20-95 Ordinance AMENDED
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043
20-95 (Revised)
Ordinance NO._mpmmm_ Passed_p_p____mm mmmpp_nmpp19
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR
152.4071 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
I-270, FROM DUBLIN-BELLEPOINT ROAD (SR 745) ON THE
EAST TO COFFMAN ROAD ON THE WEST, FROM: PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO: PUD, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (REVISED MCKITRICK I-270
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAI~bY the Council of the City of
DUblin, state of Ohio, of the elected members
concurring:
section l. That the following described real estate (see
attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of
Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned to PUD, Planned unit
Development District and shall be subject to regulations and
procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter Eleven 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, Exhibit "C",
recommendations of the Planning and zoning commission, and
Exhibit "D", Development Text, dated June 15, 1995, and
attached single-family design guidelines 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 J0-rl. day of ~ . 199 s.
rt/~~.
MayO, Pres1dl:ng Of 1cer
Attest:
~ C!-- ~ ,'.M
. I.OS\~.\.\ \t'1 '.,
. ... ';r;;\ ~ 'i u \-Que,
Clerk of Council , I~~ "'0 \1.e'l\<"ll
c,~,,\"\'J.\:' \ ,\'~e u."
. \)~. ," ) 0 \
. ... \ \h'.<' 1 ,,\ .1
Sponsor: Plann1ng D1 v1s1on,. ,~<i'3<' c.,.\, set\\Q{\ :>
.' ;:, <' .:\,..,\\to "..N\\"~
^,r"! ...~-.~\...~ ~
\ h" .' - . . ',10 ,. -. .
'Crl c\ '0,' ~
. ~ . \)\,\\0
~/ i\ \\u"'o\''''
__/- I (,ov\\t:. .
.;:.-- tW\l. Q\
----
-
(
P-UO
\
.
PUD
~
-
~I\ R-1
I~I;I\~ J~
" .1 ., , :-.
~ 1/
"' ~S :1' "J ..1'
I :"\:1 ~
., r- I .' .. ,..' "I
\. -~ ,,--~
' " - '\~ I
\ ~-
--
~~ :
\-- .
I "'1'~ \
I
PUD
ro \
r
A . \ ~-l!J 1._
1 ...... -";r.:;-''-;:;",.r; .r!'lllE' 7
l\ It '\ - ::-'c;..-. ;:... JU';:: ." & .
~~"., 1 t.,,, u
-.~~ o~ _
"L-~ ~ . ~ ~ ! ~ CIRCLE . . llkNOR If~R
. '. 'l' '1, /). \." I - ----..J BJWiD llD p ,",-1IEYR'l.b~o,.., 11' ...... c!J ~
..' ~ ~ I) &~c: '::: -.-. r ~ iPL-2!~.\lTh~ BROTh-rNJ J I tr
. . . '" ~\' '\ ~ I
' . I I '" .., (, po ,,~...
~C~1i . ~ PJJ1JrrAY TVP ~~\ gl:; ~{CH ~l \ II ~f~'"
J '" ""~~ ,,~ ~l' I t 0"<
<": uf Ir.., '" l\., <<, Q ~ ~ ~ i<'\1
"- [J! i\.f;; - - 1 - '" \!l. as I(~
J~ ""iI."rA ;-ERN n ~ '1 [g . =-. 'r-~ " "Ft, 8f LYTFlE OTE I 'l-v-1Io:
,=" .~ .u .... - 0 - ~~ ~ ';!. ~ , u
0" ~ ~ _ " " , OJ ... I, '.. _" _. ". -'-..
" .. AD\ ." \ ... 0 i r C.':;;;' . ~
~<'? OLD".! ~ 7f~ ,; f\ /~~ DTloDs,r1 II /Z),{l \1,~ ~
~SlET/~ 0. ~S~ .$ a ~ ,,- A I '0 ""---'---I / / I / / /:0/ ~i\ J 5
;.10 '((;c~,. '-""'" ::):a l\ :i.J 1 v.....v / ,SUB REA 2A /~~'" I
,,*- ..", gJf; '~i- . "'.. c . I,
;:("6 !i" "~r'. ,.. TIllBERVlEJ' '11/ . II
~4~~~y~~co~~ SUBA;~&$ _ \~I
,,~~ I.. v;1 cp .... iW SITE II I./(.,.r,", _ / 0 \ JL
-..'" ''''' '" fL '" / -' ~~' /7-r--...... _ ::::;::t
~""--'~ ~ ::i 0<lN IS!!:S or ~f7,fd, / .L.,.. ~ ~ 'Ji
Gjl~ F ~ 1$ ::it; . . . ,77/ /:z.;.;oo~;:: = U'lk
;R G- '" ;<'. j;J IV/ / / ~ ~ ~y'--'
U{:(! :z: :z:~ !oI ~,.. _ ~
;; ~ (j' "" UC1 , = <~
/,,; '" Ii -g fJ 'i/ ~ TVP !~
Q r.;~. ,"ON ;;; :u ~ " \ )
~~P;"nR ~ ' . (~\.-J \ ( ~ ':' I
D~.2i/:~~ ';.' " ~:.BU..." ~L~ ~H\\~
Q""~^lfCRO . . rO~ ," '" ~ ~h l
~ \. (\'\ POST !l
;.... ~ c:J/_J. omCE L!BRI.RY Wlt<nl ...
- ~ . ~.#~ I,. t\'\ ~
'.-=- . ~ 1.;;;~ :1
./J [)\"'--- _ r-- .r=. ..I !!O~ l.,~.. ~
.-/ \ ""'" \ 1;; ~ ,Ie! \ \\i
"'" - BRIDGE ST ~ "'", ~ . ~ . ~ \ i 1\ .
--.::-, V ~f:j ~Q ~ 'f:!!! ~i-\V
"""'-l ~ <' 0," ,.. Ul r,
'\ '--.,. '"' - - n~ '!!l ~ ~!
J -,::?' . ~o . ~~. ~ ~ I 0 ~. ~~. i\ 1
IISTANIEY , ,,-Jl.,"'" "!:?-..: ~ ,,~~ \
~ ~~ SPruNG ~~ _ ~
.AiUor..Y a lIEtiio }>1..<cz liOR1;j ~.::;,... I --I UF -: .' 9i _~... 11
. I .' """ ..... ~ _ '" \ '
; - J ~ G}f..~ ); lrJ.1I:RF -.. ~ 0' . .
,/1 \1 '. I'='e: . _'. ; '..
' . )1 !>i!< G y... "
~ 0 ? . '-- '. ~"'., &!." ~/ ~ 'Si~ ). L J}~ _ ct
~ ~". . - ( '. ~: ... ~:l..4~ ~ ..-...~: . Of~.~ Ii ~. - RezOmD." g Appli catJ 0.. ~- \ :~, .i-N'
~" . .... "".. . "'. .'~ Ii!!~' Z95-004 '.'_ _.... ."
,< , , ~". . ., . . '. . . , ~';.-- xv.... - '. .. ""'. . '..
.;',. > " -.' : . '.:. . Q . ", -liiGtriciProperty..< ,.
L: i;~"..~ .' .: ''''~'''' .C.".f . "'.:''::'' ' "''''''',:;Y:,0.' \\n~. .:;:: ~sed",,:: .':.' . > ~ J ..'
I~~.. -':,....... . ~_..::- '_.....; . ". ...~...-"~:~'--:,:. "'_.:"..:. 1I-e\~\~~~ ." ~..:.'~ C ~ ". ,=-.,~ .,:. . .
... ~"i.,y! ~tt ; *;. . ,'. 3' ,~( ~'''':;:;':;~':;>'' ~. ,.;;.:: 1,5'.1(<'1 V'. , ui ."" . ..__.
~. ~~"."'.~!.-. - . .... .- - ....:.rr........__.. _~. '.. . .....~... _" -'-"_,
'.::...:::. -,..:~:.;~..._. ~.s....:-:__!..-~A..::__.:..:.:.;.,.:;.._.:....::...:__... .'. ", .
j ~. '.. .~. ---.. --. .'-~ '- - ."..,..
. ,I~-::'i. ~;:...:;..~~Io ')0 '_" ':&: .... .
o}" .. I..N \I )\ \./ \ ~ ATHYv( T. IFRO S f YEN ~ . \ 1-
7'_~' \ " M /I. .. Cl ~ ~ _
.' ~\ "-- ~,' .~ ....'. ~'~ BE" an>", ~ ~
~ %" (l) ~ t'----...... ~ 0 U' CT
~ ~ ~ fJllJtc~,.. ~ L.=-.-. ~RAND RD ~ CIRCLE
4 Il~}> ~, .. YAL \~~OR MANOR
~ ~- I ~ PL ~~O" C:W cj'.E I
~C1'O I. tS ~ BROWNING '
~}{ lAIiKWAY T\Jp 1 J ~.~ ~ ~ "'\ ",CT r
Q~: _U ~ &~ ~ ~~~~~ gt~~~ '\ I ~:j~
~ >" lrINETA VERN tI.) ,,1'-... ~ Q -= ~~ 0
Q<J I i? LN Q2 .._~. ..un u . '\. ~ !"'.I 'I , _.nA I ~~b
~ ' ~\\ "Q jfCIJ I~ r\' 8 1 ~YTYlE~~GS' )...
~~ ~v ~~ (3 og g >- v ~~ 'LCOTE t: l' ~
~&.... ~~~SEJI$" ~ ! <>o~ I~~ ~~ODs171!;~~ . i
~.1-< i A~~~ ~ ~ t''- ~ /1'L~0/ 111/ i I" ~
~ >- DINGIIJ3AY~ . ~ TnmERVIEW" -"~ / iSUB RE%2A ~.., ~ ~ h
~~'\ ~ Cf ,...R SCOWON 77 <tf:f" 'j j / / / ] .//1
(~~ 1: II -~ RD SITE SUBAREAZ2B / / '/ / ~ '/ 1/
! Y ~ V ':' lSUS cr ,~ ~~ Q '/
JR f... f. ~t >>~......... ~ .-
<J~ ~I ~' -
~~~~ ~u~ ~ /~ ~ ~
Itt; ~ ! ~- ~ .n>.n:ov SUB~~IREA 1 ~.--=- ~ ~\
(j QU:O ~. r :tl~ 0
o ~ S~~ "\ - ~~ 3
~ ~~~R cr ~ ~... _ "' I ~ TINP ~
V(~Pf;ft' ~ q~~ 1 I ~ u
tJ~$l: V~ ~~w ~ (
tO~f~ J t ~ -. ~ )
,...-/) POST ~ :z:~ h \ DA
~o \..../ < OFFICE ~ U ~ \;:;;;--or
~~ ~&. SC r. ~~~\
b '-- ~rY~ i~'r-'/ F= "{:~ ~'\ ~.
-...... , H......... __ . ~ll>.: "-1 . .. ~.. ~I
'" V BRIDGE ST ~,~ n,
~c. I'''~ ~E; ~~ ~:c ~
; STANLEY ~ ~ 0 ~ ; \l
~ ~ ~ - roT n,,.,..., Ul tAl .~
Q ~~ ~~ '6
PARKWAY ,~~ 0 e~ ~
: CJlIE1io Pl.<CE N ~ I "'.'-' c;; ~G gMin.::-1 ~~ ;~ i
5 ~ o~.. sro~ ....I (,>:!IP LoN "'V ;z.~ .J~ -I
i ~ ~GH --- ~ SBoJrf
.~ D ~ ~ 1W'{j~"~ lfA~ ,S! /""' ~
tIll\ ,~ ..., 0: GLEN , ~/ -...t .. ~~., IfV' J
U lanRo p ~. ~ lr.l~ un.. ) ~ .
, tA~ ~ OpjlSA )Zrl;IMAR10~": -ST . I ~ J p; f I I iii
.. C""\ l3 Rezomng ApplIcatIOn .
v V" (Z1 0::
E Q Z95-004 L t '
11.".;._:.....: ~.. ~. ~ L.v- o~ ~CI[..Ll Mc~trick Property N j
,..f /j '. .' .. . J. '- t"~ n I RevIsed
" 1"L .,~ \
~... ~'ri MEW .,. d
. A- OJtiA, .J.\? n~ . _ _ _ _ .
<;.. ^ h .' h ,. + 13
CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT FOR P&Z C Use Only
OF TilE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING Application No:
DISTRICT MAP ZM Z95-004
(Reclassification of Land) Date Filed: 3/15/95
Fee Receipt No. N/A
Received by: LAF
Please type or print information - Use additional sheets as necessary
TO THE HONORABLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant Bethel Road Investment Co. and McKitrick Properties Inc.
being the owner(s),/~Gee{~ of property located within the area proposed for
, requests that the following
described land to be placed in the PUD
.
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 .
b. Beginning at a point along
(street or other)
and being feet in a N SEW
direction from the (specify) of
(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 149.629 Acres and bounded by:
1-270 (specify) on the N@ E W (Circle)
Dublin Road (specify) on the N S@W (Circle)
Coffman Road (specify) on the N S E@ (Circle)
Dublin Coffman High School (specify) on the(;)s E W (Circle)
d, Attached legal descripti.on: YES X NO
Page 1 of 4
'. \
Map of Proposed Zoning District Boundaries
Two (2) copies of map accurately drawn to an appropriate scale (to fill a sheet of
not less than 8~ x 11 inches and not more than 16 x 20 inches). The map shall be
identified and submitted in addition to the General Description of Land. The map
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, easements and
other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries and shall be
fully dimensioned.
The map shall show the existing and proposed Zoning District or Special District
boundaries.
List all 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 mailing list.
NAME ADDRESS
-
See attached list
B. ARGUMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE DESCRIBED LAND
1. Proposed Use or Development of the Land: Office Park
See text for full description, to include SO and OLR uses. .
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS and SPECIAL DISTRICTS submission of
three (3) copies of a Development 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.
Plans and Exhibits submitted
Plot Plan ; Building Plan _____; Development Plan ~; Sketch ;
----- -----
Photographs -- ; Other (specify)
2. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing
and probably future land use character of the vicinity.
The site has been zoned for a major office park since 1985.
These revisions will provide for a realignment of the proposed
east-west road to conform with Dublin plans for a new bridge,
an increase in several setback and buffering standards, and a
density increase for the land abutting 1-270.
Page 2 of 4
'.
3. Has an application for rezoning of the property been denied by the City
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. Present owner of property:
APPLICANTS'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
Ben W. Hale, Jr. , representing Bethel Road Investment Co. and
I ..fwe+ McKitrick Properties Inc.
being duly sworn, depose and say that I am/we are the owner(s)!lessee(3) of 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 contained and attached,
and information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the best of my/our ability present
the arguments in behalf of the application herewith submitted and that the statements
and attached exhibits above referred to are in all respects true and correct to the
best of my/our knowledge and belief.
IH/p:~ h
(signat!ure)
SMITH of HALE
37 t-J. I3ROA.tJ S7/tEE.i
(!. 0 t...U ('(l B u.:SI 0 H ~ 32/ 5
(Mailing address)
~~/- L/~S5
(Phone)
/1y14 , 19;t~
signatory!
(Name (Address) (Telephone)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do not write below this line)
D. RECORD OF ACTION
1. Withdrawn Held to
(Date) (Date)
2. P&Z C: Date of Hearing
Approved Disapproved Modified
3. City Council: Date of Hearing
Approved Disapproved Modified
Pi'lCP -; nf <1
The applicant/owner hereby acknowledges that approval of (his) (her) (its)
request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and
Zoning Commission ~nd/or Dublin City Council does not ~onstitute a guarantee
or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential
services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said applicant.
The City of Dublin will make every effort to have these services available
as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and Northwest
Franklin County has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services
to the limit. As such, tIle City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part
of said facilities available to the applicant until some future date.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges and understands the foregoing.
March 17, 1995 Ben w. Hale, Jr.
Date Signature of Appl .cant or authorized
representative hereof.
On behalf of:
Bethel Road Investment Co. & McKitrick
Applicant Properties Inc.
Page 4 of 4
\ '\
,,1 /, (- --- ~-' ~~~. --- i
-----,' >.---1' Pup ~; IT \ ~ PUD ~\~~I,.
/' U[)' I~)i \ '1"'1 ' ~" ~--,- '\ <1 ~ " -.r
~\ "\ \ \ \ \ \ \u IL ..' ';..-""1 I I
\ .~~\ \ .A ='" '
0I~ ~. ..... V=~- - I
\ R- 2 .
