037-86 Ordinance Corrected RECORD OF ORDINANCES
National Graphics Corp., Cols., O. Form No. 2806-A
Ordinance No.____37-86 _ (Corrected) _ 19
- Passed _ _ _ -
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
OF ZONING ON A 35.475 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
POST ROAD AND AVERY ROAD. TO BE
REZONED FROM: R-1, RESTRICTED SUB-
URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, T0:
P.U.D., PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Village of Dublin,
State of Chio, 7 of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached legal
description marked Exhibit "A"), situated in the Village of Dublin,
State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned to P.U.D., PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEPdT
DISTRICT and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained
in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter Eleven of the Codified Ordinances) the
Village of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of con-
tiguous property owners, and the recommendation of the Planning are::
Zoning Commission Exhibit "C", are all incorporated in to 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 8th day of December , 1986.
G
6
Mayor - Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
1 hereby certify that cQQi~S of th~~ n-~!~^~^~~=iRasei~tior~
were posted in th=~ `u';~i~~ ~ .~a;u;:;~ce wittl
Section 731.25 of t~~
Clerk of Council
VILLAGE OF DUBLIl~~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AN A?nOLICATION FOR AMENDMENT For P & ZC Use Only
OI' T1-fE VILLAGE OF DUBLIN Application No.
ZGIvING DISTRICT MAP ~
;Reclassification of Land) Date Filed: ~ 86
Fee Receipt o. oo'
Received by:
_ _ _ _ _ Please type or print information -Use additional sheets as necessary - - - - -
TO THE HONORABLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Tt,e Applicant, Ruth E. Mast and Samuel W. Morse
Being the owner (s), /lessee (s) of property located within the area proposed for
reclassification of land/ special use or development, requests that the following
described land to be placed in the PUD Zoning District (s)/
Special District (s).
A. DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE RECLASSIFIED
1. General Description of Land (describe by one of the following: )
a. Lot(s)/ Reserve (s) of
a recorded plat, with an area of Acres/ Square feet.
b. Beginning at a point along
(street or other)
and being feet in a N S E W (circle
dizection from the (specify) of
3-
(street or other), and thence having a dimension of
from the (specify~~of
(street or other), and having an area of
c. The tract of land containing Acres and bounded by:
(specify) on the N S E W (circle)
(specify) on the N S E W (circle)
(specify) on the N S E W (circle)
(specify} on the N W E W (circle
d. Attached legal description: YF.S X _ NO
Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of ZM
,Ta ; of proposed Zoning District boundaries:
T~vo copies of map accurately drawn to an appropriate ?oalnchtes)ill The map
o: not less than 8- 1 /2 x 11 inches and not more than 16 x k
sh~il be identified and submitted in addition to the General Description o`f Land.
'!'tic snap shall include all land in the proposed change and all land within five
hundred (500) feet beyond the limits of the proposed change.
To be shown on the map -all property lines, street right of way, easerzents and
other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries and4 shall
be fully dimensioned.
shall show the existing and proposed Zoning District or Special District
Tt,e map
Boundaries.
s
List atl owners of property within and contiguous to and directly across the street
from such area proposed to be rezoned. The addresses of the owners 'shall be those
appearing on the County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurer's trailing list.
NAME ADDRESS
i
B. ARGUMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE DESCRIBED LAND.
1. Proposed Use or Development of the Land: commercial
z
single family, multi-family and/or housing for the elde!,rly
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DhSTRICTS and SPECIAL
DISTRICTS submission of three (3) copies of a Developmei'~t
Plan and other documents and two (2) copies shall be retained
as a permanent public record if approved..
For other Zoning Districts, such plans or other exhibits would be
helpful to the review of this application, f
t
Plans and Exhibits submitted:
Plot Plan Building Plan ;Development Plan. ;Sketch ;
Photographs ; .Other (specify)
2. State briefly how the proposed :.oning and development relates to the
existing and probable future land use character of the° vicinity.
proposed development is a mixture of single family homes, multi>-family/elderl
ssing unit? and commercial activity. The east side of Avery Rc~ar3';c a
~<ibination of single family residences and multi-family units. Th'e southeast
_Lrner of Post ar.d Avery Roads is zoned LI Limited TndnStr; ai mho ~r,.,~}„~,n~
.n
corner of said interesection is currently zoned R, Rural which is a~holding
~:lassification Due to its location ad~,~CPnt tCl.-S R, 161~}~~.~~y
probably develop in a form other than residential. The property to the west
ind north of the site are undeveloped This zoning rwA~t~~ny}des a - -
:ransition fpm
ffie more intensive zonings along S.R. 161 to the dingle family/
Multi-family development found in Indian Run Meadows.
