrounds and other areas and spaces: flay Area: Location: See attached site plan. The play area for the school is to be constructed on open space locations shown on the Amended Final Development Plan. "1'he play area encompasses 3,629.6 square feet or 5.62% of the site. The equipment to be installed is manufactured by "Little Tikes Commercial Group" and will be fabricated in browns with green accents in order to coni:orm with the standards set forth in the Muirfield Village General Warranty Ueed. Muirfield Village Design Control Committee has approved the site plan subject to final approval of color and texture of equipment. The play area is to be secured by a 48" high, wrought iron matte black fence with egress gates on the west and noz•th sides. C. Traffic circulation patterns, including public and private streets, parking areas, walks and other access ways: The parking lot for the proposed Dublin Learning Academy has one two-way access onto Cromdalc Drive. Children will be dropped and picked up at 5900 Cromdalc Drive and distributed to specific classrooms firom a single location D. The schedule of existing site development; construction of structures and associated facilities, and other materials indicating design principles and concepts to be f~~llowed in site development, construction, landscaping and other features. The existing buildings are constructed with natural wook and stone veneers. A cedar shake roof accents the structures. Landscaping along Muirfield Drive has matured and is near l 00% opacity. A tree survey is included in this application. E. The relationship of the development to existing and future land use in this surrounding area, the street system, community facilities, services and other public improvements. The existing development is located within the existing Muirfield Village Planned Unit Development bordered by Muirfield Drive on the North and Cromdalc Drive on the south of the subject property. The adjacent 1 +/- acre property directly to the east is a vacant lot subject to the l:inal Development Plan for the ACI center, Phases 3 and 4. The adjacent parcel to the west of the subject include two multi purpose ofitice buildings. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the land to effectuate the proposed development plan. > vidence of control includes property rights and the engineering feasibility data which may be necessary. The applicant is the owner of the property which is the subject of this Amended Final Development Plan. Ezhlbit "A" -Legal Description For File: ! 367;149 Situated in the County o1• Franklin and Stair of Ohio and in the City of Dublin: Bring in Virginia Military Survey Nn, 2545 and containing 1.483 acres of land, more or less, said I ,48? acres being nut of the land conveyed to Muirfield Ltd. By Deed of record in Deed (3001< 3349, Yage 584, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. and in Deed Book 377, Page 418, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio, said 1,48:'s acres of land tieing more particularly described us follows; Beginning at a 3/4 inch {1,D.) imn pipe in a curve in a Southerly (tight-nf--Way line of ~luirfic{d Drive, as said Muirfield Drive is shown and delineated upon tiro dedication plat of Mairtie{d Drive and Easements, of record in Plat Rook 49, Pages 81, 82 and 83. Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and in Ylat Book (2, Paces 5, 7 anti 8, Rexnrder's Offfce, Delaware County, Uhiu, said iron pipe also being the Northeasterly corner of that 1,340 acre tract of land, described in the deed to John (:. Leppert and Sally S. Leppert. ol'recnrd in Official Records Volume 5029, Page I-120,. Recorders Office, F'rankl'n County. Oirio; Thence ~astward!y, with tt Southerly Right-of=Way liar oFsaid Muirfield Drive and with the are of a curve to the left having a radius of 1,457.]9 tech a central angle of ]° I6' 1 I " and a ehortl that bears S 8]° 2T 39" E, a chord distance oF83. i C> feet to a 3/4 inch (LD.) iran p!pc at a point oi'tange!tcy; "thence S 85° OS' 44" F, with a Southerly Right-of-Way line af•said Muirtieki Drive, a distance of f 27,71 feel to a ]!4 inch (i.D.} iran pipe at a point of curvafure; the!;ce Eastwardly, with a Setrtherly Right-of-Way line of said Muirfield Drive and with the src of a curve to the right having a radius of 1,407,39 feet, a central angle of 3° !6' 25" anti a chard that bears S 8]° 27' 32" E, a chord distance of 80,40 feet to a 3/4 inch (LD.) iron pipe at the NorlhwesterlY corner ul'!l:at 1.000 acre !ract of ;and, described in the Deed tv Americana Investment Co., of record in Deed Book 3763, Page 67, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio'. 'thence S 2]° 20' 18" t,~~, with the Northwesterly line of said 1.000 acre tract, a distance of 273.90 Feet to a 3/4 inch (LD.) iron pipe to the Southwesterly comer of said 1.000 acre tract, saiti i-on pipe also bang in a Northerly Right-of-\~ay line of Crontdale Drive as said Gorndale Drive is shown and delineated upon the recorded Mal of Muirtiehl Village Yhase 9 (Dedication of Memorial Drive, Cromdale Drive, "fain Drive, Arran Court and f:asemenls), of record in Plat Boirk 53, Page 71, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, •I'hrnce Westwardly, with a Northerly Right-of-Way line of said Crurttdale Drive and with the arc of a curve to the IcFt, having a radius of 825.00 feet, a central angle n(' 10° US' 22" ahd a chord that bears N 85° 57' 19" W, a ci,ortl distance of 145.09 Feet tv a 3/4 inch (LD,) iron pipe al the point of tr,ngency; Thence S 89° 00' 00" W, with ti;e Northerly Right-of-Way line of said Crnmdale Drive, a distance of 5.09 feel to a 3/4 inch (I.i?,) iron pipe at the Southeasterly corner of saicf 1.340 acre tract; Thence N ]° 5~+' 43" E, with the Easterly line of said 1.340 acre tract a distance of 272.40 feet to the point nFbeginning anal eertaining 1 483 rures or'sna, mo^e or less, ~.ht r ~ . . ~~~ ~, Parcel No: 273-003 1 5 1 ~'~ ~ Conrnoniy gown as: 5900-92.0 Cro•ndalc Drive, Dublin!, Ofi 4]0( 7 ~E~~MVEt~ -r` ),z 2 ~z~cao~1 u1 T"'~,!,ivu,~~~~ I~fjP t.auo IfsF x uNS nnrrcr r~,.rrrtrnua Proximity Report Results Proximity Report Results The selection distance was 300 feet. The selected parcel was 273-003151. To view a table showing the 30 parcels within the displayed proximity, scroll down. =~_~ Ult. Repo~k t,~ Print Window (¢~ Back to Proximitv Reps Page 1 of 2 Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of [his map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for ver,fication of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained nn this map. Please notify the Frank!;n County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels Mint: Tn copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down th e left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag tt~e mo use to the bottom-left corner of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select €dit Sopy from the menu bar. You can they. Paste the report into another application. Parcel Owner Name Address 273-002128 BAILEY BONNIE J 5991 STROME CT 273-001813 BEELER JEANETTE 6007 STROME CT 273-000631 ROUGHER WILLETTA E TR 5991 GLENFINNAN CT 273-000634 CAMPBELL DONALD J NUNLEY JANET G 6015 GLENFINNAN CT 273-003257 CASTO ANN H 5906 -918 BERKSHIRE CT 273-003256 CASTO ANN H 5882 -894 BERKSHIRE CT 273-003255 CASTO ANN H 5858 -870 BERKSHIRE CT 273-003252 CASTO ANN H 5786 -098 BERKSHIRE CT 273-003251 CASTO ANN H 5762 -074 BERKSHIRE CT 273-001531 CROMDALE PARTNERS LLC 6059 CROMDALE DR 273-000641 GAINES JOHN W GAINES SHARON M 5952 ST FILLANS CT 273-000630 GELACEK PAUL M & MIMI A 5983 GLENFINNAN CT 273-001705 HAUGHN PROPERTIES LLC 6050 TAIN DR 273-000638 HERCZEG WESLEY A & PATRICIA S 5947 W ST FILtANS CT 273-003264 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 5813 -825 BERKSHIRE CT htfp://209.51.19390/scriptslmw5rer.pl 5/15/2008 Map Search Real Estate Search Auditor Nome Image Date: Thu May 15 14:10:17 2008 Proximity Report Results 273-003263 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-003262 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-012177 KIRK GILMAN D TR KIRK SANDRA A TR 273-003254 KIRK KRISTIN D 273-003253 KIRK ZACHARY C 273-003151 LENKER & CARSON LTD 273-002484 MILLER 3 & 37 LLC 273-004291 MILLER 3 & 37 LLC 273.000777 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION INC 273-000778 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION INC 273-000633 MUSHENO ALLEN R MUSHENO SUSAN ] 273-000632 PRETTYMAN RICHARD H PRETTYMAN DIANE 273-000639 REESE MIKKIREESE LOISJ 273-000333 ROBINSON BUILDING LLC 273-000640 WERTH GALE M & EDWARD B COGAN panred by MotaMAP 5837-849 BERKSHIRE CT 5863-875 BERKSHIRE CT 5930 BIRKSHIRE CT 5834 -846 BERKSHIRE CT 5812-822 BERKSHIRE CT 5920 CROMOALE DR 6055 TAIN DR 6001 TAIN DR MUIRFIELD DR MUIRFIELD DR 6007 GLENFINNAN CT 5999 GLENFINNAN CT 5959 W ST FILLANS CT 6000 MEMORIAL DR 5964 W ST FILLANS CT Page 2 of 2 http://209.51.193.90/scripts/mw5rer.pl 5/15/2008 Proximity Report Results Map Search Real EstaM Search Auditor Home