-,R-' . . '
, "',," P l R .- \ u . L:, ~'\ . ~.,. I
. '~ .~ --l...-.... . . -- ~,PUD -
I _ ~u " -----~
R-3 I, __ K' .------
I I, PLR ~:~ '" UD '" - \\=\ R-1 -,
~r~ ~ \\-\,\"TL ,II ,]I'
',' I R' ,"; ~,." ,F='" I C-- <-- "-,\ 0, ~, ,m
--- ~ f~~~ \""\\~,
~ ___ PUt) .....-" . r --=- 0: --"i \ \~ 1/ -I
Pl~ .,..1{""" \ - 1~11f \ \- .= !.
_ ~ I R.i" \\ ~\, ,...--'~ r:
-;:;j_ _PJ.R V PU....J ......;. plut \- \f'~ L--- ~ R- 1
./" '- = ,r 'j .. i "/ \--"
. :...... '- ~-
> _ ./-1 _ f- --"'U.' 11. lt~ ~, ;;;;!l.,j11 U J T1
~ 0 "- --\.\ ':--'," f~ Jl L==~ ) /)~
.;' ~ '1 1>lR IcSC · ^
-.JI I I /R-2 '" . · '" r4' ~ =; I T I.. ...lrl
, _ PU 0 I . 'fjn .. ~. ~ i"'" ~. 11
.... l h rr.. ~ CI ~l~ ~l rT77/. i'=' lj
~ ~ : R'2' u('14 ~ (0\ R '~SITE I ~ /Y, A"...ji~ I
f PUD ~r \~ ~ rr V~ ~/./~.b~' 7)~ \ ,,~ I
t'~.- -.:1.. 71 (71''--= R Y // ~ ~ ......-::.:. ~ I
"J R-IT r \~ -.....~-\. \ A L,~" \ '\
'I i ~~' PUD - ~ I
rt:'I: J-.:~ I'. R-Ilf~ ~ ~ J' R !
R-~ 50 __"/ I
----......'>\'v~.. _' ?LR. \ \~. ~ ~D ~ .., -=- \1
J ' ~~ p,"'" Z ~ ' , '1"
peD " p~ . .'. "i up..., Ll "~ I ~
.~ \ \ r\)- Ikb s< reB , n
\ _ \ LI . yY. ( ~ R-2 .
=- ~ \:_' \.\' 68~s~ (B' -'\
J ,,r-....~ J '\'\ CAlL CC . W 0= ~,~ \ .
t/ ~ ~ RJ U'l~/~ "~~~ F' .
,11'-'1. i:== _ :. . "I Ll P U 0 ~ 2,CCA" ' \1
~ .~ ~::----- :L ! ~l_-I I (( I . t( 12 ":"'I _11: \'
~CC \ R ..-1 .~I RI j lU~ilh ~, ../'/ 1..50 II ~J',
_ L'I: _ 0 I "" RI '.., r-- P U ~ ff ~ ! LII=1 ~J '1' d
~'t. s : LI,/ =-.- - _" ~ 1(01.11. '"Eli), 'J
,] _ I ,...+- """""O.......n.' 0 1/ '.' "v '--'
R1~ RI '"' ; ! fit iPUD~ ~ / ~
I ~ I .-----: .-- I I)' I 0=;-
j I I I: I
mm: .._ )!l ~
I f \..R ..... J I :" ~ . --0
I P\J~ ,\ / = " '~
. __~ ~.. OLR R-1A:::::::- r=1 I
.0 - \ D I . .- ~\.,-
_ , ~, " R-1 ~ ,
\....l ;;,JT ~.\~ ;1., ,\ ' ~ ~\I~
,lll '. " . "r-, ~,' t\ . CC ISD~ ~ b
I 1- ' \ \ ~, iltt--OLR I. I c:::l '
1 PIP pUD , PLR, ':;;'!;;l~ ~\ II RT1~\ \ L'," ,. ,n" N=~-=,=
, \\ In! fi '
U ,- :.; ~. 'so ,~ I PUJ' \-- ,~
--... l.:Jt"''' 1- pLR III J.' \ reo \-~ I---- Rezoning A . . 0 \ \
_ A _. _.. 1 ,~ pplcatlOn
""\ ,,_ ,I ,K' ,... I Z95-004
.... 1\\ \ \l "\. '\ '2. .-rc- \ \ ~ N
,; ''J ." n_~ R- R' " , \\ I . I McKitrick Property
",,_12 n... I ..,,,,, ~ '\ " ' \ ReVlsed
\'
...... _ ....... ... w"'" - ~ -. _. ~
i DESCRIPTION OF 82.540 ACRES
EDWARDS 1-270
j NORTH SIDE OF COFFMAN ROAD EXTENSION
.'
L DUBLIN, OHIO ,
:t
'-' ,
'i Situated in the State of Ohio. County of Franklin. City of Dublin, being portions "
;; of that 47.783 acre tract and that 83.373 acre tract. both as described in deeds to
d McKitrick Properties, Inc., of record in Official Record Volume 12528, Page B 11, and
< Official Record Volume 12528, Page BlS and a portion of that 18.473 acre tract as ,
q described in a deed to Bethel Road Investment Co., Inc., of record in Official Record
;: Volume 15002. Page 013, all referencfls to tlle records ofthe Recorder's Office. Franklin
il COWlty, Ohio, and being more particularly described as follows: ~
i I Beghming at thenortheasterly comer of said 83.373 acre tract and in the centerline I
!
i 1 of Dublin Bellepoint Road (S.R. 745);
, , ~
I,
i ~ Thence along said centerline the following courses:
1:
;
!
l' 1. South 160 50' 54" East, a distance of 724.00 feet to a point;
II
. ,
. , South 160 37' 19" East, a distance of 418.67 feet to a point;
, , 2. '.
';
'. 3. South 9009' 41" East, a distance of 495.98 feet to a point at the centerline I
t.; intersection of the proposed Coffman Road connector;
,',
~ :
:',' Thence along said centerline the following courses: !
l:
,/ i
"
~ ,
,.
1. South 81006' 28" West, a distance of 100.00 feet to a point ofcurvaturej
i: . 2. With the arc of a curve to the right. having a radius of 750.00 feet, a ~
.,
, , central angle of 320 27' 11 ", the chord of which bears North 820 39' 56" i
. ;
" West, a chord distance of 419.16 feet to a point of reverse curvature; ;
:,! 3. With the arc of a cwve to the left, having a radius of 2.000.00 feet, a ,
!l
'I central angle of 360 56' 20". the chord of which bears North 840 54' 30" ~
'I West, a chord distance of 1,267.20 feet to the point of tangency;
~ .: 4. South 76037' 19" West, a distance of 1051.55 feet to a point of curvature;
I
5. With the arc of a curve to the left. having a radius of 1.400.00 feet. u !
; central angle of 420 32' 13", the chord of which bears South 55021' 12"
I:
l' West, a chord distance of 1.015.67 feet to a point;
n ;
il Thence North 550 54' 55" West, a distance of 40.00 feet to a point in the
I.
i! northwesterly line said 18.473 acre tract; I
.
,
"
. , Thence along the northerly perimeter of said 18.473 acre tract, said 47.783 acre
.,
I' ,
: ~ tract and sald 8:t373 acre tract, the following courses: !
; ~
i: 1. North 340 OS' OS" East, a distance of 282.03 feet to a point of curvature; .
I,.
, , 2. With the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 1,400.00 feet, a
I.
i ~ central angle of 24044' 39", the chord of which bears North 460 27' 24"
East, a chord distance of 599.93 feet to the point of tangency; ~
I:' 3. North 580 49' 44" East. a distance of 175.00 feet to a point;
4. North 11040' 51" West, a distance of 674.46 feet to a point; ~
'.
" 5. North 880 49' 06" East. a distance of 345.37 feet to a point;
I "
:" 6. N0l1h 10 10' 54" West. a distance of 30.00 feet to a point; i
!
. !
i.. 7. North 880 49' 06" East, a distance of 329.20 feet to a point; ,
Ii I
:' ~ 8. South 870 57' 40" East, a distance of 295.97 feel to a point;
! :
. 9. North 20 04' 01" West. a distance of 755.95 feet to a point; .'
10. North 880 26' 48" East, a distance of 1717.79 feet to the place of
I beginning and containing 82.540 acres of land.
,: "
,I TillS description was prepared by M-E Engineering, Inc., Civil Division
! .
',! !
! I 94322282.540\7q
I
i I
.
I,
\,
l' I
H
I'
I
.
,
!
I
,', ',<
;,'. .
'-.J ............. -- __)
DESCRlPTION OF 67.089 ACRES
. EDWARDS 1-270
H
~ ~ SOUTH SIDE OF COFFMAN ROAD EXTENSION
;: DUBLIN) OHIO
I
\
i: Situated in the State of Oh.io, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, being portions
n of that 47.783 acre tract and that 83.373 acre tract, both as described in deeds to
,: McKitrick Properties) Inc., of record in Official Record Volume 12528, Page B 11, and
;i Official Record Volume 12528, Page B15 and a portion of that 18.473 acre tract a5
: l described in a deed to Bethel Road Investment Co., Inc., of record in Official Record
r Volume 15002, Page 013, all references to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin
; ~ County, Ohio, and being more particularly described as follows:
, .
; ~ Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said 83.373 3cre tract, in the centerline
~ ~
!; of Dublin Bellepointe Road (S.R. 745) and in the northerly right-of-way line of Interstate
II Route 270;
I' Thence along said right-oC-way line the following courses:
.
,
" 1. South 810 06' 28" West, a distance of 428.99 feet to a point of curvature;
2. With the arc of a cUlve to the left, having a radius of 7,623.36 feet, a
. ' central angle of 34059' 09'\ the chord of wh.ich bears South 630 36' 53"
.,'
West, a chord distance of 4,582.98 feet to a southwesterly comer of said
,'. 18.473 acre tract;
~ ~
Jl
~ ! i
:
.' Thence along the perimeter of said 18.473 acre tract the following courses:
I 1. North 20 59' 45" West, a distance of 657.57 feet to a point;
I
,f 2. North 81022' 14" West, a distance of 223.02 feet to a point;
.. ~
1
, ' 3. North 790 53' 53" West, a distance of 367.00 feet to a point in the
,
centerline of Coffman Road;
i' 4. North I81l 30' 22" East, along said centerline, n distance of 131.41 feet to
,;
\ a point;
5. South 790 53' 53" East, a distance of 347.79 feet to a point of curvature;
6. With the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 800.00 feet, a central
. angle of 660 01 01", the chord of which bears North 670 OS' 36" East, a
, , chord distance of 871.62 feet to the point of tangency;
~: 7. North 340 05' 05" East, a distance of 471.97 feet to a point;
Thence South 550 54' 55" East, into said 18.473 acre tract, a distance of 40,00 feet
to a point in the centerline of the proposed Coffman Road cOlUlector;
j! Thence along. said centerline the following courses: I
1. With the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right, having a radius of ,
.'. 1,400,00 feet) Ii central angle of 420 32' 13", the chord of which bears
'. North 550 21' 12" East, a chord distance of 1,015.67 feet to the point of
tangency;
.', 2. North 760 37' 19" East. a chord distance of 1,057.55 feet to a point of
. . I
curvature; ,
, . ,
i 3. With the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 2,000.00 feet, a
central angle of 360 56' 20", the chord of which bears South 840 54' 30" "
East, a chord distance of 1,267.20 feet to a point of reverse curvature~
4. With t1ie arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 750.00 feet, a
. central angle of 320 27' 11 ", the chord of which bears South 820 39' 56" ,
, i
I East, a chord distance of 419.16 teet to the point of tangency;
, . S. North 810 06' 28" East, a distance of 100.00 feet to a point in the
centerline of Dublin Bellepoint Road;
Thence South 90 09' 41" East, along said centerline. a distance of 100.00 feet to
the place of begirming and containing 67.089 acres of land.
This description was prepared by M-E Engineering, Inc., Civil Division i
94322267.089\ 7q
I', ,
I
,
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KATHRY L WAGNER BJ RUCKMAN
THE DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 7199 DUBLIN ROAD 8546 LffiERTY ROAD
7030 COFFMAN ROAD DUBLIN OH 43017 POWELL OH 43065
DUBLIN OH 43017
ROBERT L BARNEY GEORGE & GEORGEANN PETERS CHARLES & L A DAVIS
7192 DUBLIN ROAD 7170 KINGSCOTE COURT 7163 KINGSCOTE COURT
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
IA VID & MARY SCURRIA ERNEST & M L POTIER THOMAS & S L KIEFER
167 KINGSCOTE COURT 7183 KINGSCOTE COURT 4835 L YTFIELD DRIVE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
WILLIAM P & MARY KLEVEN NATHAN & B A MILES JAMES G & R L KREBER
2305 PINEBROOK ROAD 7047 B BRANDSIDRE LANE 4865 L YTFIELD DRIVE
COLUMBUS OH 43220 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
PATRICK & R W GILLARD WILLIAM & R SHARRETT ROBERT & M B ZIPSE
4875 LYTFIELD DRIVE 4885 L YTFIELD DRIVE 4897 L YTFIELD DRIVE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
JAMES L & P M LONG THOMAS & C T WASHBURN MICHAEL & JOYCE MCINTYRE
4907 L YTFIELD DRIVE 49909 L YTFIELD DRIVE 4911 LYTFIELD DRIVE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
-'.1ARK & LINDA WILHELMI THERESA J THOMAS CRAIG & SALLY LINDBEVY
142 COVENTRY WOODS CT 1911 BARNARD DRIVE 7143 COVENTRY WOODS COURT
lUBLIN OH 43017 POWELL OH 43065 DUBLIN OH 43017
THOMAS & VILLA WEBB SIDNCIDN CHEN & J H SHUH TIMOTHY & EMILY SPRINGER
7165 COVENTRY WOODS COURT 551 MONTGOMERY COURT 7144 COVENTRY WOODS DRIVE
DUBLIN OH 43017 COLUMBUS OH 43210 DUBLIN OH 43017
COVENTRY WOODS ASSOCIATES BONNA B STARKEY NORTHWOOD LAND CORP
C/O MULTICON BUILDERS 941 CHATHAM LANE 941 CHATHAM LANE
500 SOUTH FRONT STREET, SU 770 SUITE 100 SUITE 100
COLUMBUS OH 43215 COLUMBUS OH 43221 COLUMBUS OH 43221
DAVID D JR & GRETIA HERR
HOWARD & JOANN DONOHOE WILLIS BUILDERS INC C/O UNLIMITED MORTGAGE
5157 FOREST RUN ROAD 248 BRADENTON AVENUE SUTIE 370
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 450 WILSON BRIDGE ROAD
WORTlllNGTON OH 43085
MARK A & HEIDI KING
GLORIA H MOLTERA C/O KNIGHT-WAGNER MORTGAGE TIMOTHY J & P M WILSON
7126 COVENTRY WOODS COURT 2600 CORPORATE EXCHANGE 7110 COVENTRY WOODS COURT
DUBLIN OH 43017 SUITE 100 DUBLIN OH 43017
COLUMBUS OH 43231
LUCIANI BUILDERS INC DUFFY HOMES INC ROMANELLI & SONS
336 AVON COURT C/O MULTICON BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION
DUBLIN OH 43017 500 S FRONT ST, SUITE 770 1601 SCHROCK ROAD
COLUMBUS OH 43215 COLUMBUS OH 43229
ICHAEL H & JILL KENNAN THOMAS & S L QUIGLEY BENJAMIN & N C TIBURZIO
'2 ODESSA LANE 841 mCKOK DRIVE 1548 FALL BROOK ROAD
DUBLIN OH 43017 WORTIllNGTON OH 43085 COLUMBUS OH 43223
DAVID AND SANDRA MCKEE MULTICON BUILDERS INC RODNEY & TERESA KINCAID
307 LONGBRANCH DRIVE 500 S FRONT STREET, SU 770 7118 DUBLIN ROAD
DUBLIN OH 43017 COLUMBUS OH 43215 DUBLIN OH 43017
JEFFREY & SUSAN FORESTER ROBERT & PATRICIA ROTE MARGARET EBERHART
7114 DUBLIN ROAD 7106 DUBLIN ROAD 7078 DUBLIN ROAD
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
BURTON BAILEY
THEODORE & MARJORIE C/O HUNTINGTON TRUST CO KAREN & LAWRENCE A NOLL
GUARASCI REAL ESTATE DEPT HZ-lOll 7016 DUBLIN ROAD
BOX 800 PO BOX 1558- A'ITN MS KUHN DUBLIN OH 43017
POWELL OH 43065 COLUMBUS OH 43216
"TEPHEN W MEAGHER BARRY C HANKS BE'ITY J WEBER
)92 DUBLIN ROAD 6763 WILLOW GROVE PLACE 7630 BELLAIRE AVENUE
UBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
VINCENT WORKMAN JR LARRY E & AMY MAISEL DONALD A BURTANGER
6751 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6755 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6747 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
MARY L KISTNER NANCY J WAHLGREN CLARA E MYERS
6743 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6735 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6731 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
MELISSA B LEWIS SHEILA R JOHNSON JOHN J & CLARA CALLAHAN
6727 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6723 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6719 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
WILLIAM J DARLING TAMARA K SHEPHERD NEVILLE & JEAN SMITH
6715 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6707 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6703 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
JAMES J PLANT BRIAN K & LISA BLAKE LAURA J BAILEY
6699 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6695 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6691 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43231
\.NNE F TRUPP ALEXANDER & VERA GRAYE PAMELA J OSWALT
687 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6681 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6677 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
MARC D LANSCATER DONALD TOBIN
6673 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE 6669 E WILLOW GROVE PLACE
DUBLIN OH 43017 DUBLIN OH 43017
-... ~;( h ; h 1+
C-
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
MAY 3 AND 4, 1995
CITY OF DtBLI\
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following actions at its special meeting, May 3,
1995 and regular meeting, May 4, 1995:
1. Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan
Location: 149.62 acres located on the north side of 1-270, from Dublin-Bellepoint Road
(SR 745) on the east to Coffman Road on the west.
Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (McKitrick Office Plan).
Request: Revision of Preliminary Development Plan for PUD, Planned Unit
Development District.
Proposed Use: Office park with revisions including an increase in density from 10,000
square feet per acre to 15,000 square feet per acre for portions of the site.
Applicant: McKitrick Properties, Inc. and Bethel Road Investment Company c/o Ben
W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
MOTION #1: To approve this rezoning application with the following 22 conditions:
1) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with
maximum sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input
from the neighborhood representatives;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to
mitigate noise pollution;
3) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject
to approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
4) That an appropriate buffer/landscaping treatment along the east-west road be
submitted in conjunction with #3 above, subject to approval of the Planning and
Zoning Commission;
5) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the
new east-west road;
6) That a landscape plan that graphically represents the buffering standard along
Willow Grove be submitted subject to staff approval;
7) That development standards including setbacks, utility service and placement,
preservation areas, parkland, for the single-family area (Subarea 4) be established
at the time of preliminary plat;
8) That additional development criteria be established in the text for daycare
facilities;
9) That the architectural quality of the proposed office park reflect the standard of
development for other existing signature office buildings along 1-270 in Dublin,
such as OCLC and Metro Center;
Page 1 of 3 blr /q~- 6/ S- J 1 S-'
,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ...~
Record of Action
May 3 and 4, 1995
1. Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan (Cont.)
10) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove
continue to be honored;
11) That right-of way be dedicated for Dublin Road (40 feet from centerline) and the
east-west road (100 feet wide) and with additional right-of-way provided at the
intersections consistent with the findings of the area traffic impact study prepared
by Burgess and Niple;
12) That adequate right-of-way or easements be dedicated to include any additional
roadside mounding (designed with a mowable slope);
13) That a tree preservation plan and conceptual plan be submitted prior to filing a
final development plan for any treed portion of the site that outlines standards for
development, including utility placement, sets preservation zones and provides
appropriate development standards for all phases of construction for wooded areas
located along the Indian Run and existing tree rows, it being understood that the
developer will be allowed to locate buildings, parking, access driveways, and
related amenities within the existing treed area consistent with a tree preservation
plan that preserves the natural beauty of the site, subject to staff approval;
14) That the ravine be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s)
and limitation on grading, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices
during all phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation
plan;
15) That the cemetery be established as a no-build zone and be appropriately
preserved;
16) That parking to facilitate use of the existing public park within the development
be resolved at final development plan review and should it be located south of the
road, it may be established by revokable license;
17) That bikepaths be provided along the east-west road and Dublin Road frontages
consistent with the Community Plan;
18) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at
City Council;
19) That the applicant submit a finalized legal description for the acreage to be
rezoned for inclusion in the rezoning ordinance;
20) That the use of Subarea 4 to the west of the Indian Run be limited to playing and
practice fields and parks, with any proposed lighting to be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission;
21) That buildings in Subarea 2 shall be limited to a maximum five-story height (plus
mechanica1s) limit, that buildings shall be limited to 80 feet in height at the
minimum setback lines, and that buildings exceeding 80 feet in height shall be set
back an additional two feet for each additional one foot in building height; and
22) That buildings in SUDarea 1 shall be limited to a maximum four-story height (plus
mechanica1s) limit, that buildings shall be limited to 56 feet in height at the
minimum setback lines, and that buildings exceeding 56 feet in height shall be set
back an additional two feet for each additional one foot in building height.
* Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions.
Page 2 of 3
.. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Record of Action
May 3 and 4, 1995
1. Rezoning Application Z9S-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan (Cont.)
YOTE: May 3, 1995 - Approved 7-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application will be forwarded to City Council with a favorable
recommendation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
At the Planning Commission's regular meeting on May 4, 1995, as a follow-up to the above
action, the following motion was introduced and passed:
MOTION #2: Upon consideration of the new traffic generated by the development of the
McKitrick property, the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
recommends that Council place a high priority on the following five traffic
network issues:
1) The capacity and potential for expansion of the two lane Post Road bridge over 1-270
should be sufficiently studied;
2) The connector road through the McKitrick property should be constructed between
Dublin Road and Coffman Road as one project, not in segments. This connector road
should be designed and installed in its fmal form, preferably as a four-lane boulevarded
street with a landscaped median;
3) The east-west road project should include adequate upgrades to the intersections created
at Coffman Road and at Dublin Road;
4) Dublin Road should be preserved and protected as a scenic collector. This includes
minimizing any necessary widening of this road to the greatest extent possible; and
5) That funding will be provided for the two bridges, (one over the Scioto and the other
over SR 161), within the current 5-year C.I.P.
YOTE: May 4, 1995 - Approved 5-0-l.
RESULT: These traffic network issues will be forwarded to City Council for consideration
in connection with the McKitrick Office Park rezoning application.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
~ lrl.~
Barbara M. Clarke
Planning Director
Page 3 of 3
..
:MEMORANDUM
TO: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bobbie Clarke
DATE: May 3, 2995
SUBJECT: McKitrick rezoning update
As has been discussed previously, it is important for this rezoning applicant to be brought to
closure in as brief a period as possible, without jeopardizing the process. It is the desire of
applicant, the end users of the property and the city administration that the McKitrick rezoning
be set for public hearing on June 5, 1995 with the final decision to be rendered by City Council
on June 19. If the Commission makes its recommendation any time prior to May 18, 1995, this
schedule can be maintained. (If the Commission needs more time, the hearings will be
scheduled later.) The application is being submitted for a recommendation tonight with the
amended conditions below. If the Commission is satisfied with the level of information
following tonight's meeting, the Staff would request a vote. If the Commission needs more time
for consideration or additional information, Staff would request that a special meeting be set,
preferably for Tuesday, May 16, 1995, in City Council Chambers.
The working group meeting of April 27 was an extremely productive undertaking. The various
parties made more progress toward a final resolution than anyone could have reasonably
expected in one session. The follow-up documentation and preparation of material, as requested
by Commissioners, is taking more time to produce than the available six days between meetings.
The applicant has provided additional text changes and revised plans within extremely tight time
frames and is to be commended for both the quality and speed of the work. The neighborhood
representatives have also done a tremendous service both for their neighborhoods and the
community in general.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning application subject to the following 19 conditions:
Conditions:
1) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with
maximum sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input
from the neighborhood representatives;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to
mitigate noise pollution;
3) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject
to approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
Memorandum
Dublin Planning Commission
McKitrick Rezoning Update
May 3, 1995 - Page 2
4) That an appropriate buffer/landscaping treatment along the east-west road be
submitted in conjunction with #3 above, subject to approval of the Planning and
Zoning Commission;
5) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the
new east-west road;
6) That a landscape plan that graphically. represents the buffering standard along
Willow Grove be submitted subject to staff approval;
7) That development standards including setbacks, utility service and placement,
preservation areas, parkland, for the single-family area (Subarea 4) be established
at the time of preliminary plat;
8) That additional development criteria be established in the text for day care
facilities;
9) That the architectural quality of the proposed office park reflect the standard of
development for other existing signature office buildings along 1-270 in Dublin,
such as DCLC and Metro Center;
10) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove
continue to be honored;
11) That right-of way be dedicated for Dublin Road (40 feet from centerline) and the
east-west road (100 feet wide) and with additional right-of-way provided at the
intersections consistent with the findings of the area traffic impact study prepared
by Burgess and Niple;
12) That adequate right-of-way be dedicated to include any additional roadside
mounding (designed with a mowable slope);
13) That a tree preservation plan be submitted that outlines standards for
development, including utility placement, sets preservation zones and provides
appropriate development standards for all phases of construction for wooded areas
located along the Indian Run and existing tree rows;
14) That the ravine be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s)
and limitation on grading, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices
during all phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation
plan;
15) That the cemetery be established as a no-build zone and be appropriately
maintained by the property owner, or that the graves be properly relocated
elsewhere;
16) That parking to facilitate use of the existing public park within the development
be resolved at final development plan review;
17) That bikepaths be provided along the east-west road and Dublin Road frontages
consistent with the Community Plan, and that the potential for a path along the
length of the Indian Run be determined at final development plan review;
18) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at
City Council; and
19) That the applicant submit a finalized legal description for the acreage to be
rezoned for inclusion in the rezoning ordinance.
Memorandum
Dublin Planning Commission
McKitrick Rezoning Update
May 3, 1995 - Page 3
Bases:
1) The proposal as amended above provides both the neighborhood and potential
office developers with clearer standards and expectations.
2) The proposed east-west road is located in general compliance with the 1988
Thoroughfare Plan, approved Scioto bridge location and does not deviate from
Preliminary Development Plan approved in 1985.
3) This application represents an excellent economic development opportunity for the
city and is consistent with the Mt. Auburn economic development strategy,
including its recommendation to pursue higher density office development.
4) This proposal as amended above provides for a higher standard of environmental
sensitivity regarding site development.
5) The development offers the opportunity to construct a vital link in the City's
roadway network.
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MlNUTES
MAY 3, 1995
CITY OF D[BLl\
1. Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Property - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan (Approved 7-0)
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dick Rauh at 6:30 p.m. Other Commissioners
present were: John Ferrara, Warren Fishman, George Peplow, Dan Sutphen, Marilee Chinnici-
Zuercher, and Peter Zawaly. Staff members present were: Bobbie Clarke, Tom Rubey, Balbir
Kindra, Terry Foegler, Mitch Banchefsky, Mary Bearden and Libby Farley.
A motion was made by Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher to accept the documents presented into the
record. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr.
Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes;
and Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 7-0)
Mr. Rauh explained that a speaker sign-up sheet was being circulated for those who wished to
speak later.
1. Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Property - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan
Bobbie Clarke presented this rezoning application which was tabled at the April 20, 1995 special
meeting. She said the site has high visibility from 1-270. A graphic was presented showing all
the pending road improvement projects that will serve the McKitrick and other sites. Included
are the widening of SR 161, a major upgrade to the intersection of Frantz Road/Post Road/SR
161, the widening of Coffman Road from existing Post Road to Brand Road, the extension of
Coffman Road, the connection with Perimeter Drive, the new Scioto bridge, etc. The graphic
shows the major traffic projects in the city's five-year capital improvements program. There
is a treed ravine through the center of the site, two single-family neighborhoods are to the north
and a twelve-year old condominium development is located at the southwest corner.
Ms. Clarke said new plans had been submitted for residential use in Subarea 4, north of the east-
west connector road. That road will be the dividing line between the commercial office park
and the residentiall school uses. The proposal includes a land trade of several acres between
the school board and the developer along the road alignment. A letter dated May 2, 1995, from
Chris Mohr, Treasurer stated the road has been shifted as far as the school can accommodate.
Any further northward shift to that road, starts to encumber the schools' sports and practice
fields. It also would require relocating the band practice field. The current road alignment
would preserve all of the schools' existing and proposed facilities.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 2
Ms. Clarke said the land use in Subarea 4 was the biggest change that had taken place since last
reviewed by the Commission. A notation within the applicant's text indicated that this rezoning
application will not serve as the preliminary plat. She said there has not been an adequate
assessment of the single-family parkland dedication, the slope along Dublin Road, development
standards, etc., but the commitment in the text is to duplicate the standards existing in the
Coventry Woods neighborhood: developed density of 1.65 du/ac and a 90-foot lot frontage.
None of the lots would front on either Dublin Road or on the new east-west road; they would
all have an internal orientation. There is some discrepancy as to the overall acreage at this
point but staff estimates that this would encompass +75 lots. Mr. Mohr's letter that the new ,
land north of the road is to be used for practice fields, and there is no intention of developing
parking on the site. Access to parking south of the road in the office park has been requested
by the schools for special events such as football games.
Ms. Clarke said an enormous amount of progress had been made in a very compressed
timeframe. She commended both the applicants' consultants and the neighbors for the large
amount of effort they have put into this plan.
Ms. Clarke said the Commission could take as much time as it needed to render its decision.
She said it was the applicant's preference to have the public hearing at Council on June 5 and
the fmal hearing and vote of Council on June 19, 1995. The Commission's recommendation is
needed prior to June 18th to meet this timeframe.
Staff recommends approval of this application with the following nineteen conditions:
1) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with maximum
sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input from the
neighborhood representatives;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to mitigate noise
pollution;
3) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject to
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
4) That an appropriate buffer/landscaping treatment along the east-west road be submitted
in conjunction with #3 above, subject to approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
5) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the new east-
west road;
6) That a landscape plan that graphically represents the buffering standard along Willow
Grove be submitted subject to staff approval;
7) That development standards including setbacks, utility service and placement,
preservation areas, parkland, for the single-family area (Subarea 4) be established at the
time of preliminary plat;
8) That additional development criteria be established in the text for daycare facilities;
9) That the architectural quality of the proposed office park reflect the standard of
development for other existing signature office buildings along 1-270 in Dublin, such as
DCLC and Metro Center;
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 3
10) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove continue to
be honored;
11) That right-of way be dedicated for Dublin Road (40 feet from centerline) and the east-
west road (100 feet wide) and with additional right-of-way provided at the intersections
consistent with the findings of the area traffic impact study prepared by Burgess and
Niple;
12) That adequate right-of-way be dedicated to include any additional roadside mounding
(designed with a mowable slope);
13) That a tree preservation plan be submitted that outlines standards for development,
including utility placement, sets preservation zones and provides appropriate development
standards for all phases of construction for wooded areas located along the Indian Run
and existing tree rows;
14) That the ravine be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s) and
limitation on grading, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices during all
phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation plan;
15) That the cemetery be established as a no-build zone and be appropriately maintained by
the property owner, or that the graves be properly relocated elsewhere;
16) That parking to facilitate use of the existing public park within the development be
resolved at final development plan review;
17) That bikepaths be provided along the east-west road and Dublin Road frontages consistent
with the Community Plan, and that the potential for a path along the length of the Indian
Run be determined at final development plan review;
18) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at City
Council; and
19) That the applicant submit a finalized legal description for the acreage to be rezoned for
inclusion in the rezoning ordinance.
Ms. Clarke said this application for rezoning was in conformance with the city's economic
development strategy. The Mt. Auburn study pointed out the city has very good looking and
high quality offices being developed, but the density is about half of the land's capacity. The
study indicates that higher densities may well be appropriate. The main change in the zoning
is the increase in density from 10,000 square feet per acre to 15,000 square feet per acre. In
addition, the location of the east-west road is being set. Staff believes this plan will help
preserve the neighborhoods by establishing the buffer areas. This text is much stronger than the
1985 document. In addition, this development will provide the ability to build one section of
a very new important roadway between Dublin Road and Coffman Road.