Page 2 of 3 pages
Page 3 of ZM
3. Has an application for rezoning of the property been denied by the Village
Council within the last two (2) years ? YES NO. X
If Yes, state the basis of reconsideration.
C. AFFIDAVIT
Before completing this application and executing the following affidavit,
it is recommended that this application be discussed with the Building Inspector
to insure completeness and accuracy.
APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OliIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
I(WE) Ruth E. Mast and Samuel W. Morse
being duly sworn, depose and say that I am/we are the owner (s)/lessee (s) of
land included in the application and that the foregoing statement herein-con-
tained and attached, and information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the
best of my/our ability present the arguments in behalf of the application here-
vvith submitted and that the statements and attached exhibits above referred'
t~ ara in all respects true and correct to the best or my/our knowledge and belief.
i
~a~
Samuel W. rse (TrUSt) (signature) Ruth E. Mast
283 South Main St.
West Mansfield, Ohio 43358
6759 Avery Road
(mailing address )
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~~~`• day of 19~~
?e~+t~E L SEMO
sr~t~ ~ ono
f•:.,.~wtMlJ.ilulr~lRESfE8.19.1991 Not y Public
Person to be contacted for details, if other than above signatory:
rz
Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith & Bale, 37 W. Broad St., Columbus,Ohio,43215, 221-425
(fame) (address)
(telephone )
_________DO•I~`OT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-_ _ _
D. RECORD OF ACTION •
1. 'W'ithdrawn _ Held to
(date) ~ (date)
2. P & ZC: Date of Hearing
Approves'. ;Disapproved Modified
3. Village Council: Date of Hearing
Approved ;Disapproved Modified
Page 3 of 3 pages
Travie & Karol J. Elsw~ick
Evelyn Wirchainski Waterfield Mtg. Co.
2260 Northeast 174th St. Colonial Mtg. Co. of Zndiana
North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 333 E. Washington Blvd..
Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46802
Donald L. Lane & Robert M. Lane, TRS.
10183 Mitchell-Delnitt Road Carolyn C. Irvine
Plain City, Ohio 43064 390 Edinburgh Dr.
Dublin, Ohio 43017
MGrr~aret A. Kok
Coui:ty Savings Assoc. G.R. Snyder, Inc.
b5 J°. State St. 1652 W. 5th Ave.
Eo:: 1860 Columbus, Ohio 43212
Columbus, Ohio 43218
Dale G. & Dana A. Columbus John W. & Kathy M. Bandow
Buckeye Federal S&L County Savings Assoc..
c/o TransAmerica Real Estate 65 E. State St.
6600 Busch Blvd. Box 18060
a
Suite 221 Columbus, Ohio 43218
Columbus, Ohio 43229
M/I Schottenstein Co.
Box 29188
Columbus, Ohio 43229
Warren and Helen Gordon
Rt. 3
Plain City, Ohio 43064
Central Holding Corp.
c/o W.V. Rakestraw
8 E. Broad St., 9th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Scioto Valley Land Co. Ltd.
5150 Reed Road
Columbus, Ohio 43220
Neil M. & Robyn D. Fillman
7001 Avery Road
Dubl'_n, Ohio 43017
Dublin Village
IM Development
1855 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.
Columbus, Ohio 43229
T.L. & R.L. Rouse
6863 Avery Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017
xr. _ .
Entire Site
_ - -V=
INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
December 3, 1986
Mr. Pat Grabill
King Thompson Realty Co.
1670 Fishfinger Road
Columbus, Ohio 43221
Dear Pat:
The following is the description you requested today for
an area to be rezoned in the "Morse" tract on Post Road in
Dublin, Ohio.