Proximity Report Result The selection dlstanm was S00 feet. The selected parcel was 273-003151. To view a table showing the ¢$ Ra_tppla '~ within the d(splayed proximity, scroll down. S~eRQtt i. i~i~ ~ Print Wind~- •.,~~. © Back to Proximity Report Fage 1 of 3 Dlcdaimer This map is prepared for the real property Inventory within this munty. It K complied from recorded deeds, survey putts, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the puhlk Drlmary information source should be consulted for verlflcatlon of the information contained on this map. The munty and the mapping mmpanles assume no legal responslbilltles for the Information mntalned on this map. Please noUF/ the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepanc;es. Proximity Parcels Mnt: To copy this report to another progrem: 1. Hcld down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom-!eft comer of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select ~dlt Gopy from the menu bar. You ran then Paste the report Into another application. Parcel Owner Name Address 273-002128 BAILEY BONNIE 1 273-001692 BARNES JOAN M TR BARNES DAVID L TR 273-001813 BEELERJEANETTE 273-000625 BENJAMIN RICHARD A BENJAMIN NANCY D 273-000617 BENNETT DOUGt.AS D BENNETT LEESA L 273-000631 ROUGHER V1/II1ETi'A E TR ` 273-006093 BURRIS MARGARET A TR ~~ ~ C 273-000634 CAMPBELL DONALD J NUNLEY JANET G !JJ (~ of 273-005036 CARTER BONNIE B MARTONE ]OSEPH P 273-003261 CASTO ANN H 273-003260 CASTO ANN H A ANN H 5 ~~~~ 273.0032 7 C S70 273-003256 CASTO ANN H 273-003255 CASTO ANN H ILf~~ f~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ' ` ~ ~ - r f ' 273-003252 CASTO ANN H ~- UL ~ 4PJf? f1Sc http://209.51.193.90/scripts/mwSrer.pl 4/22/2008 Image Date: 1 ue Apr 22 10:47;27 2008 Proximity Report Results 273-003251 CASTO ANN H 273-002935 CASTO DON M III & ANN H 273-006597 CONFETTI CONCEPTS LLC 273-001851 COUNTRY CLUB AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE T 273-001531 CROMDALE PARTNERS LLC 273-000523 CSEPLO CAROLYN K 273-006604 DAMS WILLIAM E III 273-006092 DIXON MONTY W DIXON DEBORAH L 273-000624 ELLIOTT ELIZABETH M 273-006602 FANNING JOHN F FANNING LINDA N 273-001801 FUJIWARA )UNKO 273-000641 GAINE5JOHN W GAINES SHARON M 273-006091 GARNER GREGORY R TR 273-000630 GEIACEK PAUL M & MIMIA 273-001705 HAUGHN PROPERTIES LLC 273-000638 HERCZPG WESLEY A & PATRICIA S 273-006094 HULLINGER )EEFREY P HULLINGER BETH 273-000618 JOHNSON JEFFREY A JOHNSON DAWN B Z73-000619 JULIANO STEPHEN G & GERALDINE M 273-003265 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-003264 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-003263 KIRK GILMAN D )R & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-003262 KIRK GILMAN D JR & SANDRA A TRUSTEE 273-012187 KIRK GILMAN D TR KIRK SANDRA A TR 273-012177 KIRK GILMAN D TR KIRK SANDRA A TR 273-003254 KIRK KRISTIN D 273-003253 KIRK ZACHARY C 273-000636 LEAS ALAIN J & CATHERINE RAMPS-LEAS 273-003151 LINKER & CARSON LTD 273-000642 MATTMILLER MARC A & CARLA M 273-002484 MILLER 3 & 37 LLC 273-004291 MILLER 3 & 37 LLC 273-000629 MILLER HARRY W CO-TR MILLER SYLVIA 273-000643 MILLER SARA L TR MILLER ROBERT J TR 273-000777 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION INC 273-000778 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION INC 273-000779 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION INC 273-006605 MUIRFIELD PARTNERS LIMITED 273-001339 MURIFEILD ASSOCIATION INC 273-000633 MUSHENO ALLEN R MUSHENO SUSAN 273-001323 PACE LOUIS V & PEGGY L 273-000632 PRETTYMAN RICHARD H PRETTYMAN DIANE 273-000639 REESE MIKKI REESE LOIS J 273-000333 ROBINSON BUILDING LLC 273-000637 SHINNICK TRICIA C SHINNICK GREGORY 273-000640 ~lERTH GALE M & EDWARD B COGAN 273-000622 bVILHELM JAMES E JR TR 273-005035 L~lII.LIS ALISON C Page 2 0l' 3 http://209.51.193.90/scripts/mw5rer.p! 4/22/20Q8 08-029AFDP Muirfield Village - • Lenker & Larson Ltd. Muirfield association Inc. Dublin Learning Center c/o Steve Lenker $372 Muirfield Drive 5920 Cromdale Drive 6179 1Vlemorial Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jeannette Beeler 6007 Stome Court Dublin, OH 43017 1-~Zn H. Casto 191 W. Nationwide Blvd. Ste. 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Cromdale Partners LLC 5973 I1~Iacewen Court Dublin, OH 43017 Zachary C. & Kristin D. Kirk 695 Kenwick Road Columbus, OH 43209 Miller 3 & 37 LLC 4524 Worthington Road t~'ashington CH, OH 43160 PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ANIENDF.D FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT 5900 5920 CROMDALE DRIVE APRIL 15, 2008 The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 153.052 of the Dublin City Code and include a total of 1.483/- acres. Histo The site was originally developed by Commercial Properties of Muiriield and reviewed and approved by the Commission, as revised in November of 1989. The 1 final Development Plan as approved, consisted of 4 Phases. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were constructed, as appraved by the Commission on the subject parcel, Phases 3 and 4 were never built on the adjacent parcel of land. The adjacent parcel of land, commonly known as 6059 Cromdale Drive, Dublin, Ohio remains vacant to this day; although Landscaping was installed for all Phases of the original application and in accordance with the approved Final Development Plan. Inten~al landscaping on the adjacent parcel was to be planted. upon completion the construction of Phases 3 and 4 which are not part of this application. Changes in Use: The location and size of areas of educational use, business use, and the parking provided far each use: Gross acreage: 1.483+/- acres 't'otal units: 2 single story multi purpose buildings totaling 10,000 sq. ft. Existing Parking: 69; including 3 accessible Required Parking: 55, including 3 accessible Educational Use: lspace/teacher, 1 space/6 students = 31 Business Use: Staff (B/S): 24 The addition to the Development text for use to include child care is requested. Childcare is defined as follows in the Dublin City Code: CHILD CARE. Any place, home or institution which cares for young children apart from their parents when received for regular periods of time for compensation such as kindergarten, nursery school or class for young children that develops basic skills and social behavior by games, exercises, toys and simple handicraft. The [Jse group is permitted under the Kural Zoning District bui is not mentioned in the Institutional District. Dublin Learning Academy provides Pre-school from three to five years, all-day kindergarten, ls` through 5`" grade, and infant childcare. The addition of the use which allows infant care is needed for less than 15% of the interior space used by Dublin Learning Academy far not more than 34 infants. ~, .l ~c~~: . ~~d~ ~~~ rorl~ a.~~/~ ,~ iali ur ~~,,~>t.11; Iw1~ ~'` ~~ t ~ LAtJCi USL ti ;:il~(s tiAtdGC f'1 Ah~(Jlidf: B. Changes to site: The proposed size, location and use of playgrounds and other areas and spaces: Play Area: Location: See attached site plan. The play area for the school is to be constructed on open space Locations shown on the Amended Final Development Plan. The play area encompasses 3,629.6 square feet or 5.62% of the site. The equipment to be installed is manufactured by "Little Tikes Commercial Group" and will be fabricated in browns with green accents in order to conform wish the standards set forth in the Muirfield Village General Warranty Deed. Muirfield Village Design Control Committee has approved the site plan subject to final approval of color and texture of equipment. The play area is to be secured by a 48" high, wrought iron matte black fence with egress gates on the west and north sides. C. Traffic circulation patterns, including public and private streets, parking areas, walks and other access ways: The parking lot for the proposed Dublin Learning Academy has one two-way access onto Cromdale Drive. Children will be dropped and picked up at 5900 Cromdale Drive and distributed to specific classrooms from a single location D. The schedule of existing site development; construction of structures and associated facilities, and other materials indicating design principles and concepts to be followed in site development; construction, landscaping and other features. The existing buildings are constructed with natural wook and stone veneers. A cedar shake roof accents the structures. Landscaping along Muirfield Drive has matured and is near 100% opacity. A tree survey is included in this application. E. The relationship of the development to existing and future land use in this surrounding area, the street system, community facilities, services and other public improvements. The existing development is located within the existing Muirfield Village Planned t!nit Development bordered by Muirfield Drive on the North and Cromdale Drive on the south of the subject property. The adjacent 1 +/- acre property directly to the east is a vacant lot subject to the Final Development Plan for the ACT center, Phases 3 and 4. The adjacent parcel to the west of the subject include two multi purpose office buildings. Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the land to effectuate the proposed development plan. Evidence of control includes property rights and the engineering feasibility data which may be necessary. The applicant is the owner of the property which is the subject of dais tlmended Final Development Plan. Proposed Development Text DUBLIN LEARNII~'G ACADEMY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) JUNE 5, 2008 I. Introduction The subject site consists of approximately 1.48 acres located on the north side of Cromdale Drive, approximately S00 feet west of Memorial Drive. The site is generally flat and contains two office buildings and associated parking. This Planned Development will serve to maintain the office buildings and parking, and add daycare as a permitted use and allow for the construction of a playground area. II. Permitted Uses A. The permitted uses outlined in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. If any conditional within this district are requested, a conditional use application must be filed and uses processed in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code. In addition photographic studios (including commercial photography), beauty shops, and barber shops shall be allowed and considered as permitted uses under Section 153.026. B. The permitted uses outlined in Section 153.027 (hTeighborhood Commercial) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, however, that the following uses contained in that section shall not be permitted: Restaurants Bars Grocery Stores Liquor Stores Convenient Food Stores Carry-outs Pizza or Similar Stores Self-Service Laundry Health Club Facility C. Day care shall be allowed and considered as a permitted uses within this Planned Development. III. Permitted Density The maximum aggregate density for permitted and conditional uses on this site shall not exceed 13,000 square feet. The initial development shall consist of the existing 10,000 square feet of building area. 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive Proposed Development Text TV. Setbacks A. Unless otherwise set forth in this text or approved as a part of the final development plan, all setback, encroachment, and height requirements shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B. Required minimum Setbacks shall be as follows: 1. Along Muirfield Drive, there shall be a minimum building setback of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the northern property line. A fifty (SO) foot parking lot setback from the northern property line is also required 2. Along Cromdale Drive, there shall be a minimum building setback of thirty-five (35) feet from the southern property line. An eighteen (18) foot parking lot setback from the southern property line is also required. 3. Along the western property line, there shall be a minimum building setback of twenty (20} feet from the property Line. A five (5) foot parking lot setback from the western property line is also required. 4. Along the eastern property line, there shall be a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet from the property line. A three (3) foot setback from the eastern property line is also required. V. Parking Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise approved at the final development plan, all parking shall be regulated by the Dublin Zoning Code. VT. Circulation A. The right-of--way along Cromdale Drive shall remain at fifty (50) feet. B. The right-of--way along Muirfield Drive shall remain at its variable width between approximately one hundred seventy-five (175) to one hundred eighty- five (185) feet. C. One curb cut shall be permitted on Cromdale Drive that will provide full access to and from the development site and shall be located as shown on the development plan. A cross access easement shall be provided to the east with any future development to reduce the number curb cuts along Cromdale Drive D. Al] internal circulation shall occur via private drives to be maintained by the property owners} or its assigns or designees. Private drives shall be constructed using asphalt and shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet in width. 08-0292/FDP Rezoning~rinat Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Le~~rning Academy 59~~ r't•rniuiale f)rive Proposed Development Text VII. Screening A. A forty-eight (48) inch wrought iron matte black fence shall enclose the proposed playground on its north, east and west boundaries. The southern boundary of the playground shall be enclosed by the existing wall. B. All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a wall or screen in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls or screening shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. C. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened per Code from public view with materials harmonious to the site. VIII. Landscaping Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall be in accordance with Dublin City Code. IX. Lighting A. All exterior site and building lighting shall comply with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. B. Exterior light fixtures maybe pole or wall mounted, dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. 08-029Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirficld Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 5, 2008 CITY OF DUBLIN,. ~a,a u,. ona Sono sw,y. ~++w 5800 Stvef-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/ TOO: 61 a-a 10.4600 Fox:674-41Q~4747 Web Site: www.dublin.uh.us Creating a Legacy The Planning and Toning Commission took the following action at this meeting: Muir6eld Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive 08-0297JFDP RezoninglPreliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A day care and a playground area for an existing school located on the north side of Cromdale Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Memorial Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Stephen Lenker, Lenker & Larson Ltd. Planning Contact: Jonathan Papp, Planner. Contact Information: (bl4) 410-4683, jpapp@dublin.oh.us MOTION #I: To approve this Rezoning application because this proposal complies with the rezoning criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with one condition: 1) The applicant shall provide an access easement to the east once the vacant parcel develops. *Stephen Lenker, agreed with the above condition. VOTE: 6 - 0. RF,SULT: This Rezoning application was approved. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 5, 2008 1. Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdaie Drive 08-029Z/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Continued MOTION #2: To approve this Final Development Plan application because this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with twv conditions: I) That circulation option number ane be identified on the ptan; and 2} That the arborvitae be installed at six feet in height and three feet on center at installatian and that the spruce be amitted from the landscape plan. *Stephen I,enker, agreed with the above conditions. VOTE: 6 - 0. RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION nathan Papp Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~RA~ June 5, 2008 -Minutes Page 1 of 2 1. 1Vluirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5820 Cromwell Drive 08-0297/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Mr. Zimmerman requested that only the circulation options be discussed on this case which was pulled from the consent agenda. He swore in Stephen Lenker, Lenker & :Larson, Ltd., the applicant and all others who wished to speak in regards to this case. Jonathan Papp reported that at the May 8, 2008 Work Session, he Commission requested that the applicant consider a turnaround at the eastern side of the parking lot. Mr. Papp said that the applicant has updated the plan (Option #2) to show that they could accomplish it, but it removes some of the parking and does not improve vehicular circulation or meet the way that the facility operates. I-Ie said that this arratlgement does not meet the need for a connection in the parking area to create a flow between this and the vacant secondary parcel when it redevelops. Mr. Papp said that Option 1 is preferred by the applicant and Planning. Mr. Lenker said the easement for the adjacent parcel could be provided so that they could tie in for circulation. He said the original final development plan showed a U-shape with both entrances on the north and south sides of Cromwell Drive and they cottld provide that. He said the striping option was merely that. Mr. Lenker said during restricted hours they plan to have parents bring children in on Memorial Drive, to the south and exit on Tain Drive, to the north which would eliminate potential stacking on Cromdale Drive. He said it would be a private right-in/out and is not being required by Planning. NIr. Lenker confirmed