Mr. Fishman asked if the school was happy with the realignment. Ms. Clarke said yes.
Jim Dippel Project Engineer, Burgess & Niple Engineers Architects, 5085 Reed Road,
Columbus, Ohio, showed the vertical alignment of the east-west road. The road will be posted
at 35 mph speed limit. A preliminary vertical alignment was also presented. He said that at
Dublin Road, because of a deep existing 10 percent grade, it was necessary to slope to a 5 1/2
percent grade, giving a significant cut of about 24 feet at the deepest location. The road will
be depressed from the Indian Run to the Coventry Woods area with a lesser rise. They tried
to keep the grade low. It is on average a 4 1/2 feet depression which they feel will reduce the
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 4
noise. For noise reduction they will incorporate into the bridge a monolithic type design with
no joints at the ends which tend to produce a "thump-thump." The asphalt overlay would
continue across the bridge so that there would be no sound change when crossing. Very little
mounding should be needed in this area. He said the bottom of the bridge would be flat
concrete as opposed to beams which would eliminate echoing problems underneath. They could
also extend walls on the sides of the bridge to contain the noise. Near the high school area, the
grades are very flat and the proposed grade would almost match the existing grade. A cross
section illustrated the typical section of the road near Coventry Woods. It showed a four-lane
boulevard with two lanes in each direction, and an IS-foot wide grass median in the center, with
a lOO-foot right-of-way the entire length of the road. The edges of the right-of-way could be
brought up to the existing right-of-way by sloping towards the pavement for drainage and then
bringing it up to existing grade outside the right-of-way at about 4:1, a mowable slope. Because
it is desired to minimize the disruption outside the right-of-way, another possibility could be to
increase the slope to 4: 1 on the inside between the curb and the bikepath or the sidewalk and
then come across and then finish on the outside. This would reduce the amount of cut on the
outside by possibly six feet. No field surveys have been done.
Linda Menerey, NBBJ, clarified that in this particular plan it was shown that additional grading
would be required outside of the right-of-way to get back to the slope.
Mr. Zawaly asked if the median compressed at the bridge. Mr. Dippel said it had been
discussed and was an option. They had considered using two separate bridges instead of one
wider bridge. Mr. Kindra said it was feasible to do but geometrics can change and aesthetically
may not look as nice. The median will also change with the change in the alignment. He said
noise level reduction could be achieved through the suggested means.
Dick Rauh asked if, when constructing the bridge across the ravine, they could mound or
depress the sides of the bridge instead of having an open rail. This would serve as a buffer and
also be an acoustical barrier. He did not want to have a high steel screen. Mr. Kindra
distributed a letter from Burgess and Niple stating that there were various ways to look at it.
It could have a higher than normal handrail, a stone treatment, etc. These issues will be
addressed as the design progresses.
Dan Sutphen asked if the bikepaths would be along the west side of SR 745 to follow the
Community Plan. Ms. Clarke said yes.
Peter Zawaly asked if the same standards, (a boulevard, separated with a median, special
landscaping, etc.) were applied to the connector road for the Schottenstein rezoning so as to give
the same feel from start to finish. Ms. Clarke said this was unknown at present. At least three
lanes will be constructed, but later, she expects it will have a specialized treatment from one end
to the other. Mr. Zawaly said that would be desirable. Mr. Hale said the Saltergate Extension
would be a boulevard road.
Mr. Kindra said the in the Schottenstein rezoning the developer had committed to three lanes,
with 100 feet of right-of-way. The ultimate design will be a four-lane boulevard. A cost
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 5
analyses is being done by Staff to determine whether it is economical to construct a three-lane
road initially and then convert it back to a four-lane boulevard later.
John Ferrara suggested the Commission set a time frame. He said it should be recommended
that the road be constructed as a boulevard in the beginning, not later, and completed as one
project. Mr. Rauh agreed but said it might be an economic issue.
Phillip L. Hall, Project Engineer, Burgess & Niple Engineers Architects, presented an area
impact study to determine the number of lanes necessary. He said eight other reports were
reviewed and he found no conflicts. It looked as though they would all fit together well. The
traffic analyses was done to see if a smaller number of lanes could be built and then later add
more. They used 2020 estimates for traffic with the area fully developed. They used a Mid
Ohio Planning Commission traffic analyses program done on April 14, 1995 which considered
population and location of residences and business, traffic volumes, etc. It distributed the
traffic on large maps to estimate the amount of traffic for a new road. Burgess & Niple then
did capacity analysis to the intersections on either end of this road. Five lanes are needed on
the approaches, Le. two through lanes and a left-turn lane. The approach on Coffman Road
could have two lanes initially coming out of the municipal building. Initially it would be
possible to build a three lane road. Less than three lanes would be a problem with tapers
involved with the intersections at both ends. When this area if fully developed it would be
necessary for this area to have two lanes in each direction and left-turn lanes at both
intersections. Mr. Hall said in the Year 2020, two other lanes would be necessary; one
northbound to eastbound right turn lane on Coffman Road at the intersection and one westbound
right turn lane on Dublin Road at the intersection. Because of the other intersections requiring
four lanes, it appears four lanes are needed ultimately, but three lanes would work in the
beginning.
Mr. Hall said the traffic volume would be reduced by 5,000 cars on a weekday if the office area
(Subarea 4) were changed to residential use with 75 single-family lots.
Mr. Rauh asked what the trips on the road would be with the residential area. Mr. Hall referred
to page 15. The current rate was 11,020 vehicles per day with the office space built out, plus
716 for 75 residents, totaling 12,136 trips per day. He said there would be more traffic
however, on the road. Mr. Rauh asked for a projection. Mr. Hall referred to a drawing on
sheet 20 or so that showed different traffic movements. Mr. Kindra said MORPC said the range
would be 25,000 to 27,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic). Mr. Hall said if Area 4 is converted
to residential from office as now zoned, it would be 5,000 less vehicles than what the MORPC
report gave.
George Peplow asked if the 25,000 to 27,000 ADT figure assumed there would be a connector
all the way to Sawmill Road. Mr. Kindra said yes, in the year 2020. Mr. Hall said they
assumed that all the proposed projects were built.
Mr. Rauh asked about traffic per day on Frantz Road. Mr. Kindra said the critical traffic
analyses are the intersections, not really the lengths themselves. Frantz Road and SR 161, the
traffic volumes are much higher. The Burgess and Niple analysis assumes the worse case
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 6
scenario to compute levels of service. At the Frantz Road and SR 161 intersection and at many
lengths in that area the level of service is "E", which is the worst. Mr. Sutphen asked if it
would start this summer. Mr. Kindra said yes.
Mr. Fishman asked if the Sawmill Road numbers included the Ruma development and others to
the north. Mr. Hall said it was all included assuming it would occur by 2020. Mr. Kindra said
the MORPC model took them into account.
Joe Ginocchi, Burgess and Niple, presented a noise analyses on the McKitrick site. He said the
report was based on the Federal Highway Administration program known as Stamina 2.0. The
program predicts the traffic noise based on a coordinate system in which they import a
preliminary roadway as well as the actual sites to be studied. There were eight different
receptors to be studied; two at Willow Grove, one for the school, and five in the area of
Coventry Woods. He said the figures were based on the MORPC 2020 traffic study using
1.5M square feet of office buildout. If the property is rezoned, the traffic figures will need to
be redone with one million square feet of office buildout. The receivers placed closest to the
centerline of the road alignment were 160 feet away, within Willow Grove and the furthest
receivers were +900 feet from the proposed centerline. Based on the Federal Highway program
manual, Burgess and Niple has determined that there will be no noise impact from traffic
generated by the new roadway. Mr. Ginocchi also said if the noise impact of the traffic is too
high, mounding, more cutting into the slope or short walls could all be used to reduce it.
Mr. Rauh asked what the actual sound levels were in the different areas.
Mr. Ginocchi said the highest sound level generated in their study was 62.5 decibels in the
vicinity of the school and the lowest was 50.7 decibels. He said the noise levels were strictly
based on the proposed traffic, not on any existing conditions. A fmal noise report needs to be
done to include the noise produced by 1-270, Coffman Road, etc. This is strictly preliminary
data based on the new traffic volume generated by MORPC's model. At Willow Grove there
are 58 and 61 decibel readings and generally they are in a 55-57 decibel range with the closest
one being on the comer of the Coventry Woods cuI de sac with a decibel reading of 60 decibels
approximately 250 feet off the centerline. The Federal Highway Department recommends an
impact has occurred when the reading exceeds 67 decibels. In no location studied did they find
a reading exceeding 67 decibels.
Mr. Rauh asked if the figures took into account any mounding or recessing of the road. Mr.
Ginocchi said it included only the preliminary cut shown in the profile. There is no mounding,
walls or any type of abatement used, but those would improve the readings.
John Ferrara asked about the noise level for the homes in Subarea 4. Mr. Ginocchi said that
vicinity had not been studied, but he estimated it would be less than 60 decibels. Mr. Ferrara
said the 56 and 60 dbs readings occurred in areas that had a natural barrier of 4.5 feet and he
was concerned this new area has no natural barriers.
Mr. Fishman was not enthusiastic about walls, he preferred mounds, etc. Mr. Kindra said the
design might include mounds, walls, or trees but nothing had been designed.
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 7
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about existing noise. Mr. Ginocchi said the existing numbers had
not been studied. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if the acoustical report by Ken Scott on April
27th included the same tests. Mr. Kindra said Burgess and Niple consulted with Mr. Scott. Mr.
Scott's testing process was different, but he agreed with this manner the analyses is being
performed.
Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, requested a brief recess to discuss with his client
several issues. Mr. Rauh called a five minute recess.
(Following the recess, the recording is garbled and unintelligible.)
Ben Hale agreed with Condition 1-9 with few comments.
Mr. Hale agreed to Conditions #10 and 11. He asked that ...right of way... "or easement" be
added to Condition #12, so that the mounds could be included within their front yard setback.
Condition #13 - Mr. Hale said they want buildings and possibly a crossing of the ravine and
other facilities within this area. The text states they will not disturb more than 15 percent of the
floodway fringe area or floodway area. They had no problem doing a tree preservation plan,
but it should be clear that they will be putting buildings and other facilities in a portion of the
treed area. The applicant is buying the site for its beauty.
Mr. Hale agreed to Conditions #14 and 15.
Condition #16 - Mr. Hale said they would provide for parking south of the connector road by
a revokable license. If it becomes a serious problem with people coming to the park, they would
have some right to control it. He suggested the phase "that on Cardinal's property, it would be
done by a revokable license with conditions. "
Condition #17 - Mr. Hale agreed with the first phrase but said a bikepath through the Indian Run
ravine, south of the connector was not acceptable.
Mr. Hale agreed with Conditions #18 and 19.
Mr. Hale reviewed the changes in the text. He said the PUD provided that this was a
preliminary plat. He understood that the necessary engineering was not available. The text
listed standards equal to those of Coventry Woods, density, parkland, lot sizes, and preservation
zones, etc. They will put an interim step in the process and come back to the Commission with
a single-family preliminary plats subject to all the requirements of the Code,
It will get a full staff and Commission review before filing a final development plan.
Mr.. Ferrara asked if the lot sizes and density would change later. Mr. Hale said no, they were
committing to the density of 1.7 dulac, 90-foot lots in the text, a no-build zone around Coventry
Woods to protect trees. They are committed to 75 lots with staggered setbacks. Lots might be
lost in the design due to grade, etc.
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 8
Mr. Fishman asked about the parking licensure. He wants it to be permanent. He suggested
reducing the number of lots to locate parking with the subdivision. Janet Jordan said it would
be a passive park. Mr. Hale said that was a different issue. Mr. Hale did not think the 25 acres
would draw many people. Mr. Fishman asked about soccer games at the high school. He saw
the streets being used attendees of soccer games. Mr. Hale suggested the City not allow the
school to put soccer fields without providing parking. Mr. Hale said Cardinal had no problem
if people occasionally used their parking lot, but if it ~ecomes a burden or if they need security
the ability to revoke the license will be necessary. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said the schools
requested in their letter off-peak hour parking privileges in addition to the City's request for the
passive park use. Mr. Fishman was concerned with parking in Condition #16 and that it should
not be temporary basis. He suggested eliminating lots north of the road. Mr. Hale said they
presently had 5.5 acres of deeded park for the subdivision. They had 10.5 acres of parkland,
more than required by Code. The design, if it is the Commission's desire, that parking be
provided within the subdivision, it could be provided north of the road. Mr. Sutphen said many
private parking lots were used for public use for special events. Mr. Fishman said when the
preliminary plat comes back, parking should be provided. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher disagreed
because she did not want to give up green space for parking. Mr. Zawalyagreed. He asked
why staff was recommending a parking lot. Ms. Clarke said to avoid creating a neighborhood
parking problem. She said there was a large amount of parkland along a ravine behind two
subdivisions that belongs to all residents of Dublin. Mr. Zawaly said they could park on any
of the public streets to access the park. Ms. Clarke said this is what caused neighborhood
problems in which the police were called. This lead to the City posting "no parking" signs on
the streets. Mr. Zawaly asked where that had occurred. Ms. Clarke sited Tara Hill Drive near
the high school. Janet Jordan said both Kiawanis Riverfront park and Lowell Trace had
generated neighborhood complaints and were posted "no parking.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said regarding the lacrosse field, the school parking lot was used and it
was a long walk. That is what everyone is accustomed to doing and she saw no big problem.
Roger Draper, said he was happy to see the City recommend that they would review the
bikepath location. He appreciated the developers' concern about saving the ravine. The
alternate proposal would be re-routing the bikepath to major roads. There are no other bikepaths
into Dublin. Cutting the path will limit the bikepaths. There are no bikepaths or sidewalks over
the Post Road bridge or on Dublin Road into the town center.
Mr. Draper focused on the five year capital improvement plan. He said there were major road
improvements on both sides of the Post Road bridge over 1-270 with no slated improvements in
a ten-year future plan. He said MORPC studies showed that in the year 2020 the bridge will
be at maximum capacity at 17,000 vehicles, and so there was no need to widen the bridge. He
said it was not logical to him because he drives the road daily. Mr. Draper said the road count
in 1988 was 13,000 vehicles. In 25 years, the MORPC study indicated that the traffic count
increased by only a couple hundred vehicles. He thanked the city engineers for support and
involvement. They had a computer traffic model for Dublin showing the road capacities which
entered the numbers and produced the road capacities. Based on that, the city plans a road
location. A road to Tuttle Crossing was included. He said the software used maximized the
road capacities. When the bridge traffic capacity reaches 17,000 cars, they said the traffic
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 9
would go elsewhere. 28,000 cars would be directed to Tuttle Crossing and 14,000 cars would
be directed towards Plain City. He said those additional 40,000 cars really did not want to go
to Tuttle Crossing or Plain City, they want to go over the Post Road bridge to 1-270, the closest
access point.Mr. Draper said the software used by MORPC was misleading. He said MORPC
had been asked to rerun the program doubling the amount of lanes on the bridge to four lanes,
increasing capacity to 32,000. Cardinal's employees will want immediate access to 1-270 and
not to want to go to Plain City. He said improvements need to be made to the Post Road
bridge, expanding it to at least four lanes. This project should be added to the five year
throughfare plan to avoid gridlock.
Ms. Jordan explained the bikepath connections on Coffman and Dublin Roads. She said the
bikepath on the west side of Coffman Road would be connected at that new intersection. She
said they were at the planning stages for a Dublin Road bikepath. Mr. Draper said the problem
with that was that they needed to get across the bridge.
Mike Keenan, 7103 Coventry Woods Drive, on behalf of the residents of Coventry Woods
extended a heartfelt thankyou to the Commission and planning staff for their help over the last
few weeks. They were confident that the final proposal will serve Cardinal Health's and the
neighbors needs. They want several issues addressed and included in writing. A subcommittee
of residents should be appointed for input as the process moves from the preliminary
development plan to the final development plan. Its purpose should be the review and
acceptance of development, road, bridge, and construction plans.
Mr. Keenan said the zoning text of Subarea 4 should closely resemble the density and
development standards of the existing Coventry Woods neighborhood including standards and
building materials.
Mr. Hale said the zoning text submitted was exactly the same zoning text as was submitted for
Coventry Woods. Mr. Keenan agreed.
Mr. Keenan asked for a commitment from City Council or the Commission that they would not
support a plan change in the single-family zoning for this property at a later date.