35.475 ACRES
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, Village
of Dublin and in Virginia Military Survey No. 3452, containing
35.475 acres of land, more or less, said 35.475 acres being
part of that 61.670 acres tract of land described in the deed
to Patrick M. Grabill and Company, Trustee, of record in
Official Record Recorder's Office, Franklin
County, Ohio, said 35.475 acres of land being more particularly
bounded and described as follows:
Beginning, for reference, at the point of intersection of
the centerlines of Avery Road and Post Road; thence, from said
reference point of beginning, with the centerline of said Post
Road, the following two courses and distances: 1) South 87°
56' 09" West, 358.77 f eet; 2) South 89° 36' S2" West, 669.53
feet to the true point of beginning at the southeasterly corner
of said 61.670 acres tract;
thence, from said true point of beginning, with the
centerline of said Post Road and with the southerly boundary of
said 61.670 acres tract, the following two courses and
distances:
1) North 88° 31' 04" West, 907.12 feet;
2) North 88° 11' S4" West, 320.15 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said 61.670 acres tract;
thence North 4° 54' 34" West, with the westerly line of
said 61.670 acres tract, a distance of 1,790.24 feet to a point;
Continued....
G. Architectural Standards
1. In keeping with the residential framework of the
area, all architecture will be of a residential
character and constructed of natural materials
being stone, brick, wood and stucco. All buildings
will be of the same finished quality on all 4
sides. Stone or brick accent will be integrated
into all buildings.
Other than the standards listed above, all remaining
development standards shall be as listed and applicable under
Chapter 1159 and Chapter 1183 of Dublin Code.
e. The area within the 30,6 acre institutional site and
north of the South Fork of Indian Run shall be used
- exclusively for open space/recreational areas,
11/5/86
REPUB.INS
#14
6
TABLE
SCHOOL IMPACT
INCOME
Institutional property taxes $235,459.35
EXPENSES _0_
NET GAIN TO SCHOOLS $235,459.35
VTLL.AGE IMPACT
INCOME
Institutional property taxes $ 83,858.89
EXPENSES
Institutional 30.000.00
TOTAL $ 53,858.89
Additonally, the Village will receive the following death
taxes:
TAXABLE ESTATE VALUES: TAX COMPUTATIONS:
0-40,000 2$
40 - 100,000 800 + 3$ OVER 40,000
100 - 200,000 2,600 + 4~ OVER 100,000
200 - 300,000 6,600 + 5$ OVER 200,000
300 - 500,000 11,600 + 6$ OVER 300,000
500,000 23,600 + 7$ OVER 500,000
64$ OF THE COMPUTED AMOUNT GOES TO VILLAGE
36$ OF THE COMPUTED AMOUNT GOES TO STATE
C~~ Q ~~ll~~h ~l
6665 Coffman Road
Dublin, Ohio 4301 7
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
'"'There will be a Public Hearing on November 17, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. in the Dublin
°Municipal Building, 6665 Coffman Road, Dublin, Ohio on Ordinance No. 37-86 for
the rezoning of a 130.010 acre tract on the northwest corner of Post Road and
Avery Road.
Rezoning Application - Z86-007 - Indian Ridge
(As amended at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November S, 1986)
Location: 130.01 acres located on the northwest corner of Post Road and Avery Road.
Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, Preliminary Plan Review.
Proposed Use: 30.6 acres for 100-bed nursing home and 200 elderly housing units
Applicant: Samuel W. Morse (Trust) and Ruth E. Mast, c/o Ben Hale, Jr.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Council Members
FROM: Bobbie Clarke
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 37-86 - Rezoning at Corner of Post Road and Avery Road
DATE: November 17, 1986
The applicant has met with opposition and has chosen to withdraw his rezoning
request for the major portion of the 130 acre tract. He wishes to pursue at this
time only the rezoning for an elderly institutional/residential complex which will
be situated on 30.6 acres. The site fronts on Post Road, approximately 1,000 feet
west of Avery Road, and is proposed for a 100-bed nursing home along with 200
apartments designed exclusively for an elderly clientele.
In the much earlier stages, the staff in fact suggested that an elderly complex
would be appropriate in the general vicinity that is being proposed. Staff continues
to believe 1) that housing for the elderly is a good use for Dublin and 2) that this
30.6 acres is an appropriate location for such a facility. Regarding the second
statement, several P&Z members expressed disagreement, and a Dublin resident
threatened a referendum if its rezoning is passed.
Staff favored the overall package presented in the 130 acre proposal including the
land use relationships, traffic and access considerations, open space or park
configuration. It answered a lot of the questions about the long-term development
path for the area. The 30.6 acre site considered alone leaves those questions
outstanding. This was cited by several P&Z Commissioners as causing them serious
reservations. The applicant has stated that he will refile a rezoning petition on
the balance of the tract before this comes before Council.