that they would prefer this option of right-in/right-out during restricted hours. Mr. Saneholtz clarified that the City was not requiring the right-in/right-out. Mr. Zimmerman concluded that the right-in/right-out would be kept as it was proposed. Chris Amoroso Groomes and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that the on-site turn around was not needed because it would not serve any purpose unless the cars were going to be stacked to drop off children which could create a safety concern with maneuverability. Since the facility requires that attendants be dropped off and signed in, the on-site turn around would not improve circulation. Ted Sanehottz and Warren Fishman preferred Option 1 to ensure there is an easement for the connection to the adjacent eastern property to function properly. Flite Freimann and Kevin Walter also preferred Option 1. Ms. Amoroso Groomes pointed out that the four-inch caliper arborvitae proposed on the east side, planted at two feet on center was not at a maintainable distance and suggested instead that the arborvitae should be six feet high at insta}lation and planted three-feet apart on center. Mr. Lenker agreed to the suggestion made by Ms. Amoroso Groomes. Mr. Fishman asked if the pines were going to be placed on the adjacent property. Mr. Papp said Planning was asking that when the pines were planted in the current setback, if they do not survive, that an easement be sought with the adjacent property owner to move them over to provide a larger planting area. He said they would be close to the fence. Ms. Amoroso Groomes Dublin Planning and 'Zoning Commission DRAFT June 5.2008 -Minutes Page 2 of 2 said that would not work, because pines spread at three to four feet. Mr. Lenker said they would change the pines to deciduous trees if preferred. Mr. Fishman explained that an opaque situation was wanted and he would like to see the easement now so that they can be planted in the right place. Mr. Lenker said they were currently in discussion with the property owner, Mr. Manus to get an easement granted. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested omitting the spnice and making it solid arborvitae and holding the tenant on the adjacent side to provide their buffering as well. She said the spruce could be picked up when the other building comes in for development. lvlr. Fishman agreed that would be a good solution. Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that Condition 2 of the Final Development Plan had been replaced with: "I hat the arborvitae be installed at six feet in height and three feet on center and that the spruce be omitted from the landscape plan. Mr. Fishman requested that that requirement for spruce trees be remembered at the time the adjacent properly is developed. iYiotion and Vote #1 -Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Zimmerman made a motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal complies with the rezoning criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with one condition as listed in the Planning Report: 1) The applicant shall provide an access easement to the east once the vacant parcel develops. Mr. Lenker agreed to the above condition. Ms. Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Walter; yes; Mr. Fislunan, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 6 - 0.) Motion and Vote #2 -Final Development Plan Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this final development plan application because this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with two conditions: 1) That circulation option number one be identified on the plan; and 2) That the arborvitae be installed at six feet in height and three feet on center and that the spruce be omitted from the landscape plan. Mr. Lenker agreed to the two above conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Walter; yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; and Mr. Zimmernan, yes. (Approved 6 - 0.) PLANNING REPORT cIT~~ of nesl_ls PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Use and long Range iloaainy SR00 Shia~Rings Rood JU1V'E S 2008 Dublin, Ohio 43016~:23b ~ Phoar. 614 4104600 fax: 614 410 4741 Wnh Site: wrw.d~b!in.ofi.os SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION: 1. Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Proposal: A day care and a playground area for an existing school located on the north side of Cromdale Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Memorial Drive. Request: Review and approval of a rezoninglpreliminary development plan and a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Stephen Lenker, Lenker & Larson Ltd. Planning Contact: Jonathan Papp, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683, jpapp@dublin.oh.us Case Summary This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and a final development plan to add daycare as a permitted use and to construct a 3,600-square-foot playground area for an existing building to be used in association with the daycare and a school within the Muirf eld Village Planned Unit Development District. Case Background The site was constructed as part of an amendment to the original Final Development Plan that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in November 1989 for an office development to be built in four phases. Phases 1 and 2 where constructed, and are the subject property. Work Session Update At the May 8, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission informally reviewed this proposal. Following their review of the proposal, the Commission requested further review of vehicular circulation and the need for screening along the eastern property line next to the playground area. The plans have been revised to incorporate the comments by the Commission. Plan Revisions Changes made to the plan based on the Commission's comments are summarized for ease of review. Based on feedback from the Commission, the vehicular circulation has been updated, Planning and "Coning Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-029Z%FDP Page 2 of 9 and now contains two options. The first option maintains the parking layout that was shown at the work session with the addition of a right-turn only sign at the exit to reduce stacking into the parking lot. The second option adds the right-turn only sign at the exit, and also adds a turnaround loop at the eastern end of the existing parking lot. The plans were also revised to include screening along the eastern side of the proposed playground with a hedgerow and pine trees along as requested by the Commission. Site Description Location The site is located on the north side of Cromdale Drive and the south side of Muirfield Drive, approximately 500 feet west of its intersection with Memorial Drive. Site Character The 1.48-acre parcel contains two single-story, 10,000-square-foot buildings, which front Cromdale Drive in the center and eastern portion of the site. The site contains 69 parking spaces located along the north and west sides of the property. Access to the parking lot is located off Cromdale Drive in the southwest corner of the site. There is a 50-foot setback from Muirfield Drive to the north, which contains a mature landscape buffer. Surrounding Zoning and Uses The site and surrounding area is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development district. There are single-family residences located to the north and south of the site. A similar sized office building is located to the west of the property. The vacant parcel located to the east is currently controlled by the same property owner that owns the application property, and is the site of Phases 3 and 4 of the previously approved Amended Final Development Plan. Plan Description Overview The plan includes the change of use to the buildings from office to school and daycare. A playground area to serve both uses is proposed immediately adjacent to the eastern building in the southeastern portion of the site. Development Text The applicant has produced a development text that incorporates requirements to regulate the development within this PUD. The main change is the incorporation of daycare as a permitted use in conjunction with the uses permitted within the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional and NC, Neighborhood Commercial districts of the Zoning Code. Setbacks The approved Amended Final Development Plan for the site shows no setback requirement between the application parcel and the vacant parcel to the east due to the original intentions of building the entire site as one uniform development. The proposed development text permits a three-foot setback from the eastern property boundary. This setback allows for the construction of the proposed playground area along with the planting of the proposed landscape hedgerow. Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-029Z/FDP Yage 3 of 9 Playground Details The proposed playground is located in the southeastern portion of the site, and is to be approximately 3,600 square feet in size. There aze to be five activity zones within the playground site for different ages including slides, climbing bazs, swings and a shade canopy. The proposed equipment will be fabricated of neutral colors as are typical for playgrounds in Dublin. All areas of the playground are to be covered by an eight- to ten-inch deep bed of wood mulch on top of the existing grade. No changes to the existing grade or drainage are proposed with this application. Playground Fence The applicant is proposing to enclose the playground area with a 48-inch high, wrought-iron, matte black fence with egress gates on the west and north sides. The fence will tie into the existing stone walls in the southeast corner of the site. There will also be a section of fence placed between the southwest corner of the eastern building to the adjacent wall to the south. Access There is currently one access point to the site which is located in the southwest corner of the property. No physical changes to this existing access are being proposed with this application. There will be full access to the site from the existing access point for both east and west bound traffic on Cromdale Drive. Vehicular movement exiting the site will be restricted to right-turn movements onto Cromdale Drive. The restricted egress movement is to prevent excessive stacking into the parking lot during dismissal/peak daycare pick-up times. As part of the proposal, Planning is also requesting that the applicant commit to an access easement for any future development that may take place with the vacant parcel to the east. Parking The parking for the proposal will be adequate to meet Code requirements for each use. The calculations for the proposal will be based on the institutional uses of day or nursery schools and elementary school uses. Using these uses as the basis for the parking calculation, the site provides 69 parking spaces where only 47 are required. Therefore, the site meets Code requirements. Circulation In response to comments by the Commission at the work session, the applicant has provided a circulation option that adds a turnaround loop at the eastern end of the existing parking lot. Considering the typical operations of a daycare, a drop-off area will not likely be utilized by parents and the existing layout will allow for future connectivity to the site to the east. The Commission should indicate which circulation option is preferred. Landscaping In addition to the landscaping that currently exists on the site along the north, south and west property boundaries, the applicant is proposing additional landscaping along the eastern property boundary. The new landscaping will be a single hedgerow of Arbor Vitae. The Arbor Vitae will be of a four-inch diameter at time of planting, and will be spaced two feet apart on center. Also being proposed are four Norway Spruce evergreens within the proposed hedgerow. The spruce will be often- to twelve-inch diameter at time of planting, and will be spaced approximately ten feet apart. Planning and Zoning Commission Junc 5, 2008 -Planning Repcxl Application No. 08-029Z/FDP Page 4 of 9 Planning has concerns that the minimal space between the proposed fence and eastern property boundary will not provide an adequate planting environment for the proposed playground screening. Planning encourages the applicant to obtain a landscape easement along the eastern property boundary to create a more sustainable planting area for the proposed screening. Stormwater The City of Dublin Stormwater Management Ordinance provides an exemption for any construction which adds less than 500 square feet through expansion of a building, structure or pavement which results in new impervious area on a project site. The site currently contains 37,465 square feet of impervious surface. There is no increase to the amount of impervious surface since all proposed ground cover is pervious wood mulch. SECTION II -REVIEW STANDARDS Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standazds that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be forwarded to City Council for a first reading/introduction and a second reading/public hearing for a fmal vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. The following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and are in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 9) The proposed development is consistent with the Dublin Zoning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfare of the City; and the proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded. Planning and 'Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. OS-029LFDP Page 5 of 9 Criteria met: The Future Land Use Plan of the 2007 Community Plan Update identifies the land use for this site as "Mixed-Use, Neighborhood Center." In Planning's opinion, this project will enhance the Muirfield Village area and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. Parks and Open Space (Criteria S and 6) The proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resoierces of the site. Criteria met: This requirement is not applicable to commercial development; however, the proposal includes additional landscaping along the eastern property boundary. Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and I1) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides . for a safe, convenient and non- conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas. Criteria may he met through condition: The site will have access to adequate utilities. Access from the site onto Cromdale Drive will be restricted to right-turn movements to reduce cueing into the parking lot, and will improve movement through the site. The applicant will be required to provide an access easement to the east once the vacant parcel develops (Condition #1). There is no increase to the amount of impervious surface or re-grading taking place with this proposal. Construction drawings and final details will be required at the building permit stage. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10) The relationship of buildings and structures prvvides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image oj~Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the City. Criteria met: The proposal is using the two existing buildings on the site. The only external changes being proposed is the addition of the playground equipment, landscaping and fencing. The existing building appropriately fits into the neighborhood context, and the addition of the neutral-colored playground equipment and landscaping will make the proposed changes blend into the site. Design Standards (12, and 13) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and the proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of~the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City. Criteria met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this project. Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-029Z/FDP Page 6 of 9 Infrastructure (Criteria 14, I S and 16) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria met: There are adequate services in place for the proposed development. There are no infrastructure changes needed to facilitate this proposal since there are no changes to the access points, and Cromdale Drive already meets the intent of the Thoroughfare Plan. Final Development Plan The purpose of the Planned Unit Development process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process consists of up to three stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies). The intent of the final development plan is to show conformance with and provide a detailed refinement of the total aspects of the approved preliminary development plan (rezoning). The final development plan includes all of the final details of the proposed development and is the final stage of the PUD process. The Commission may approve as submitted, approve with modifications agreed to by the applicant, or disapprove and terminate the process. If the application is disapproved, the applicant may respond to Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns and resubmit the plan. This action will be considered a new application for review in all respects, including payment of the application fee. Appeal of any action taken by the Commission shall be to the Court of Common Pleas in the appropriate jurisdiction. Following approval by the Commission, the applicant may proceed with the building permit process. In the event that updated citywide standards are applicable, all subsequently approved final development plans shall comply with the updated standards if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the updated standards would not cause undue hardship. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Final Development Plan Criteria Section 153.055(B) of the Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a final development plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 3, 9, & 10). The proposed modifications conform to the approved preliminary development plan, have adequate public facilities and open spaces, are carried out in progressive stages, and conform to all other applicable zoning text and Code requirements. Criteria met: The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan in terms of permitted use, lot coverage, and setbacks. Planning and Zoning Commission Junc 5, 2008 -Planning Rcport Application No. 08-029Z/FDP Pagc 7 of 9 Site Safety and Circulation (Criteria 2 & S). The proposed modifications provide fvr safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and provide adequate lighting for such uses. Criteria may be met through condition: The site currently provides adequate lighting, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the proposed uses. No changes are being proposed to lighting on the site. Two options are proposed for circulation and the Commission should indicate which circulation option is preferred (Condition # 1). Development Details (Criteria 4, 6, 7, & 8). The details of the development are sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site, include appropriate landscaping and signs, and provide adequate storm drainage. Criteria may be met through condition: The proposal conforms to the preliminary development plan requirement for appropriate landscaping details, and provides adequate stormwater management. The applicant shall obtain a landscape easement from the adjacent eastern property (Parcel No. 273-001531) to accommodate screening and landscaping along the eastern boundary of the playground area (Condition #2). SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with one condition is recommended. Condition: 1) The applicant shall provide an access easement to the east once the vacant parcel develops. Final Development Plan In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the final development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with two conditions is recommended. Conditions: 1} That one circulation option be identified on the plan; and 2) That the eastern boundary of the playground be adequately screened on-site plant material unless a legally executed landscape easement between the Dublin Learning Academy and the adjacent eastern property is submitted. Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Report Application No. 08-029Z/FDP Page 8 of 9 Preliminary Development Plan Review Criteria: Section 153.OSU of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 4) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The desigrl, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; I3) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; Planning and Zonntg Commission June 5, 2008 -Planning Rcport Application No. 08-0297JFDP Page 9 of 9 14} The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure aze consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Final Development Plan Review Criteria: In accordance with Section 153.055(B) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a final development plan: 1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development plan provided, however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize plans as specified in §153.053(E)(4); 2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site and to adjacent property; 3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces; 4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code; 5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the streets, walkways, driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties or the general vicinity; 6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation; 7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate; 8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria established by the City or any other governmental entity which may have jurisdiction over such matters; 9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each stage; and 10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal laws and regulations. N 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan t City of Dublin Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy Land Use and 5920 Cromdale Drive o X50 ~,~oo Long Range Planning Feet PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN N 1 '~-- ~-, 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive PROPOSED PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND ELEVATION ~,~ui~..._ I i I i wig ' ~i East Elevation 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan yluirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive PROPOSED FENCE DETAI L 2 , /2" Color: Matte Black ~„ 20 3 8 ,• $OVARS wcKEl I 1-S/B' % 1-S/8' SfRRtCER ALL POBiS TYPICALLY INSTALlEO IN CONCRETE -~ SME /2028 t8"N MEICH7 IH ACCOROhVCE WRH LOCAL CONDIT~W~'S 7r%8U2O25N AND STANDARD BWLOIHC PRACTICES Connection with Existing Wall 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive CITY OF DUBL[IV Wnd Use and Long Range Piaaning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone: 614.410-4b00 Fox: 614-410-4147 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 5. AMENDED PLANNING AND 'CONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION MAY 8, 2008 Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Center 5920 Cromdale Drive 08-029AFDP Amended Final Development Plan Proposal: A playground area for an existing school located on the north side of Cromdale Drive, approximately 500 feet west of Memorial Drive. Request: Review and feedback of an amended final development plan under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Stephen Lenker, I,enker & Larson Ltd. Planning Contact: Jonathan Papp, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4683, jpapp@dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission was supportive of this application and discussed the drop off area of parking, the screening of the play area with Arborvitae along the fencing near Cromdale Drive and suggested not to have primary colors on the play equipment. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission May 8, 2008 -Minutes Page 6 of 10 C~tris Amorose Groome equested that when t} ' returns to the Comn roadway improveme at the Post Road i rchange be provide r picture. Ms. Will' agreed to provide the Steve Lan orthy said he had as d Engineering to pr tde the Coy Capital iprovements Project IP} presentation in ptember. He ; w11e here was a brief agen , he would ask Engi ring to present the ~Mr. Zimmerman as ~ if the existing bike th location was street. Ms. Willi aid if the bikepath w located on the nort more of an i act to the retention d and also if pedest north, and Bey were going back the hospital or to ger Drive, more pedestrians wo d probably use this r dw_ay fi mo direct connection for ose pedestrians. -- -_ Mr. Zimmerman thap~ed everyone who par~ipated-r 5. Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Center 08-029AFDP Jonathan Papp presented this request for~nfQ~ Plan to construct a 3,600-square-foot playgro~ building to be used as a daycare and private:=s Development District. He said during the init proposed daycare is not a permitted use within use is. Mr. Papp said=~-e applicant has amen rezoning to include'dayas a pitted use. 5sion that the scl- order to see the Gith an annual later this year CIP. the other side the road, there ould be ig to ac ss from the acce tt via Hospital n t would provide a _ 5920 Cromdale Drive .ended Final Development Plan _ WORK SESSION view of an=Amended Final Development ~ located on ahe east side of an existing ~iihin the:MuirGeld Village Planned Unit v process, it has been determined that the rovet~development text, while the school application and is now also requesting a Mr. Papp said_.~he -Conunissr~_approved~~~3nended Final Development Plan in November 1989 for.an-office developmenf~to.=be built in four phases. He said Phases 1 and 2, the subject properties, were constructed on 1.48:-acres and consist of two office buildings totaling 10,000 square feet and contain a 69-space parking lot located along the north and west side of the property with .access located :from Cromdale Drive in the southwest corner of the site. A 50-foot setback from'3~irfield Drivel the north presently contains a mature landscape buffer. Mr. Papp said the psed_~layground equipment will be fabricated of neutral colors typical to playgrounds in Dubli~~c said the playground is proposed to be enclosed by a 48-inch wrought iron matte black fence`-with egress gates on the west and north sides. He said the fence will also tie into the existing stone wall in the southeast and southwest corners of the playground area. Mr. Papp said Planning has listed two discussion points for Commission input. [The comments and input follow each point.] Steve Lenker, Larson and Lenker, Ltd., the applicant provided a short history of this site. He said their new tenant is Cathy Holbert with The Dublin Learning Academy. Mr. Lenker indicated that the Muirfield Association had reviewed and approved the proposed fence, but had not seen the playground equipment. 