Mr. Rauh said any applicant could come in and ask for a rezoning, but there may be opposition.
Mr. Banchefsky said no commitment could be made in advance not to rezone the property.
Mr. Keenan said the building in Subarea 2 should be limited in height to 14 feet per story,
allowing 10 feet for HV AC and screening. The building should not exceed a total of 80 feet in
height.
Mr. Keenan said Subarea 2 text allowed for buildings within 100 feet of the connector and they
wanted them farther away. They asked that the roadway be recessed as much as possible;
however, mounding was still necessary. He said the whole northern boundary should be
consistent from beginning to end. The north side of the roadway should be mounded with
recommendations of an acoustical engineer.
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 10
Mr. Keenan said the road construction should be compressed as far south as practical within the
1oo-foot right-of-way to maximize the distance from Coventry Woods. As the road approaches
the bridge, the median should be compressed and then fan back out on the other side. That may
provide an extra 20 to 30 feet.
Mr. Keenan said the lighting height should be limited to 20 to 22 feet. Ms. Clarke asked if that
was parking lot or street lighting along the east/west road. Mr. Keenan said streetlighting and
perhaps parking lot lighting.
Mr. Keenan said the land proposed to be traded with Dublin schools should be either included
with the PUD with specific restrictions in the development standards, or its use limited by deed
restrictions. Areas of concern include building height, square footage, and the amount of
parking area. It is their hope that the five-acre site will be used as practice fields with no sports-
type lighting ever.
Mr. Keenan said parking area should be kept at an absolute minimum, as it will tax the runoff
capability of the already over-utilized North Fork of Indian Run. They asked that no detention
pond waivers be granted for that area.
Mr. Keenan understood that 240 days was the normal timeframe allowed for the filing of the
final development plan, and he things this should continue to apply.
Mr. Hale said without the 240 day requirement waiver the property would return to its original
zoning. He said Cardinal Health may wait a few years before building.
Joe Harlan, 7087 Coventry Woods Drive, thanked everyone for their efforts and said it looked
as if the process was working. He asked about the construction timeframe for the connector
road. Mr. Kindra said originally the first 2,000 feet was to be designed by the consulting
engineers. He said if necessary, the connector road could be constructed in two phases. Mr.
Kindra said the entire road would be completed within twelve to eighteen months in one phase
if the entire design was finished.
Mr. Harlan said parking and access to the soccer fields and the passive park were concerns.
They were concerned about crime due to the additional traffic in the unlit area.
Mr. Harlan said the bikepath easement option involving his property was agreeable. He said
it was good because trees would not be destroyed and there would not be as much noise. It
would make both neighborhoods more accessible. He said it was nice that the same noise
standards used by Ken Scott were being used by the City.
Claire Wolfe, a long-time resident of River Forest, said through the years, commitments were
not kept due to the expediency of the moment and the persistence of the developers in Dublin.
She said the 1985 rezoning of the McKitrick property was done with a cuI de sac, with a
promise that SR 745 would remain rural. In 1989, they returned seeking to change the rezoning
which was not done. This proposal again dumps cars onto SR 745. She said she understood
the MORPC studies were based on a cuI de sac, not including cars from Sawmill Road or from
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 11
Coffman going east, and not using SR 745. She had heard no traffic studies related to SR 745.
She was sure that lanes could be built at the new intersection, but it did not tell her what would
happen as cars went north and south on SR 745. She had not heard of any proposed
improvements on SR 161 and SR 745. Ms. Wolfe said it was irresponsible for Dublin to rezone
land without building adequate infrastructure. She asked about the sewage and she predicted
with the next rain there would be a problem with the Scioto River. She had not heard anything
about the west bank connector which had been promised for 20 years. Ms. Wolfe proposed that
the road not be connected to SR 745; that the bridge just be extended over to Coffman Road.
SR 745 cannot handle additional traffic. She said the commitments will be forgotten.
Mr. Kindra said SR 745 was not proposed to be widened. The traffic report referred to the
intersection where it would be widened and turn lanes constructed. He said he did not believe
SR 745 was ever to be widened. Mr. Kindra said the lanes of road each had a 20,000 car
capacity. He said the MORPC model included the connection and was not based on the cuI de
sac, but on a connection between SR 745 and Coffman Road continuing to Sawmill Road. The
MORPC information is the best available. He said Mr. Draper was correct in saying that when
a road network reached its maximum capacity in the computer model. Obviously, the road will
eventually max out, but not before the year 2020. Intersection widening however, will be
needed and is proposed in the traffic study.
Mr. Rauh asked if the Coffman extension was an east/west solution to traffic problems and not
involving north/south capacity. Mr. Kindra said it was an east/west solution only.
Frank: Dunbar, 316 Stonewall Court, representing the Willow Grove Condominiums Association,
said they still had concerns remaining. He said the proposed draft (May 1, 1995) of the text had
been sent to him by Linda Menerey, NBBJ, and it was acceptable in most respects. The revised
proposed draft text was faxed to him after consultation with the staff. They were not pleased
with the latest revisions.
Item 1.03 on page 4 stated that Subarea 1 shall involve development of 12,000 square feet of
building per gross acre and a maximum of four stories above natural grade. Willow Grove had
no objections to the four-story limitation. They wanted a 200-foot setback from Willow Grove
for three stories and 280 feet for four stories. Mr. Dunbar agreed there should be a maximum
of 14 feet per story. A three-story building would be 42 feet and a four-story building 56 feet
above grade. They suggested that every one foot in height should require an additional seven
feet in setback. A four-story office building of 66 feet at 350 feet from the east Willow Grove
property line would be permitted. Mr. Dunbar distributed to the Commission a drawing which
illustrated the sight line he proposed. Some reasonable limit on the HV AC and parapets was
also suggested by Mr. Dunbar. The reference point should be the west pavement of the parking
lot. Mr. Dunbar said there will be no "natural" grade.
Item 1.04, Page 5, sensitivity to neighboring residential environment. Mr. Dunbar said they
agreed with the above but did not think it was being done. They wanted to add a point that
Willow Grove residents will be consulted on design of the roadway at its connection point at
Coffman Road.
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 12
Mr. Dunbar said the roadway at the Coffman connection should mitigate noise to the extent
practicable.
Item 1.06, Last line. Buildings over three stories over natural grade. Mr. Dunbar asked why
reference over three stories because the limitation will be four stories. Say four stories and
include the number of feet and the grade measurement.
Mr. Dunbar said the most disturbing changes resulted after input from staff providing mounding
and screening south of the connector where it joins Coffman Road. The alignment proposed
appears to him to cut off a comer of the Blankenship property at Coffman Road. The only way
that can occur is if the city buys that triangle or the entire property through appropriation. Then
the City of Dublin will have control and will be able to provide mounding and screening, noise
mitigation, and visual screening from the traffic activity in that area. He wants a commitment.
He suggested that the roadway be moved at least 100 feet north of Willow Grove. Under the
proposed alignment at one point it is about 50 feet north and at another it is approximately 70
feet. There will be noise and activity only 50 to 70 feet from Willow Grove's property lines.
Willow Grove is absolutely willing to work with the city, the developers, or anyone to develop
screening and mounding or walls, etc. Willow Grove is not saying "don't put the roadway in",
they are asking consideration in the design and construction of the roadway. The roadway
should be moved north to be aligned with Shannon Park. Mr. Dunbar said the City and Board
of Education have not considered Willow Grove residents. Mr. Dunbar said there were five
other places for the band practice site.
0
Mr. Dunbar said the compromises made sense to the residents of Willow Grove and they wanted
the Commission's consideration before the text went to Council. They do not want to leave the
issues for a later time.
Patricia Oren, 4948 Rosegate Court, agreed with Mr. Sutphen about the bikepath; she was not
sure the creek bed was the proper location. She would like a bikepath on Dublin Road.
Ms. Oren said Coventry Woods had just pushed the noise problem one neighborhood further
south to the new neighborhood shown in Subarea 4. She said the traffic figures did not make
sense to her. She had been told SR 745 was to be kept as a scenic highway, but five lanes are
coming into it. She said in August 1994 Dublin was having a problem with sewage that was not
being addressed.
Tom Webb, 7165 Coventry Woods Court, said they were happy to have noise professionals at
Burgess and Niple addressing this proposal. He said that both Burgess and Niple and Ken Scott
were correct in their studies. He said a strong argument could be made that 57 decibels was an
appropriate target for an urban park. The noise levels in Mr. Harlan's backyard was 60.2 under
the model with the road pushed farther south and with the 4.5 foot cut. He hoped that the noise
considerations would be factored into the bridge design, even if the road is pushed south with
a road cut. Inside Mr. Harlan's home should be 52 decibels according to federal regulations.
Mr. Ferrara said a tremendous amount of progress had been made on everyone's part. He said
the traffic study distributed at the meeting showed the intersection of the Coffman/Sawmill Road
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 13
connector and SR 745 going across the bridge, the five lane widening of SR 745, and the
number of lanes on the bridge. Mr. Kindra said the current scope of work with Burgess and
Niple included signalization at SR 745 and Coffman Road. Mr. Ferrara asked if the City
proposed to purchase the Blankenship property or a portion of it. Mitch Banchefsky said it
would be handled, but the property owner had not been contacted.
Mr. Fishman asked about the Post Road bridge over I~270 being two lanes instead of four. Mr.
Kindra said it was addressed on Page 16 of the traffic report. He said Mr. Draper was correct,
in the year 2020 the traffic counts did not change. It was based on the modeling. He said the
current capital improvement plan did include widening of the bridge. Mr. Kindra said the City
updated its capital improvement plan yearly and at some point it will be included as part of the
project in the future.
Mr. Fishman said it should be looked at very closely because it was a natural for bottleneck
there. Mr. Kindra agreed.
Peter Zawaly said he was encouraged by what he heard from the neighbors, the developers'
representation of Cardinal's position. He said several neighborhood groups had indicated that
the bikepath should not disrupt the natural areas and he agreed. He understood that the building
was going into the ravine/wooded area to some extent.
Dan Sutphen asked if the text regarding mounding would be reviewed again by the Commission.
He liked the cuts in the road, but he imagined additional mounding was needed along the
northern and southern boundaries. He did not see that in the text and thought it should be
included in the conditions.
Ms. Clarke said mounding was addressed in Condition #4: An appropriate buffer/landscape
treatment along the east/west road be submitted in conjunction with the road design for review
by the Commission. The text specifically called for a six-foot mound with plantings on top on
the south side of the east/west road. She said it was a good buffer but might not be the right
buffer next to the woods. Every foot of mounding would remove eight feet of linear space.
A six-foot mound would mean a fifty-foot wide swath through the trees. Staff wanted to look
at what the combination of materials would be in light of noise, neighborhood standards in light
of their input and the road design.
Mr. Sutphen said a condition was needed saying that the graves in the graveyard were never to
be moved. Mr. Fishman said maintenance should be required also. Mr. Sutphen suggested
either the City or the developer be responsible.
George Peplow said having just received the revised text at that evening, he had not had time
to scrutinize it as normal. He said the building maximum height should be limited. He asked
what zoning restrictions for development were placed on the newly acquired school property next
to the Woods of Indian Run. He said consideration for noise and screening should be taken for
the residents of Willow Grove.
[The tape is damaged following this discussion]
Dublin Planning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 14
Mr. Zawaly made the motion to approve this rezoning application with the following 22
conditions:
1) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with maximum
sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input from the
neighborhood representatives;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to mitigate noise
pollution;
3) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject to
approval of the Planning. and Zoning Commission;
4) That an appropriate buffer/landscaping treatment along the east-west road be submitted
in conjunction with #3 above, subject to approval of the Planning and Zoning
Commission;
5) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the new east-
west road;
6) That a landscape plan that graphically represents the buffering standard along Willow
Grove be submitted subject to staff approval;
7) That development standards including setbacks, utility service and placement,
preservation areas, parkland, for the single-family area (Subarea 4) be established at the
time of preliminary plat;
8) That additional development criteria be established in the text for daycare facilities;
9) That the architectural quality of the proposed office park reflect the standard of
development for other existing signature office buildings along 1-270 in Dublin, such as
DCLC and Metro Center;
10) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove continue to
be honored;
11) That right-of way be dedicated for Dublin Road (40 feet from centerline) and the east-
west road (100 feet wide) and with additional right-of-way provided at the intersections
consistent with the findings of the area traffic impact study prepared by Burgess and
Niple;
12) That adequate right-of-way or easements be dedicated to include any additional roadside
mounding (designed with a mowable slope);
13) That a tree preservation plan and conceptual plan be submitted prior to filing a final
development plan for any treed portion of the site that outlines standards for
development, including utility placement, sets preservation zones and provides
appropriate development standards for all phases of construction for wooded areas located
along the Indian Run and existing tree rows, it being understood that the developer will
be allowed to locate buildings, parking, access driveways, and related amenities within
the existing treed area consistent with a tree preservation plan that preserves the natural
beauty of the site, subject to staff approval;
14) That the ravine be properly protected by environmenta.1ly sensitive site design(s) and
limitation on grading, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices during all
phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation plan;
15) That the cemetery be established as a no-build zone and be appropriately preserved;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 15
16) That parking to facilitate use of the existing public park within the development be
resolved at final development plan review and should it be located south of the road, it
may be established by revokable license;
17) That bikepaths be provided along the east-west road and Dublin Road frontages consistent
with the Community Plan;
18) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at City
Council;
19) That the applicant submit a finalized legal description for the acreage to be rezoned for
inclusion in the rezoning ordinance;
20) That the use of Subarea 4 to the west of the Indian Run be limited to playing and practice
fields and parks, with any proposed lighting to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission;
21) That buildings in Subarea 2 shall be limited to a maximum five-story height (plus
mechanicals) limit, that buildings shall be limited to 80 feet in height at the minimum
setback lines, and that buildings exceeding 80 feet in height shall be set back an
additional two feet for each additional one foot in building height; and
22) That buildings in Subarea 1 shall be limited to a maximum four-story height (plus
mechanicals) limit, that buildings shall be limited to 56 feet in height at the minimum
setback lines, and that buildings exceeding 56 feet in height shall be set back an
additional two feet for each additional one foot in building height.
Mr. Hale agreed to the above conditions.
Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Ferrara,
yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; and Mr.
Zawaly, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
Mr. Sutphen made a motion that upon consideration of the new traffic generated by the
development of the McKitrick property, the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
recommends that Council place a high priority on the following five traffic network issues:
Expansion of the two lane Post Road bridge over 1-270; Constructing the connector road as one
project, preferably as a four-lane boulevarded street with a landscaped median; upgrading the
intersections at Coffman Road and at Dublin Road; protecting Dublin Road as a scenic collector;
and funding the two bridges, (one over the Scioto and the other over US 33/SR 161), within the
current CIP.
Mr. Zawaly said he abstained from the motion as a Council Member. He suggested that because
of the complexity of the motion it should be written out and voted upon at the regularly
scheduled meeting the next day. Mr. Sutphen withdrew his motion. No vote was taken at that
time.
fThefollowing evening Mr. Sutphen's suggestion was entertained and acted upon asfollows: Mr.
Rubey asked that the Commission react to the memorandum distributed regarding the McKitrick
property rezoning on May 3, 1995. There was a motion made, then withdrawn, by Dan Sutphen
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes - May 3, 1995
Page 16
regarding a letter to be sent to Council. Staff was directed to draft a statement reflecting the
traffic issues discussed at the previous meeting.
Mr. Fishman asked about the bridge across the Scioto River and the one across SR 161. Mr.
Zawaly said they are in the current 5-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made a motion to strongly recommend that Council place a high priority
on the following five traffic network issues:
1. The capacity and potential for expansion of the two lane Post Road bridge over 1-270
should be sufficiently studied.
2. The connector road through the McKitrick property should be constructed between Dublin
Road and Coffman Road as one project, not in segments. This connector road should
be designed and installed in its final form, preferably as a four-lane boulevarded street
with a landscaped median.
3. The east-west road project should include adequate upgrades to the intersections created
at Coffman Road and at Dublin Road.
4. Dublin Road should be preserved and protected as a scenic collector. This includes
minimizing any necessary widening of this road to the greatest extent possible.
5. That funding will be provided for the two bridges, (one over the Scioto and the other over
SR 161), within the current 5-year c.l.P.
Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes,' Mr. Rauh, yes,.