The staff prefers the 1.30 acre approach but continues to support this is a separate
land use proposal for the following reasons:
1) The property to the north of the site is physically separated from it by the
Tri-County Ditch and the South Fork of Indian Run. No traffic ties are being
suggested, and the combination of flood control regulation and the parkland
dedication requirement will produce significant separation. Thus, this site
should not exert any influence on the ultimate development pattern to the north.
2) The Village of Dublin itself will initiate a rezoning of the property opposite
the site on the south side of Post Road from the Rural District to the Planned
Office, Laboratory and Research District. The elderly facility will not
conflict with that plan and will likely produce the less intense use.
3) The land uses to be developed ultimately to the east and west on Post Road will
be determined in part by the arterial traffic and activity south of Post Road
at that time. This complex would negate single-family use, but staff would
discourage single-family use for the Post Road frontage west of Avery Road.
Ordinance No. 37-86 - Rezoning
Dublin Village Council Meeting
November 17, 1986
Page Two
4) This use will not overburden the present intersection of Post and Avery
Roads. It will not be negatively impacted when that intersection is
reconfigured either.
In order to technically accomplish this as proposed, several things are needed:
1) The 11.6 acres of parkland which is to be dedicated in connection with the
elderly site needs to be designated.
2) The park acreage needs to make sense standing alone, as additional land
dedication is in some doubt.
3) A legal description of this tract by itself is required.
4) Should it be Council's pleasure, the refiling of an application to rezone
on the balance of the tract should be made.
BMC : f mu
Minutes of Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1986
Page Sixteen
7. Rezoning Application Z86-007 - Indian Ridge
h1s. Clarke showed slides of the site and then subsequently presented the following
information:
1• The subject site contains 130 acres.
2. There is a new text prepared by the applicant that has addressed virtually all
of the staff's concerns.
3. The application was discussed in the August Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting as a Concept Plan.
4. The land uses as selected were appropriate in the configuration as set forth.
5. Since that time they have dropped the multi-family development and that has
become offices.
6. They have raised the minimum lot size for the single family to an 80' x 130'
lot that significantly reduced the number of houses to be built on the northern
portion of the site. That number is now 164 at the maximum.
7. Gross density is 2.8 per acre.
8. There is a 14 acre tract at the intersection for offices.
9. The senior citizens complex would be located on a tract of 30 acres.
10. Dedication of open space would be 22.3 acres (by the Village's new ordinance).
This plan sets aside 26.6 acres to be dedicated to the Village.
11. Between the two streams there is an area along the senior citizens' site which
would be set aside for private recreational purposes.
]2. With regard to traffic circulation there is a 36' street that runs east/west
on a 60' right-of-way.
13. The box cul-de-sac, the restriction on fences, no build zones, staggered
setbacks, and all other such design guidelines which are in place in the
Indian Run Meadow subdivision will be applied.
14. The plan is well. buffered. It provides an exceptional green space provision;
that the areas to be set aside for recreational purposes are among the best.
15. The applicant has agreed to submit a comprehensive development plan for the
14 acres (office) and would be part of the Final Development Plan approval..
Without a comprehensive plan no Final Development Plan for a single office
building would be approved.
16. In the text it states very clearly that if water and sewer services are not
available that "it is a situation where this did not confer those rights".
This is the zoning process, not the building permit process.
17. Generally this is a good package, beneficial to the Village, and staff
recommends approval..
Mr. Ben Hale, Jr. was present, representing the applicants.
Mr. Hale made a request, noting that it is important in terms of the institutional
that the applicants receive approval this year because of financing considerations
and they would like to come back at a later date on the office and the residential.
He said that the applicant was requesting going forward on the institutional and
separate the application into the institutional, and either table or withdraw
the other splits, simply having a hearing on the institutional. (30.6 acres), thus
amending the application, becausc° in terms of bond financing it is important that
the institutional be approved by the end of the vear.
Minutes of Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1986
Page Seventeen
Mr. Banchefsky said that upon consultation with the Village's bond counsel that
it had been determined that the applicant's ability to get bond financing would
expire at the end of the year.
He also said that reducing the scope of the application would present no legal.
problems.
It was decided by Commission members (with some dissension) that they would agree to
listen to the application for the 30.6 acres.
Mr. Hale had the following comments:
1. Discussed the Trott and Bean study for the whole "larger" area regarding
roads, etc.