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 59~n (rt~mdalP T~rivP i :~:i^u~es of Meeting, Secte^1~er 7, 1989 t _ ^••,-; ;l:r. ?larnir.g ind Zoning Com_nission i ,~ - as=`' Election f Officers 3e- use the meeti:ig was Wing ahead of schedul ue to a tabled case rlier --~ cecket, the app 'cant eras rot yet prey at the meeting. ~`:?~Cor.~is~ion ad,eu .ed to Executive Sess' at 8:30 p.m. Them ting recc :~ned at 9:0 p.:~. ~,ue t., ti:e signation o: Mr. Tom ace as chairman of t Planning and Zoning Co-~ss'_ Mr. Ge~:se recuested motion to nominate eve chairman. M Geese, to serve as ur. C= ... bell nomin<~ted the c rent vice-chairman, c^ '_...aa of the Ccrm:ission hrough 1989. The mo 'on was seconded by M • rus, and the vote was s follows: Mr. Amor e, yes; Mr. Manus, y ~'• es; Mr. Lef er, yes; Mr. Campbel yes; Ms. Rausch, yes• r. Geese, nerlin, y 3~Stdl: . :?,.. Car..gbell hen n~,r.:inated Ns . !ta ch to serve as vice- irman of the Co-~~_s>io through .1909- The m on was seconded by M Leffler, and the vo` •.ras as .ollows: Mz'. Geese, ; Ms. Rausch, abstai Mr. Campbell, yes; . Le°` er, '/es; Mr. B;:rlin, s; Mr. Manus, yes; M Amozose, yes. 4. Final Develo t Plan - Llewellyn P hest - Financial pup Office Building ( led without discussi at the request of applicant) 5. Revised Pinal Deael~ap~,nt Plan - ACI Center at Muirfield tax. „ones rresented slices cf the site and surrounding area, as well as a site cep=r._otior. and information contained in the Sta~f Report of September 7, 1°0. -Sizte the acplicant's previous Amended Final Development Dlan approval by the ?1a-;Wing and Zoning G~r.W fission on April 6, 1989, he has purchased the a~;oining '_1.083 acre parcel to the south and proposes to redesicn the project. The site now contains 2.483 acres located between the west side of ~:uir_`ield Drive and Cromdale Drive, approximately 140 feet north of Memorial Gri•:e. The site and surrounding area is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is dart of the area approved for commercial uses within Muirfield Village. -'::e oropcsal includes t'~e existing single-story building of 4,400 swaxe feet a r.^ t^ree similar sincle-story buildings totaling 17,998 square feet. The Ex~F=icrs are tc be of cedar siding and stone with shake roofs. -" e de•:elopment requires a 50-foot landscaped setback along Muirfield Drive; -,'^co 37 feet is shover. cn t're plan with the building setback at approximately _:.~ feet. -_-'s ~rorosal shows ar. imgroved par.:ing plan with 117 parking spaces. -._c~osed lan3scaping r:e~ts or exceed.- Code recuizemer.ts. -:':~e re•%ised sign packace would permit each individual tenant one main window sic r., rct to exceed 10 s~~are feet and one service door identification sign, r.ct ~c exceed :five square fee*_. The package also includes a project ice^ti'_icaticn situ (25 sgo•ire feet) to be incorporated into a stone retaining •.:al. a_caa the uuirfield Dr~:~ frontage and two small identification signs (3 sc,:are fe<_t) to be incorporated into the wing walls 4t each entrance on .._c-tale hive. =our directory signs (12 square feet) are ?roposed as well at ..n_ -terior o' the site. -=:^:e oe:-r.:'_ttec uses are to be the sane as those previously approved on April 6, __:.. :^e aooiicant has reeuested that two additi:;nal uses be added to the OS-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan - ~ ~ t •t ) ~• ~ ~ ~ll~,~ t • ' l ~Y ~f Af, -fit. i. t . r F,~ ~ ~- , ~ . Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning .,~j'h ~ ~.~ ~.. ~? a_ ~ cx`~ jar 51-t~„! L ~t~x{~ ~'~,~r-F~:.'t~,~ Academy ..-- _--- _. ..:~_._ ~--.- -_-'~~_ ...~ _.~ ._----.~~,~'.-~, 5920 Cromdale Drive ~!irutes of Meeting, BeptF.-,ber ?, 1989 pualin Planing and ~oainy CcssT.issior. Pa«e 8 list: an antique store and an i-iterior decorator. Staff feels these uses are appropriate. ~!r. Joy:es noted a correction to the Staff Report, Pazagraph F, slating t5at severa' urea including hardware stores, meat and fish markets, retail bakery, drug store and self-service laundry had beep deleted with the previous approval. -Staff recocnended approval of the Revised Final Development Plan with six con;;it:.eas listed in the Stafi Report, a 7th condition that the applicant s:.bmit t'e plan fur review end approval by the Muirfield Design Review Conn~_tte?, and the engiveer's reque=t from the S*.af` Report that all storm water p'.pirg is to be installed at thz completion of Phase II. Mr. Ren Stone, the develcper and applicant, stated his agreement to all eight con~itions. Ms. Joar. iclosek, an area resident, requested clazification on hew much retail space is proposed. Mr. Jones stated that the plan has the potential for a^p_Oxi^ately 18,000 square feet of li^ited retail use. The plan adds 1.4 acres far an additional 4,000 square feet of building space to what was previously approved, with the uses remai-r_inq basically the same. Mr. JoY:n Reiser, a t?uirfield residen*., seated that he had been asked by the Board of Trustees of Muirfield to repzesent their position which is :hat there be no more retail co•.Tanercial development. They would prefer that it be developed as office space. hir. Le±iler asked if this area was designated for c:o~,mercial uses at the time of ,.oning for Muirfield. Mr. Jones replied that it was his undezstanding that it was part of the original extensive area identified for commercial use at the tine of zoning. In response to Mr. Leffler, Mr. Jones stated that the Fire Department has reviewed this plan and finds it suparior to the previous proposal. Mr. Leffler also questioned whether hours of operation for the businesses would be restricted. Mr. Jones replie3 that. this had not been addressed; however, the types of businesses that this proposal inchides do not seer to oresenc a problem. Discussion ensued about rze previously approved plan. Ms. Rausch stated that she voted to approve the previous plan because she felt the 9,600 square foot two-stor,~ building would probably contain offices. She felt that this plan ;with single-story buildings would better accommodate retail uses. Mr. Ca.*^pbe11 referred to the list of permitted uses, noting tY:at most of them are c~~~ce-type uses. The more retail-type uses are listed as conditiona uses. ~~• Mr. Jones stated that specific uses could be addressed if the Commission has concerns. t^r. Geese stated tia•.: the previous plan was approved with 14,000 square feet of which 4,400 could be retail space. Mr. Stone noted that for the one acre of land being added, the building space is increased only by 4,000 square feet, and he requested flexibility on the usage. Mr. Seiner referred to the ~~uilding which was approved originally, stating chat the City granted approval without it being reviewed by the Muirfield Design Ccmmittee. The building did not comply with Muirfield restrictions, and the Committee felt it could net impose changes after approval and the issuar.c~ o° a building permit by the City. Mr. Re'_ner requested that the City re u ire the applican*_ to °ollow Muirfield review procedure_ He stated that it 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan ,r'~^ ~ ..-r.---r.~ _.q.rLa ~ ~- f ~ 1 't ~Jv ~~4 r ~ 4,1~ , ,,, L ~ . :-- r . t~~, L.~ ~ r` ~r4 ~ ? r, ~ ~ ;~ , ~ 4~~~' ~,, Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning ~- J :. t .~ `f. ~ zt ~~sS 's' '- t~~ rt ~ ~ `'4~ tt Li.~ ~'~ r-.~4 ~- i ..i.}r _.~ K?P ,Fe t (~...Y(~ ~~~k 1~ ~, ~~.rr ~ .-~~i--91 j~~ y ..- _ _...._._.~_~____....~..'~_....__...' .__.;:,'_.._ ~'..`~`_.~s.i,_.~,_., _~._~~.?.,,~ 5920CromdaleDrive •tl::;:tes c~ ::aet_rg, SeptembLr 7 , lg6y ~;:blin ?lannirg a:~d Zoning Commission ace a s to Board o° Trustees' objecti~•e to keep the quality of the neighborhood tecet`~e_, a^.d they have experienced problems with this developer in Muizfield. T`t° Board wants commercial uses kept to a minimum. >:r. :erlin recuested clarification from Mr. Banchefsky on the Commission's abilit_~ to limit the usage. Mr. Banchefsi~y stated that the parcel is zoned °ur ce-~ercial uses, and the Commission covid be overruled on a decision to 3isallow it to be developed as such. Mr. Bowman stated that several parcels e*_" t^e criginal 30 plus acres of commercial have been rezoned. State^ents were made by Muizfield representatives that offices were the ::re:erred use for these parcels; however, the zoning was never officially charce~, and the parcels were sold as commercial property. >:s. Rausch noted that the previously approved plan had been carefully worked out 'c.: the Co;~ission and appeared to be designed more for office uses_ `".r. Craig Villwock, a resident of Muizfield as well as a tenant in Muizfield Square shopping center; expressed concern about the permitted uses at ACZ Center. ~:e proposed that any type of retail or office use which already e:c'_sts in Muizfield Scuare be excluded from the approved list of uses for ACZ Center. Mr. Banchefsky stated tha*_ it is not for the Commission to decide what is fair in the marketplace. Mr. r Grose ~.:estioned how loading and unloading will be accommodated at this center. Mr. Stone stated that he has worked with Mr. Jerry Tanner, land :Manner/landscape architect, on a plan for the center. The plan now includes amore taan li7 parking spaces, so a loading azea could replace a few spaces if zecuized. sewever, he did not feel it would be necessary. Mr. Stone stated t^at t'r.e center is geared toward a pzofessional plaza, but he needs some latit::de on the uses to obtain a bank loan. ~:r. Cc~~Db21i asked Mr. Stone if he would be willing to have a limitation placed on the square footace allowed for retail use as was done with the trevicus plan. Mz. Stone was not fa•~orable. .:',`~-'. r. ~eir.er asked about zhe signage plan for the center, and Mr. Jones >' ' . explained the prcpesal. Mr. Reiner again expressed concern about the City ' ;~~ s crcviac ulsns in Muizfielc: without them first being approved by Muirfield • .:, ap Design Co.::mittee. Mr. Amoroso requested clarification on the Design '• ` =' Co-~ it-ee's a:ahority in Muizfield. Mr. Reiner explained that it is part of . ._ ~~e Goof: restzictions and gives *_he Committee the authority to review and ', :-o~rc-:e ail ~~olors, signage, .architecture, etc. within Muizfield. Mr. ~•~• Ca.:.