Mr. Zawaly, abstain,' Mr. Fishman, yes,' Mr. Ferrara, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes.
(Approved 5-0-1.)]
Mr. Rauh adjourned the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i~l;~
Planning Division Secretary
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF DlBLL\ SPECIAL MEETING
April 20, 1995
CASE 1: Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan
APPLICANT: McKitrick Properties, Inc. and Bethel Road Investment Company c/o Ben W.
Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
REQUEST: To rezone 149.62 acres located on the north side of 1-270, between Coffman Road
and Dublin-Bellepoint Road (SR 745) from PUD, Planned Unit Development
District and R, Rural to PUD, Planned Unit Development District by revision of
the approved Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Section
1181.07.
BACKGROUND:
A PUD Preliminary Development Plan was approved in the summer of 1985 for the overall site
to permit the development of a major office park. The estimated park size was 1.5 million
square feet, although the adopted text indicates a general limitation of 10,000 square feet of
building being permitted per net acre. Calculated on a net basis, after deducting right-of-way
acreage, etc., the office park would need to be substantially smaller than the estimate at full
development. All traffic studies to date have included the expectation of 1.5 million square feet
of office development.
Simultaneous with the rezoning adoption in 1985 was a waiver granted by Council to Section
1181.07(i)(5). This waiver negated the usual requirement that fmal approvals for 20 percent of
the development be sought within 240 days following approval of the PUD. The text, in fact,
referenced the fact that needed infrastructure, specifically adequate roads, are not in place and
defers development for at least three years (until at least 1988).
The Preliminary Development Plan also, under the Dublin Code, serves as the preliminary plat.
This combination of zoning and platting procedures only occurs in the PUD District. The
currently approved plan shows a road extending eastward from Coffman Road through the site
and culminates in a cul-de-sac in the graphics. The currently approved text states that the road
will be constructed to connect with Dublin Road, in a mutually agreeable alignment, if Dublin
requires a "through" street. All traffic studies to date have assumed access for the office park
from both the east and west sides. The 1988 Thoroughfare Plan reconfirms the municipality's
intentions by clearly showing this road as connecting with both Coffman and Dublin Road.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
. Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 2
The 1985 McKitrick plan was quite controversial and fairly complicated. It involved the
exchange of property between the Dublin Schools and the McKitrick interests. Generally, the
school system gave up its land abutting 1-270 in exchange for other, less valuable, land located
farther north along Coffman Road. Relocated, developer-funded sports facilities including the
stadium were also involved in the transaction. This land exchange was viewed as an important
economic development benefit for the municipality and the school system.
Regarding the processing of a rezoning application, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
have a "reasonable" time for its review, or at least 30 days under the Code. The application will
be returned to City Council with the Commission's recommendation where a public hearing at
Council, also known as the second reading of the Ordinance, will be scheduled. Subsequent to
the public hearing, City Council will vote on the ordinance (at the third reading). A two-thirds
vote of Council is required to override the Commission's recommendation. A rezoning
ordinance takes effect 30 days after passage by Council. If approved, all portions of the
development, including the road, will be subject to the Commission's review and approval prior
to construction. The public hearing in this case has been scheduled to take place May 1, 1995,
at City Council.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Site Description:
0 The subject site includes 149 acres of the existing McKitrick office park zoned PUD.
It also includes +4.5 acres at the south edge of the high school site zoned R, Rural
District. The office park site will actually not be expanded; again, a land trade is
anticipated between the property owner and the school system. Most of the site has been
used for agriculture for several generations and consists of open fields. The North Fork
of Indian Run flows north to south through the center of the site, and both banks are
wooded throughout the length of the stream bed. There are old tree rows along most of
the property lines. The site has substantial slopes down to the North Fork and also
within several hundred feet of Dublin Road as the terrain slopes toward the Scioto River.
Otherwise, the site is relatively flat.
0 The site is bounded on the south by 1-270. Beyond the freeway are the OCLC complex
including the former Midvo facility zoned LI, Limited Industrial District, and a large
tract along Dublin Road zoned R, Rural and R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential
District. On the east are the Willow Grove Condominium development (zoned PUD),
the undeveloped Blankenship parcel, and the Dublin Coffman High School. Across
Coffman Road to the west is Coffman Park which contains the Dublin Municipal
Building. To the north are two new single-family neighborhoods: the Woods of Indian
Run and Coventry Woods, both zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District,
specifically for single-family development. Finally, to the east across Dublin-Bellepoint
is scattered single-family development on estate-size lots along the river corridor.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 3
1985 Rezoning Commitments:
0 The currently approved plan includes an east-west road through the site. The entrance
onto Coffman Road is shown approximately 1,000 feet north of Post Road, between
Dublin Coffman High School and the Willow Grove Condominium neighborhood. The
road was to be built as a divided boulevard, at least along the high school property, with
the entrance located at least 50 feet north of the Willow Grove site.
0 One of the needed traffic improvements cited in 1985 was expansion of the Coffman
Road bridge over the South Fork of Indian Run. The bridge was widened from two
lanes to five lanes in 1994 as part of a bridge replacement project initiated by Franklin
County. The bridge is not anticipated to need any further widening in the future.
0 The developer made a commitment in the 1985 plan to provide a buffer along the north
side of Willow Grove. The currently required setback is 200 feet for building and 100
feet for parking. A plan that includes proposed mounding and landscaping was also
prepared depicting the intended buffer. (Refer to attached landscape plan.)
0 Storm drainage from Willow Grove was conveyed onto the former high school property
through an easement. The obligation to accept the drainage remains and was transferred
to the McKitrick interests when the property trade occurred and will run with the land.
A commitment was also made to assist the school with its drainage requirements.
0 The currently approved plan depicts office sites on both sides of the proposed east-west
road. No specific development standards are contained in the text regarding building
height or building mass. A setback requirement is defined along Willow Grove (200 feet
to building and 100 feet to parking) but not elsewhere in the office park. The setback
areas are depicted to promote compatibility with existing development with a district (not
yet determined) treatment along public roadways. In very specific terms, a three-story
maximum is not contained in the approved McKitrick PUD, and there is no indication
of specific buffering/setback along the residential neighborhoods to the north. Under the
existing PUD, the Planning Commission would determine appropriate height and/or
buffering standards as part of the Final Development Plan review and approval process.
The minimum buffer standard between office and residential developments is an area 6
feet wide which contains an opaque barrier 6 feet in height and trees planted 40 feet on
center.
0 The current zoning in place is for office use only. The land owner had requested all SO,
Suburban Office and Institutional District, and OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research
District, and these are still contained within the text. The motion for approval in 1985
specifies that the permitted use is to be limited to "office."
Proposed Development Standards:
0 The proposed uses include all of those uses in the OLR, Office, Laboratory and Research
District and the SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District plus daycare centers.
While the additional uses may be appropriate generally, this rezoning is being pursued
in order to address the specific requirements of two office users. Staff would
recommend that the permitted uses remain as "office" with this rezoning petition as well.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 4
0 The overall site is proposed to be divided into four subareas with differing development
standards. The maximum density, as proposed, would increase from 10,000 square feet
of building per acre to 12,000 square feet per acre in subarea 1 and to 15,000 square feet
per acre in Subarea 2. Subareas 3 and 4 are proposed to maintain 10,000 square feet per
acre. The development at build-out would, as proposed, increase from 1.5 million
square feet to 1.7 million square feet. This is an increase of 13.3 percent above the
currently permitted potential building area.
0 The proposed text also establishes maximum building height. Subarea 1, located south
of the proposed east/west road and near Willow Grove, is proposed to be limited to four
stories. This is estimated at 50 feet in height, plus any rooftop units. In Subarea 3,
located south of the proposed road and near Dublin Road, a three-story limit is proposed.
This would be about 40 feet in height plus the height of any roof structure or mechanical
penthouse. Subarea 4 is located north of the proposed road and is limited as proposed
to three stories. The most intense office area is . located .. south of the proposed road in
. the approximate center of the site, in Subarea 2. Buildings in Subarea 2 are proposed
as limited to five stories, or about 65 feet. In all subareas the number of stories above
natural grade is used as the basis for measurement.
Economic Development Considerations:
0 A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) ordinance was approved by City Council for the
McKitrick office park in June of last year, before the state enabling legislation was
amended. The revisions in the state code have made tax increment financing less
beneficial for the initiating municipality and generally more complicated and restrictive
to administer. The ordinance adopted by Council permits Dublin to take advantage of
the now expired program; it does not obligate the community to do anything it chooses
not to do, including taking favorable action on this rezoning request. Tax increment
financing is a mechanism to fund needed infrastructure for a project or area by
temporarily capturing the new real estate tax revenues associated with the new
construction. Dublin has used the TIF as a matter of general policy in a number of
commercial and industrial projects in the last two years. The TIF permits the allocation
of new real estate taxes (the incremental increase associated with the actual new building
construction) to a special fund to be used for funding road construction, traffic signals,
water and sewer line extensions and similar infrastructure improvements related to a
project. It is a temporary measure, and it expires upon reimbursement. The applicable
TIF statutes permit a 30-year payback period, but Dublin City Council has set a policy
of limiting these paybacks to a five or six year time period.
0 In simplest terms, tax increment financing permits property taxes to be used to fund
infrastructure improvements. The developer/property owner, however, pays its full tax
obligation throughout the process. A TIF does not affect the amount of tax to be paid
positively or negatively; it affects how the tax money is to be dispersed once collected.
The current real estate tax (on the land) will continue to be paid and disbursed to the
schools as usual throughout the temporary TIF period. In addition, the schools and other
property taxing jurisdictions would receive the new personal property tax revenue
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 5
generated by the development. The property taxing jurisdictions would not receive any
real estate tax revenues from the new structure(s) during the 5-year TIP payback period.
The municipality would accept the responsibility of installing and funding infrastructure
improvements associated with the new development, in this case the east-west road
through the McKitrick site. The new property tax "increment" associated with the first
major new multi-story office building would be collected in full, but would be disbursed
to the City until the roadway cost is repaid. Following repayment, the new tax
"increment" is collected and disbursed as usual, with the schools being the biggest
recipient (approximately 65 percent).
0 The Mount Auburn report was conducted during 1993, and its conclusions were adopted
by City Council in 1994. It provides analysis of Dublin's economic position within the
region and makes recommendations regarding an appropriate economic development
strategy. One of the clearest messages in that report is that the municipality is funded
. most efficiently by office and research and development uses within the community. A
recommendation is made to limit any economic incentives granted by the municipality
to those uses which can provide the greatest benefit to the community. . Due to the two
percent income tax that is applied to the entire local payroll, the benefit of office and
research companies is easy to see. The schools are also beneficiaries, but because their
funding is through property tax, the trade-offs between different forms of development
are not quite as defined.
0 There are currently two companies interested in building their offices at the McKitrick
site. Both are interested in multi-story office structures that take advantage of the 1-270
exposure, and both are considering sites located to the south of the proposed east-west
road. There are no known users for the property located to the north of the road. This
sketchy information on proposed users is being provided because the application has
sparked quite a bit of public discussion, and the record should be as clear as possible.
Neither office user owns any of the ground being proposed for rezoning, and neither is
prepared to make an announcement as yet. The rezoning documents will have to speak
for themselves. The rezoning deals with the permissible density, development standards
and road alignment issues, not the specifics of a building or company.
0 The smaller of the two companies is interested in starting construction on its first
building this summer. It is planning a four-story office building on a ten-acre site, and
its plan is to build a twin building later, after acquiring another ten acres. The larger
proposal involves a proposed cluster of four- and five-story office structures totalling
some 800,000 square feet on an overall site of approximately 60 acres. Construction is
expected to begin within about three years. Please note, none of the proposed buildings
is ready for consideration at this time, and none is being approved as part of the
requested rezoning. The buildings, provided the rezoning is approved, will be subject
to the Final Development Plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a later date.
0 This application is being crafted around the two companies who have expressed strong
interest in becoming the end users of the site. If, for whatever reason, these companies
drop out of the process, the rezoning application may be withdrawn. The current owner
may not pursue changes in the approved Preliminary Development Plan and zoning text
except to make the site ready for sale to a specific individual or company.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 6
Transportation Considerations:
0 A review of the McKitrick zoning history from 1985 reveals the municipality's
expectation that the developer will share greatly in providing infrastructure improvements
to service the site. The major infrastructure shortfall is in the area of carrying capacity
of the traffic or roadway facilities. In most cases, the City of Dublin is an outsider in
the development and building process. Because of the TIP being used to fund the needed
roadway improvements, the City in fact serves in the capacity of the developer. The TIP
funding mechanism was not available in 1985, and this represents an abrupt change in
circumstances.
0 Another TIP is already in place for the Metatec expansion, and it will fund the extension
of Perimeter Drive eastward. Perimeter Drive starts at Avery/Muirfield Drive, and it
.currently terminates in front of the Frigidaire, several hundred feet beyond Metatec
Drive. During this construction season, the Metatec TIP will fund the further
construction of Perimeter Drive through the Perimeter Center area to intersect with an
extension of Coffman Road.
0 Coffman Road is to be widened this year as part of the Dublin Capital Improvements
Program. The Coffman bridge over the South Fork of Indian Run was expanded to five
lanes last summer. Coffman Road will be widened to three lanes with curbs and gutters,
etc. from Brand Road south to Tara Hill Drive. From Tara Hill Drive southward, it
will be constructed as a five-lane road, and Coffman Road will be extended southward,
past Post Road, to the Perimeter Drive intersection.
0 Coffman Road will be extended south of Perimeter Drive in the future. A bridge is
proposed over US 33/SR 161 along the Coffman Road alignment. This bridge has been
funded as part of the five year capital improvements program. Eventually, Coffman
Road will connect directly with Britton Parkway and provide excellent access to the
Tuttle Crossing interchange with 1-270. The alignment for this roadway extension is
currently under study through an outside engineering firm.
0 The PLR zoning for Coventry Woods as a single-family development was established in
1987. The original plan as approved, then called Starkey/Blackford, included a
connection at the south end of the neighborhood into the subject site. This complied with
the roadways as presented on the 1988 Thoroughfare Plan. In mid-1992, the preliminary
plat was amended to create a cuI de sac, instead of a through street along Coventry
Woods Drive. This provided for total separation of the residential and commercial office
traffic from the adjacent sites. The zoning and platting history of the Coventry Woods
neighborhood is being included in the packet for your review.
0 The proposed east-west road is shown in this plan in approximately the same alignment
as presented in the 1985 zoning plan. The proposed road has been revised in that it is
now shown as a through road, and it swings to the southeast corner of the site to align
with the approved Scioto bridge location. The northernmost section of the proposed road
is 100 feet from the nearest point of the Coventry Woods development. This has been
the issue causing the greatest amount of residents' concern. The Staff believes that the
100-foot distance is adequate provided that the roadway and bridge over the Indian Run
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 7
are designed in the most compatible manner possible. The Staff will use its efforts to
assure that the road and bridge design incorporates the maximum consideration of its
residential surroundings.
0 The staff attended a meeting of about 100 neighborhood residents to explain the rezoning
process and to provide background information. Both the Coventry Woods and Willow
Grove neighborhoods have selected representatives to attend additional meetings and to
represent the residents' views. Another meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, and
the results of that meeting will be reported at the Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff supports the increase in building density adjacent to the freeway. Staff also supports
the road alignment as proposed. This is an important parcel in the City's longterm economic
development perspective. Staff recommends approval with several important modifications.
These modifications are contained in the following 16 conditions:
Conditions:
1) That the land uses be limited to office unless additional development criteria are
established in the text;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with
maximum sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input
from the neighborhood representatives;
3) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to
mitigate noise pollution;
4) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject
to approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
5) That the building setback standard as applied along the property lines abutting
developed neighborhoods be increased;
6) That the buffering standard as applied along the property lines abutting developed
neighborhoods be increased and that specific landscape plans be submitted subject
to staff approval;
7) That permissible uses and development standards for Subarea 4 (north of the east-
west road) be modified to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood;
8) That the architectural quality and further detailing of the proposed office park be
established as a commitment in the text;
9) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove
continue to be honored;
10) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the
new east-west road;
11) That a tree preservation plan be submitted that limits development areas,
including utility placement, and provides appropriate development standards for
all phases of construction for wooded areas located along the Indian Run and
existing tree rows;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - April 20, 1995
Page 8
~
12) That the ravine be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s)
and limitation on grading and by utilization of appropriate construction practices
during all phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation
plan;
13) That a parking easement be established within the office development to facilitate
use of the public park;
14) That an easement for a bikepath be provided along the length of the Indian Run,
subject to staff approval;
15) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at
City Council; and
16) That the applicant submit a finalized legal description for the acreage to be
rezoned for inclusion in the rezoning ordinance.