2. There would be a 200 bed independent living care facility and a 100 bed
nursing care facility.
3. The State said that they would approve nursing homes, but when they approve
nursing homes the applicant will be obligated to provide a certain number of
independent living units for the elderly that are not subsidized by the
government.
4. The site, although approximately 30.6 acres has an area between the two
creeks that will remain open space.
5. All of the buildings would be south of the South Fork of Indian Run Stream.
6• The applicant does have a Certificate of Need for the facility.
7. Cost figures were as follows: (reflecting the 5.3 mills):
A net gain to the schools of $235,459.35 per year (property tax)
A net gain to the Village of $52,858.09 per year from property and
income tax
8. Low intensity usage.
9. Tried to maximize setbacks, landscaping, etc.
10. Regarding storm water drainage - a wet basin will be installed as an amenity
feature.
rlr. Bruce Pinkney of Paradigm was present to present the following comments:
1• Made available a description and a listing of the approximately 35 projects
that have been completed across the country.
2. It is not an endownment program but care-free living. It is a month]}' rental
program with one year's ].case, and month to month after that.
3. Two meals per day will be served in the care-free living portion with lis~ht
housekeeping, social service programs, etc.
4• There will be meeting rooms open for use by the general. public.
The building(s) would be approximately 240,000 square feet en 30.6 acres.
Mr. Jezerinac objected to the fact that when approving a rezoning the Commission
would also be approving a preliminary plan, preferring the approval. of a concept
plan first.
Minutes of Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1986
Page Eighteen
Ms. Maurer, speaking as a member of the C.I.C. and in response to a question, said
that it would be necessary to have approval of a preliminary plan in order to
qualify for Industrial Development Revenue bonds, and said that she thought that
the project should be given careful consideration. She also mentioned the fact
that the applicant did have a Certificate of Need.
Mr. Hale said that the application was begun with a concept plan.
Mr. Banchefsky said that at that time he miscalculated the number of votes, and
that it turns out that the initial vote was enough to support the tabling at the
previous meeting.
Mr. Hale noted that the Certificate of Need is site specific in the State of Ohio.
Mr. Bowman said that staff did suggest this specific site.
Mr. Banchefsky said that Certificate of Need applications are site specific, and
said that the preliminary plan is where one gets the rezoning. The concept plan
does not vest any rights in a rezoning.
Mr. Bowman did not that the Suburban Office/Institutional District does permit
hospitals but questioned whether the elderly care facility would be considered
apartments or an institutional use.
Mr. Hale noted that the State requires a certain acreage for projects such as this
and the seven acres in Indian Run Meadow designated as institutional would not be
adequate.
Mr. Dennis Muchnicki, a citizen and members of the Citizens for Better Planning group
said that they were distressed to hear that the staff picked the last are on the
west side of the river, the last rural zoned area, in which to put this particular
facility. He said that he felt that this area should be left alone. Mr. Muchnicki
also said that they are in contact with groups that are looking at this acreage
as a possible public recreation area (leaving it as it is).
Mr. Muchnicki said to the developer that if the rezoning is approved that the
developer can look for the issue to be put on a referendum ballot in May.
hlr. Geese said that he was not in favor of this rezoning, not knowing what is
going to the east, [o the west, to the north etc., and felt that the applicant
should have addressed the entire 130 acres.
h1r. Reiner said that he felt that the need is here, that it is a good idea, but
expressed similar reservations as those of Mr. Geese as to the remainder of the
surrounding land.
Mr. Hale said that they understood that they could not develop the other acreage
(the land to the north) and that i[ would remain as open space.
Additional discussion followed.
A resident expressed concern about the processes involved.
Minutes of Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 1986
Page Nineteen
Mr. Reiner said that he felt that the compatibility of this particular acreage
with the surrounding land is a major consideration.
Mr. Bowman said that it was his opinion that the Commission in this case should
address the land use.
Mrs. Robyn Fillman, a resident of Avery Road, also expressed disapproval and
concern that the plan had been changed following notification to contiguous
property owners.
Mr. Geese also expressed a concern with the compatibility of the surrounding acreage.
Mr. Geese moved to deny the request, due to the fact that it was not consistent
with adjacent properties that are zoned R-1.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
'i'he vote was as follows: Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Grace, no; Mr. Jezerinac, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Amoroso, abstain.
The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 12:50 A.M.
j ~ _
J /
Secretary - Planning and Zoning Commission