~~ell stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's function is to ~"'''' deter-ine whether an application meets the City's requirements; the ,..,,_. . rssociation still has the rig`.t to enforce its deed restrictions. Mr. Reiner '' states that potential tenants need to be aware of both sets of restrictions. curt::eY discussion ensued about who should be contacted and who officially re:•ie•.:s to glans in Muizfield. Mr. Banchefsky clazified that deed .. res_r:cticns are a private -after which have nothing to do with the City's cbliga~ic:,. The Association has its remedies through its deed restrictions, ar.:: ~^e it is applicant who should be aware that his plans must meet both sets c r~cuize-eats. us. Bowman stated that it is the City's intention to cco_~i^aCe Mans witi Muirfield's Design Committee before a building permit is 08-029Z/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muizfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy Minutes of i,eetirg, September 7, 1989 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 Mr. Berlin suggested that this application be tabled until the applicant can show on a pro rata scale that the piece being added meets the same criteria as the piece previously approved. Discussion ensued about what was previously approved in August, 1987 and April, 1989. Mr. Bowman stated that perhaps another usage ratio could be negotiated. Mr. Ralph Paglieri of ACI Industries, Ltd., who proposes to be the main tenant in this center, explained that the applicant had worked with Staff on what he felt was a superior plan. He expressed dissatisfaction with the difficulty of the appreval process. Mr. Campbell explained that different bodies serve different functions throughout the review process, and the plan must meet the approval of the Commission. Discussion ensued about how much space needs to be set aside within this center for retail uses. Mr. Campbell felt that limitations need to be placed on the amount of zetail space as we21 as revision to the permitted uses. Mr. Paglieri sta~ed that the buildings will be built one at a time and leased out a3 space becomes available. He did not agree that there should be litn-tations placed on the amount of permitted retail space. Mr. Banchefsky noted that the previous agreement included a ratio. The previous ratio was 4,400 square feet of retail space permitted within the 14,000 square foot center (approx. 30$). Mr. Bowman noted that this site plan is less dense and provides more parking; therefore, it could pzobably accommodate a greater ratio of retail space. Mr. Campbell suggesteo that the following three uses be eliminated from the list of permitted uses: fruit stores and vegetable markets; candy, nut and confectionery stores; and florists. The applicant was agreeable to these uses being deleted. Upon further discussion about the square footage ratio for retail and office space, Mr. Paglieri suggested that the ratio be at least SO percent of the building space or 9,000 square feet. Mr. Stone suggested 10,000 square feet. The applicant and Staff both agreed that 9,000 square feet of zetail space would be acceptable and that parking would be adequate foz this ratio. Mr. Manus moved to approve the Revised Pinal Development Plan for ACI Center at Muirfield with the following conditions: 1_ Elimination of fruit stores and vegetable markets; candy, nut and confectionery stores; and florists from the list of permitted uses; and addition of jewelry stores, antique stores and intezior decorators to list of permitted uses. 2. Retail commercial space to be limited to 9,000 square feet; 3. A 50-foot landscape setback to be maintained along Muirfield Drive; 4. At completion of Phase II, all landscaping along Muirfield Drive to be installed and interior landscaping completed through Phase II; 5. At completion of Phase IIZ, all landscaping for the south perimeter and Cromdale Drive landscaping completed through Phase III. Remaining inte.:nal landscaping to be completed in conjunction with Phase Iv; 6. Submission of a revised, signed agreement similar to previous agreement signed May 31, 1989. This agreement is to list all restrictions addressed within this Staff Report; 7. L?ghting fixtures are to be cut-off type units and overall height is not to exceed 29 feet measured from pavement surface to top of fixture. The wattage of the bulbs is rot to exceed 400 watts; wT 1 - a. Yom. i.:: ~ 2'F Y ~~. -.~.~:s:..: M - Se~t~_-:~,er 7, 1969 Minutes c'_ eet:ng, _ I?•.:blin ?lannirc and Zon_~? Co.:.mission ? ace 11 6. :,11 :techanical unit=, transformers, and A/C units to be completely screened; ?, r-proval by Muirfie_~ Association Architectural Design Review Committee; lp. ;:t co-pleticn of Pha=e ZZ, all storm water piping is to t:e installed. Mr. :.e'_`_ler seconded the :7oticn. The applicant stated his agreement with the cor.diticns. The vote •w:.s as follows: Mr. Geese, yes; Ms. Bausch, yes; Mr. Ca,:.obell, yes; Mr. Berl'_a, yes; tdr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Manus, yes. (Approved -~). 6. Coffman Pazk ster Plan dir. Bo•,•:-,ai; s ted t'rat ~arlsber r Planning Associ es had been hired y the City Ac.:.in' tration to cenduc a municipal facil' ies study. The pose of t:,:e stuc• was to deter;-i^.e tare building spa needs of the dif t;rent city depar _nts and to ceve'_c park and facility lternatives in a around Cuff- n nark. The stu' utilized the obje ices of the Comm ity Plan. As th preliminary plan :o- the extension Coffman Road we developed, it ecame apparent th t*:e new road woul present an oppor ity to expand Coff^aa Panic and ne municipal faci ies southward. a Master Plan presented is S ff's pre`en'ed al 'native. Zt is t administration's objective to ain Council's app al of the Coffma extension alignme and the Ccffma Park :'taster ?lan that land purcha negotiations and final engineer'.g of the road can egin. Staff is s king the Planning nd Zoning Ccn*nis cn's erdorsemer.t _ the "taster Plan. Staff is requesti g review of the _::aral ccnceat fen patial relationsh' s between buildi s and roadways th uch the area. Th actual prograr.~min of each individu element will be ,.udied independent' and subject to c nge. Mr. 'cc•«-:an intr aced v~ . Hill Sh rt of Karlsberge ssociates, consu ant for tre manic' al faci_ities stu and Mr. Bob Ap , architect, avai le to adaress the esign aspects of e buildings. Mr. ^il S'rubert preseate a model of the Ma er Plan and outli d the process o~ t study: -?r cra.--ring study: estionraires to d artment heads to termine ~cuire-ents to dev lca a space prcgr -~aad plannine: T ee ~.ajor on-site cilities - Expans'on of existing ~unici_ al bv'_:. ng, colice static and civic center. -Ct^er coals: retain z::d enhanc the existing run amenities that o ur - wit; expan ~cn of the existin passive pazk; ac rate designated p. ing for eats c° .e facilities; pre ervation of the h' tonic Coffman Par extensive lar.ds~ in7 and bufferin property acquisi 'on potential, par cul.arly to tie _st of the site. :'_ next chase was a development cf nee site plan alt natives; however, ~::ese initial pla were based on Po Road being retai d as it currently er.ists •~ith os le acc-uisition o additional land t the west. ~~~ . c.::Y,ert ec,onstrated a Mas r Plan board feat ing key elements f the an^ ^ase~' on the ass•.~.=:ption f the Coffman P.o extension provid' ~g a~cit'_or ]. lard to the =ou (approx. 17 ac.) Goals with this lan were: ;.; ,. reeae more passi~ recreation, ~',-.t'_,•;e r_c ret:~ir -paste ideni_ities of the buildings, -_._..~.. _e-.~:~t o~ vi _~~ lity of Cofft;a. ark to the publi - - l ----' C_"-, ,, l l~j "'~-^"~'. r i ~ ° ~ r'r'1F"~' ~`~ a . 1 ~Yf , ~'.\M1 li 't i. ~ ~ ~ f:'1 ... War -~~- 08-0292/FDP Rezoning/Final Development Plan Muirfield Village -Dublin Learning Academy 5920 Cromdale Drive