Bases:
1) The proposal as amended above provides both the neighborhood and potential
office developers with clearer standards and expectations.
2) The proposed east-west road is located in general compliance with the 1988
Thoroughfare Plan, approved Scioto bridge location and does not deviate from
Preliminary Development Plan approved in 1985.
3) This application represents an excellent economic development opportunity for the
city and is consistent with the Mt. Auburn economic development strategy,
including its recommendation to pursue higher density office development.
4) This proposal as amended above provides for a higher standard of environmental
sensitivity regarding site development.
5) The development offers the opportunity to construct a vital link in the City's
roadway network.
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 20, 1995
(Special Meeting)
CITY OF DlBLJ:\
1. Rezoning Application Z95-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Prelimin9ry
Development Plan (Tabled 7-0.)
Chairman Dick Raub explained the meeting format and procedures.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dick Rauh at 6:30 p.m. All other commission
members were present: Warren Fishman, Dan Sutphen, George Peplow, Marilee Chinnici-
Zuercher, John Ferrara, and Peter Zawaly. Staff members present were: Bobbie Clarke, Lisa
Fierce, Mary Newcomb, Tom Rubey, Vince Papsidero, Terry Foegler, Mary Bearden, Balbir
Kindra, Randy Bowman, Mitch Banchefsky, Steve Smith and Libby Farley.
Mr. Sutphen made the motion to approve the February 9 and 23, 1995 meeting minutes. Ms.
Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr.
Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes;
and Mr. Zawaly, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made the motion to accept all documents received into the record and
Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Ferrara,
yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; and Mr.
Zawaly, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
1. Rezoning Application Z9S-004 - McKitrick Office Park - Revised Preliminary
Development Plan (Tabled 7-0.)
Terry Foegler updated the Commission on the economic development background for this case
to explain the rezoning and procedures being used. Some information had not been previously
provided, and some aspects of the confidential economic development negotiations were still
unavailable for pubic review. He said frequently in Dublin's economic development projects,
there is some form of economic development agreement. It could be tax increment financing
or some other inducement or provision of public infrastructure by Dublin in exchange for a
commitment by the private entity. Most commonly, those incentives are provided for a
headquarters or major corporate entity to locate in Dublin, creating added real property value
which benefits the schools and payroll taxes which directly benefit the city.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Foegler said the McKitrick property is along 1-270 between Coffman and Dublin Roads.
The site has been zoned for office development for 10 years, but has not developed because a
series of infrastructure improvements is needed for adequate site access. Recently, the city
began working with two prospects interested in this site. They are also considering sites outside
of Dublin. The city is in the process of negotiating toward an economic development agreement
that accomplishes both public objectives and the needs of the companies. He announced that
Cardinal Health was the intended primary office user for the property. The other user remains
undisclosed as requested by the developer, the Alter Group in Chicago. Mr. Foegler said the
economic inducements utilize tax increment financing (TIF) (approved by Council for this
property in June 1994) to finance a significant part of the on site infrastructure, largely roads
and related utilities. He stressed that those economic development agreements are still in
negotiation and incomplete. The decisions of where both the entities will locate is subject to a
series of contingencies and resolution of issues.
One issue to be resolved is the zoning for this site. He said the zoning portion of the overall
economic agreement is now before the Commission, and the rezoning process was an open and
discretionary one. Such proposed zoning amendments undergo public review, deliberation of
the Commission, and final action by Council. Many other contingencies not related to zoning
still need to be resolved, such as performance criteria, etc. Dublin has the property under
contract in order to but will be assigning those rights to Cardinal Health. The city will not be
purchasing the property. The majority of the site is being contemplated for office headquarter-
type uses, and approximately 20 acres will be set aside for headquarter expansion of Cardinal
Health, 10-20 acres for the other user is expected to be developed by the Alter Group.
Mr. Ferrara asked if the city owned the property. Mr. Foegler said the purchase contract was
between the owner, John McKitrick, et al. and the City of Dublin. He said that it was neither
the City's intent nor council's objective to buy the land. The purchase option will be assigned
to Cardinal Health if all contingencies are resolved. Mr. Ferrara asked for another example
where the city had contracted property. Mr. Foegler said the Chiller property had similarities.
Bobbie Clarke presented this rezoning application to revise the PUD Preliminary Development
Plan for the McKitrick office park. She said the differences between the 1985 PUD zoning and
the proposed zoning include a slightly different road configuration and increases in the building
density from 10,000 square feet to 12,000 and 15,000 square feet per acre of land. The 1985
road showed a cul-de-sac, but the 1985 text also included an agreement to extend the road out
to Dublin Road, if so requested by the municipality. It was agreed that the alignment of a
"through" street would follow a mutually agreeable alignment.
She said there is no height limit in the current (1985) text. Ms. Clarke said that following
discussion with the neighbors, all the 1985 Commission and Council tapes were reviewed by
staff. No building height limit was discussed. There may have been a verbal or side agreement
with the developer, but a three-story limit was never discussed in any public meeting.
For land use and traffic planning purposes, it has consistently been assumed that the McKitrick
Office Park could generate up to 1.5 million square feet of offices. If rezoned as proposed, and
if developed to the highest density proposed, the yield increases about 200,000 square feet.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 3
Ms. Clarke noted that letters from neighbors and a memorandum from the Dublin Tree and
Landscape Advisory Committee had been distributed to Commissioners at this meeting. Also,
a letter of addendum from Ben Hale, representing the applicant, was provided, requesting a
continuation of the waiver to Section 1181.07(i)(5), as granted in 1985. Normally, a developer
has to file a final development plan for 20 percent of the property within 240 days of the
enactment of the rezoning or the zoning is nullified. Ms. Clarke said there was strong interest
in building sooner, but he wants to secure his current rights in the revised office park zoning.
Ms. Clarke said the road alignment had been established in 1990, once the location was adopted
for the next bridge across the Scioto River. Neighboring properties include the Willow Grove
Condominiums, Dublin Coffman High School, City Hall and the Coffman House. The wooded
property abutting Coffman Road is the Blankenship property. Coventry Woods is the closest
subdivision. The Indian Run Stream is tree-lined through the full length of the site. The site
contains a single-family home on Dublin Road which will be razed. A small cemetery is located
near 1-270 and Dublin Road dating from the 1800s.
Ms. Clarke showed several slides of other freeway-oriented offices: the OCLC building at five
stories, Metro V at seven and nine stories.
She said the proposed road will start between the high school and Willow Grove on Coffman
Road. The proposed alignment is as close as 100 feet from the comer pin of the last lot in
Coventry Woods. It swings southeasterly to intersect with Dublin Road just north of 1-270 at
the proposed Scioto Bridge crossing. She said the traffic consultant indicated considerable work
would be needed to assure a good intersection for the high school, City Hall and the
neighborhood. Coffman Road is scheduled to be widened later in 1995. It will be five lanes
from Post Road to Tara Hill Drive, and three lanes wide from Tara Hill Drive to Brand Road.
Bikepaths, sidewalks, streetlights, curbs, gutters, etc. are planned for the improvement.
Ms. Clarke explained the setbacks. She noted that along Willow Grove the 1985 text has a 100-
foot parking setback and a 2oo-foot building setback. These are now proposed at 50 and 100
feet respectively, with an adjacent building height in Subarea 1 of four stories. Subarea 2 is
approximately 60 acres flanking the Indian Run along the freeway and is proposed for up to five
stories. A couple of small parcels totalling about two acres may be traded from the high school
to the developer for land located north of the road to the west of the Indian Run. None of the
school's existing buildings or developed playing fields are impacted. One proposed soccer field
would need to be changed to a different sport field and the band practice area needs to be
modified.
Ms. Clarke said according to the 1985 rezoning the entrance road cannot be closer than 50 feet
from the Willow Grove property line. An existing detention pond is used for offsite runoff from
Willow Grove Condominiums and possibly the high school.
She said the staff is recommending approval of the zoning change. The density increase,
especially adjacent to the freeway, is an important to Dublin's economic development strategy
as recommended within the Mt. Auburn Study. Staff is recommending approval with the
following 16 conditions:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 4
1) That the land uses be limited to office unless additional development criteria are
established in the text;
2) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed with maximum
sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment and with input from the
neighborhood representatives;
3) That the east-west road and the bridge over the Indian Run be designed to mitigate noise
pollution;
4) That the design of the east-west road and bridge over the Indian Run be subject to
approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
5) That the building setback standard as applied along the property lines abutting developed
neighborhoods be increased;
6) That the buffering standard as applied along the property lines abutting developed
neighborhoods be increased and that specific landscape plans be submitted subject to staff
approval;
7) That permissible uses and development standards for Subarea 4 (north of the east-west
road) be modified to improve compatibility with the adjacent neighborhood;
8) That the architectural quality and further detailing of the proposed office park be
established as a commitment in the text;
9) That the commitment to handle and detain storm water from Willow Grove continue to
be honored;
10) That an innovative design standard and landscape plan be established along the new east-
west road;
11) That a tree preservation plan be submitted that limits development areas, including utility
placement, and provides appropriate development standards for all phases of construction
for wooded areas located along the Indian Run and existing tree rows;
12) That the ravine be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s) and
limitation on grading and by utilization of appropriate construction practices during all
phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation plan;
13) That a parking easement be established within the office development to facilitate use of
the public park;
14) That an easement for a bikepath be provided along the length of the Indian Run, subject
to staff approval;
15) That the plan and text be modified as appropriate prior to the public hearing at City
Council; and
16) That the applicant submit a fmalized legal description for the acreage to be rezoned for
inclusion in the rezoning ordinance.
Staff believes with the above modifications, this plan provides neighbors and developers alike
with clear standards and expectations regarding development. It is consistent with Dublin's
roadway plans and the economic development strategy and provides a higher standard of
environmental sensitivity than the existing zoning. This development offers the opportunity to
complete a roadway section (through the TIF) needed to link the Coffman Extension with the
Scioto bridge.
Mr. Sutphen asked if the school would still own land in Subarea 1 after the trade. Ms. Clarke
said no.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 5
Mr. Peplow asked about the proposed density for all subareas. Ms. Clarke said the proposal
maintains 10,000 square feet per acre density in Subareas 3 and 4. Subarea 1 is to be increased
to 12,000 square feet per acre, and Subarea 2, the largest, would be 15,000 square feet per acre.
This is an overall increase of thirteen percent over the current zoning. development. The same
land uses as are currently permitted and recommended, unless there are additional development
standards. The maximum height, measured in stories above natural grade, will vary from three
to five stories depending on the subarea. Tree and ravine protection will be provided which
does not exist with the current zoning. Setbacks, as proposed, along Willow Grove would be
decreased: for buildings from 200 feet, to 100 feet as proposed, and for parking from 100 feet
to 50 feet. Ms. Clarke said no other specific setbacks were set in the 1985 PUD. The Code
requires 50 feet along the interstate and 20 feet along residential property.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked why daycare was recommended for exclusion. Ms. Clarke said
the development standards do not address it, and the outdoor play areas and general placement
need to be addressed. Staff is requesting specific standards for all non-office uses. The
proposed standards work well for office use, including daycare within a large office building.
Ms. Clarke said the closest edge of the right-of-way was proposed to be 100 feet from the comer
pin of the last lot in Coventry Woods. The right-of-way width includes all of the improvements:
the curbs, tree lawns, bikepaths, sidewalks, streetlights, and utility poles (on older streets). A
boulevard is under consideration, but at a minimum, it will be built as a three-lane road. Mr.
Kindra said, if built as a boulevard, the pavement would be about 125 feet away.
Mr. Zawaly asked about the bikepath easement along the Indian Run. Ms. Clarke said the
proposal is to extend the bikepath through the ravine from the north property line to the east-
west road, then to parallel the road. The 1988 Community Plan shows the bikepath along the
Indian Run through the whole site. Specifics as to location and feasibility have note been
investigated. There are some very steep areas with which to deal.
Mr. Zawaly said several residents were concerned about a bikepath connecting their area to the
office park. He asked for an alternate route. Ms. Clarke said this concern is sometimes raised,
but the idea is to provide a scenic route to Old Dublin. Bikepaths along Dublin Road and
Coffman Road are also being pursued.
Mr. Fishman asked about the timing of the new Scioto Bridge. Ms. Clarke said it is scheduled
for 1999 in the City's five-year capital improvement program. Mr. Fishman feared the
development might precede the bridge, and the traffic would go nowhere. Ms. Clarke said Staff
anticipated a 10-year build out for the office park and only five years for the bridge.
Mr. Fishman asked about the Coffman Road extension over US 33. Mr. Foegler said the
Coffman Road improvement (from Brand Road at the north and continuing south of Post, and
connecting to Perimeter Drive) is scheduled to have a construction contract awarded this year.
He said the bridge over US 33 is also within the five-year capital budget, and he hopes it will
spur the Coffman construction between Shier-Rings Road and Rings Road. If the southern
extension is not completed, this might be deferred. Mr. Fishman asked for assurance that both
bridges will be in place before this development is completed. Ms. Clarke said with everything
known now, including Dublin's fmancial health, Council's interest in traffic solutions, the need
for new roads, etc., she believes it will happen.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 6
Mr. Foegler mentioned the scheduled SR 161/Frantz Road improvement. It is a major
intersection upgrade that includes upgrades to Post Road from the 1-270 overpass south to
US 33 and then south to Metro Place North. Left-turn lanes, traffic signals, and road widening
will be included. It is funded for design and right-of-way acquisition in 1995 and construction
in 1996.
Mr. Fishman wanted to know how much of the treed ravine would be destroyed by the road
construction. Ms. Clarke did not know and said the road will destroy trees anywhere it goes
along the ravine. Ms. Clarke pointed out the neighborhood park and ravine on the aerial.
Mr. Rauh suggested increasing the setbacks. Ms. Clarke said the degree of discomfort that
many residents express increases with the building height. She suggested increasing the setback
as the height increases. Ms. Clarke said staff believes a 50-foot setback for parking is a good
buffer, but building height should be further addressed.
Mr. Rauh asked about the proposed speed limit on the new road. Ms. Clarke said 35 mph. Mr.
Rauh suggested a small loop south to increase the distance at the closest comer. Ms. Clarke
said the city's engineering consultant had been working on that specific issue. She said the City
was using its best efforts to address the neighbors' concerns. The City staff, design engineer
other consultants and the neighbors had met to assure everyone understood the concerns raised.
She said road relocation has been considered, but it substantially decreases the number of acres
available for Class A, office space along the interstate.
Ben Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, attorney for John McKitrick and his siblings,
said the applicants only want to change the present zoning to accommodate the proposed users.
Mr. Hale asked to defer addressing the staff report conditions until hearing comments from the
audience. He said the applicant agreed with part of the Willow Grove Association's proposal.
Mr. Hale gave a brief history of the property. He said Cardinal Healthf Alter Group have been
interested since last summer. He considers the site to be the most prominent and important
piece of vacant land in Dublin. Cardinal Health plans to buy the entire site. He only wants this
rezoning if the incentive agreements are in place and the contract is signed to the buyer. If the
overall deal does not happen, he expects to withdraw this rezoning application.
Linda Menerey, NBBJ, representing the applicant and Cardinal Health, said they did the original
plan and have helped Cardinal with the text changes, etc. She said their client wants five story
buildings to create the office look desired along 1-270. Ms. Menerey compared the original and
proposed setbacks and standards. Lighting and architectural standards have been added.
Jim Millar, Cardinal Health, said the company is the second largest pharmaceutical provider in
the U.S, distributing to hospitals, pharmacies, and managed-care organizations, HMOs, and
alternate site nursing homes. This is to be a headquarters, not a distribution center. It was
founded in 1991 by Bob Walter, a Dublin resident. The headquarters is now in Metro V.
Condition 1. Ben Hale agreed to limit Subareas 1 and 4 to office unless additional development
criteria are added to the text. He wants a daycare located within a building in Subarea 2 and
free-standing daycare in Subarea 3. He also requested the OLR, Office, Laboratory and
Research uses for Subarea 3. He said Subareas 2 and 3 would be all Cardinal Health. Subareas
4 (north of road) and 1 (by Willow Grove) would be all office.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 7
Condition 5. He said the revised text increases building setbacks by developed neighborhoods.
Condition 7. Mr. Hale said the setbacks in Subarea 4 have been increased and buildings will
be limited to three stories.
Condition 8. Mr. Hale said the text did not include the detail of the architecture but did say that
it was a freeway/office type of use. He said it is understood that the building will be of quality.
Condition 11. Mr. Hale agreed to do a tree plan and work with staff but the plan requires
removal of some trees.
Condition 13. Mr. Hale said Cardinal is willing to grant the city a license to use its parking lot
on a limited basis to use the park, but not an easement. Mr. Fishman asked for details. Mr.
Hale said Cardinal wants the right to terminate the license if it becomes a problem. He
suggested putting the parking for the park along the north side of the road (Subarea 4).
Condition 14. Mr. Hale said the developers were willing to dedicate a bikeway easement north
of the east-west road, but they questioned the feasibility because of the ravine.
Mr. Hale agreed to the remainder of the staff report conditions.
Linda Menerey said the tree plan would include a tree preservation plan, the different
construction techniques to preserve trees, sedimentation control, etc.
Mr. Ferrara asked why the original rezoning plan showed a cul-de-sac, not an extension of the
road to SR 745. Mr. Hale said the zoning text allowed the City to make it a through street,
subject to a mutually agreeable alignment. A bridge at Brand Road was discussed. Dublin's
adopted Thoroughfare Plan dictates where the road would be aligned.
Condition 9. Mr. Ferrara asked about handling the stormwater detention for the high school and
Willow Grove. Mr. Hale agreed and said the deed restrictions required this.
Mr. Ferrara said the land swap costs the schools, due to relocating fields. Mr. Foegler said
these issues are under study and discussion with the School Board and Council. If the conditions
of the trade are not satisfactory to the schools, there will be no land exchange. Mr. Ferrara
asked if Dublin would pay for the relocation. Mr. Foegler said the City will pay for those
impacts caused by the road realignment as part of the road project. The objective in realigning
part of the road onto school property is to create depth between the road and 1-270, and add
property value. He said the gains more than offset the costs. Mr. Ferrara asked if the city
would pay for the immediate expense. Mr. Foegler said yes.
Mr. Rauh said the updated 1995 Thoroughfare Plan approved at the Commission's last meeting
was specifically conceptual.
Mr. Fishman agreed that the bikepath should not disturb the ravine. He suggested the condition
state that the bikepath easements north and south would be provided. Mr. Hale agreed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 8
Mr. Fishman said a parking easement for the park was necessary. Mr. Hale said they would
work with staff on a spot north of the road (Subarea 4), but not in Cardinal's parking lot.
Mr. Fishman said even very small developments were required to establish a tree preservation
plan and he did not understand why this applicant would not. Mr. Hale agreed to provide a tree
preservation plan. He said Cardinal Health did not want limitations on buildings on the ravine.
Mr. Fishman said a building across the ravine was okay, but there should be some limits set up
in a preservation plan. Mr. Hale repeated his point. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said it should be
included in the text. Ms. Clarke said there are trees on the entire length of the ravine, some will
be taken out for the connected buildings. She said that some portion of the treed ravine should
still be in place post-development. She believes an acceptable preservation plan should be
established now. Removing the trees and filling the ravine for later expansion is generally
unacceptable in Dublin. The time of rezoning is the appropriate stage in which to establish an
understanding of the parameters of development, and the proper steps for preservation of the
ravine and forest. She said the conceptual layout offered for Cardinal shows a tie between
buildings on both sides of the ravine, and that is acceptable, but it also shows trees remaining
and protected on the north and south side of the site. Staff would like to have some commitment
that limits deforestation.
Mr. Hale did not object to submitting the tree preservation plan that provided appropriate
development standards, but did not want to limit the development areas. Mr. Rauh said the
possibilities should be addressed, so later the whole ravine could not be removed. The character
should remain. Mr. Hale said this stream was a regulated floodway requiring permits which
would not be granted by the authorities for that type of development. He said a tree
preservation plan would be provided at the final development plan and requested changes to the
wording of Condition #11.
Ms. Clarke said the city is interested in the post-development character. She said the final
development plan is too late in the process. It should be made clear now if some portion of the
natural site is to be maintained over time. The building height, alignment, setbacks, proximity
to neighbors, etc. are being set, and the site is getting tighter. She said without limits set in the '.
zoning, the trees may be compromised in the final development plan when the design requires
a lot of parking to honor the 15,000 square feet of building per acre established now.
Linda Menerey said part of the building at Worthington Kilbourne High School came down into
the creek. The Cardinal Health structure itself would not be in the ravine. Some trees will need
to be removed, but it would be an advantageous to preserve a green corridor.
Mr. Fishman found this unresponsive. He agreed limits are needed before the final plan.
Mr. Hale said there was no intent to remove all the trees. He will work with the city attorney
to reword the condition and agreed to establish the limits prior to the final development plan.
Mr. Fishman did not understand Condition #8. Mr. Hale said there was a commitment in the
text for architectural quality and further detailing. Ms. Clarke said 1985 zoning history reveals
extremely clear developer commitments as to quality. That level of commitment is different
from the proposed text. Staff wants to be absolutely sure that when the density is increased that
the quality of the offices to be built along 1-270 is not diminished.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 9
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher was satisfied with page eight of the text addressing architectural
standards. Mr. Hale said it was section 1.3 in the text. Mr. Raub said it should be compatible
with what was across the freeway. Messrs. Rauh and Zawaly agreed with the text.
Mr. Zawaly asked if Cardinal Health would consider wet, instead of dry, ponds. Mr. Hale did
not know if it could be engineered that way. Mr. Foegler said bedrock may cause difficulty.
Mr. Sutphen said he was on the Commission when this property was rezoned in 1985. He
thinks the road should come south. Mr. Hale said if the road moves south, the curves would
effect the narrow end of the property. They are looking at shifting the right-of-way 50 feet
farther south, and perhaps shifting the pavement to the south edge of the right-of-way through
the northern section to pick up another 25 feet. Mr. Hale said they could transfer a portion of
the woods to the nearby existing property owner, but the road cannot be pushed farther.
Mr. Sutphen said large mounds are needed along the road for noise and visual control. If the
mounds are unmowable, they should be heavily planted with trees. He said the bikepath needed
to be extended from the north to the south side of this property.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked about noise from the road. Mr. Hale said the road would have
a 35 mph speed limit and carry same amount of traffic as Muirfield Boulevard and the proposed
Coffman Road extension. This road was approved before either subdivision to the north.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said Muirfield Drive is used less for through traffic. This road will
move traffic from one side of Dublin to another. Even at 35 mph, she expected greater traffic.
Mr. Hale said it will have the same construction standards as Muirfield Drive.
Mr. Fishman suggested constructing the whole road in the southern portion of the right-of-way.
At 9:00 p.m., Mr. Rauh called for a five-minute recess and would start public comments then.
Jim Fox, 5177 Willow Grove Place South, Association President, yielded to the chairman of
their zoning committee, Barry Hanks and Frank Dunbar, their attorney.
Barry Hanks, 6763 Willow Grove Place East, said he represented Willow Grove in the 1985
McKitrick rezoning. He said a Willow Grove subcommittee met extensively with the McKitrick
representatives and reached agreements on buffering, transitions, and stormwater control. An
essential part of that agreement was that the closest subarea was limited to a 35-foot height. The
remaining areas could be 65 feet or more. Scale, height and setbacks were important to Willow
Grove. They cannot fInd in their or the city's records copies of the original site plan. The
information was not transferred to the PUD zoning which was finally approved.
Frank Dunbar, 316 Stonewall Court, attorney for Willow Grove Condominium Association, said
the 1985 text states no building will be closer to their east property line than 200 feet. It is
proposed to be reduced to 100 feet. They understood it was to be 200 feet to a three-story
building, but now four stories are proposed. Willow Grove wants buildings over three stories
to be at least 280 feet away, and three story buildings at least 200 feet from their east line. This
preserves their original understanding and the sight lines from their property. He said the
existing l00-foot pavement setback is proposed to be reduced to 50 feet. The Willow Grove
Association proposes a compromise of 75 feet, with the lost parking (about 10,000 square feet)
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 10
to be made up in the 1-270 setback. He requested an 8-foot earth mound, and plantings with 80
percent opacity, placed as close as possible to the west end of the parking buffer. They also
request mounding on the south side of the road.
Mr. Dunbar said they would like the road at least 100 feet away, as with Coventry Woods, from
the north line of Willow Grove. As depicted currently, the south right-of-way line would be
only 50-55 feet. The intersection with Coffman Road should be moved to the north. He wants
refinement of the conditions before a decision by the Commission. Mr. Dunbar said they agree
with the staff report conditions and want to participate in the decisions.
Joe Harian, 7087 Coventry Woods Drive, co-chair of the Coventry Woods committee on the
McKitrick rezoning, said ten neighbors had first talked with staff on March 24. The application
and plan were provided to them. The neighborhood had informational meetings at the site on
March 25 and 26. Four council members and six commission members attended. A petition
from Coventry Woods was submitted on March 27 along with a request that the April 6 hearing
be postponed. Over 100 Coventry Woods neighbors met at City Hall on March 29. On April
9, a subcommittee was formed by Coventry Woods to give input on neighborhood issues. They
received a copy of the staff report, application, current plans, etc. on April 14. On April 18
the subcommittee met with the staff, NBBJ, and Ben Hale to discuss issues. Mr. Harian said
they were not resolved. He said on April 19, Ben Hale and Linda Menerey met with Mike
Keenan and himself. Mr. Hale is to meet with the association on April 23. Mr. Harlan asked
that the commission consider their concerns and work out a compromise that is good for
everyone.
Michael Keenan, 7103 Coventry Woods Drive, said the neighbors knew the 150 acres was zoned
PUD for an office park. He said the 1985 approval was only office. The neighbors expected
up-scale offices with a density of 10,000 square feet per acre. The increase to 15,000 square
feet per acre is a significant departure from expectations. The 1985 road configuration started
at Coffman Road and terminated in a cui de sac. The road has changed in character to an
innerbelt that traffic studies indicate may carry up to 40,000 cars daily.
Mr. Keenan said their three main issues were the density, the road configuration, and the need
for a transition in Subarea 4 (north of the road). A three story building within 100 feet of their
property and parking within 50 feet are unacceptable. The road alignment within 100 feet of
their lots and 150 feet from the park is unacceptable. He agreed with a higher density along the
freeway but wants a "peaceful transition." He suggested 14,000 square feet per acre at 1-270
down to single-family or condominium development. The proposed east-west road should be
along 1-270 or significantly south of the proposed alignment to minimize the impact on the
neighborhoods. The proposed layout was opposite of what they expected. He requested three-
dimensional scaled models. He said they did not expect a major innerbelt carrying 40,000 cars
within 100 feet of their subdivision. The result will be noise, congestion, traffic, and a lower
quality of life. They are concerned about noise and light pollution, safety for children, impact
on the natural park, use of the high school practice fields, and lack of buffering.
The impact of three-story offices in Subarea 4 concerns them. They want to see the bridge
design proposed over the Scioto River and the North Fork of Indian Run relating to noise,
aesthetics, flood plain. Filling 1.7 million square feet of offices (4 persons per 1,000) generates
approximately 6,800 people. How do they egress/ingress?
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 11
Ron Geese, 5964 Brand Road, said his great-grandparents, the Mitchells, are buried in the
cemetery on this site and he hopes it will be preserved. Mr.Geese said when he was a Planning
Commissioner, he voted to cul-de-sac Coventry Woods. He had voted against the Coventry
Woods rezoning because he thought it was too dense, but it has developed nicely. He is
concerned about the safety of SR 745 for southbound vehicles. He suggested that the berms be
filled on SR 745, with or without this rezoning. This development was very important for all
residents of Dublin. Companies like Cardinal Health come and stay. Mr. Geese said whatever
the outcome, the citizens should support Cardinal Health and work with them.
Ken Scott, PO Box 1170, Powell, Ohio, American Acoustical Associates, said he was retained
by the Coventry Woods Civic Association to do a preliminary noise analysis of the proposed
roadway. His company is a member of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants and he
is one of four board certified by the Institute of Noise Control Engineering in Ohio. He
presented a report on the projected noise levels from the roadway. He used a day/night noise
level, an average of sound taken from one point for 24 hours. The closest residence was
estimated to be 200 feet away and traffic count was estimated at 40,000. The day/night level
was 65. If the road were moved next to the freeway, at 1,300 feet, with the same car count
would give a day/night noise level is under 55. The vehicular speed was assumed to be 55 mph,
but he said a lower speed did not change the figures much. He said the EP A recommends a
day/night level in residential areas be kept below 55, complaints generally start there and go up
dramatically between 55-65. The American National Standards 1240 report states that noise
levels above 65 are incompatible for single-family. Mr. Scott said Westerville's noise ordinance
limits the decibels to 60 daytime, 50 at night, and 55 7:00-10 p.m. Mr. Scott said for the best
residential result, the offices should be between the residences and the highway, so they will
bounce the traffic noise back toward the highway. As shown, the offices will reflect the road
sounds toward the houses. He said his figures were very conservative.
Mr. Ferrara asked if landscaping will lower levels. Mr. Scott said 300-500 feet of dense forest
would lower noise by 3-5 decibels.
Tom Webb, 7165 Coventry Woods Court, expressed concern about the proposed crossing
location over the North Fork. They hired a professional botanist, Ray Showman, to examine
the creek valley from 1-270 north to the Coventry Woods park. Mr. Showman's March 30,
1995 report states, "From an environmental perspective, a much more benign crossing route for
the Coffman/Sawmill connector would be at the south edge of the property, just north of the 1-
270 bridge. A minimum of woods would be destroyed and the continuous wooded corridor
along the creek would remain largely intact...".
Mr. Webb said there must be a balance between acceptable environmental impact and
economics. They requested that the Indian Run crossing be moved toward 1-270 to preserve the
environment. Mr. Webb provided an article from the April 4, 1995 New York Times,
"Songbird Population Losses Tied to Fragmentation of Forest Habitat" documenting the loss of
wildlife due to forest fragmentation from suburban development. Mr. Webb said presented
information from 1980 to 1987 which outlined the North Fork as a picturesque parcel and
desirable for passive park acquisition. These included the Northwest Quadrant Study, minutes
from Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, and the McKitrick
commitment extending the greenbelt to 1-270. He said if the ravine crossing moves south,
Dublin could satisfy most of the preservation goals.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 12
Michelle Mundy, 4912 Lytfield Drive, said she attended an 1-270 meeting held by the Ohio
Department of Transportation. She said the east-west road, the Coffman connector, was shown
parallel to 1-270, with over 39,000 cars in 2020. The present traffic onto US 33 near Frantz
Road was reported at 32,000. She said that is too much traffic for their backyards.
Wendy Harlan, 7087 Coventry Woods Drive, said she planned to live in her present home for
many years. She enjoys the woods, bikepath, greenspace, and the Indian Run. The proposed
east-west road from Sawmill to Tuttle has shattered her dreams. She has always believed in
Dublin's commitment to a family-oriented community. She had done research before she
purchased and got information on the office park zoning and their street being changed to a
cul-de-sac. She was never told about a connector road carrying 20-40,000 cars per day. She
asked how to buffer a 250 to 300 foot span bridge and felt 100 feet was too small a buffer from
Sawmill and mall traffic. She read residential objectives from the Community Plan that include
that neighborhoods should be safe, quiet, attractive, convenient, healthy, properly buffered, with
full services, preservation of natural feature, etc. She does not oppose the office park, but
community and quality of life are important issues.
Tom Brizzolara, 7088 Coventry Woods Drive, said his office had recently relocated here from
Cincinnati. Setbacks along Subarea 4 need more attention. Safety and possible crime is a
concern with the Subarea 4. The dramatic increase in office density will increase already
congested traffic. His clients are reluctant to come to Dublin because of traffic inconvenience.
This project does not seem to be getting the critical scrutiny it deserves.
Barb Miles, 4855 Lytfield Drive, a 34-year Dublin resident, wants the beauty of Coventry
Woods to extend into the McKitrick property. Specific concerns were the 50-foot pavement
setback, parking lot lighting, noise, pollution, and the safety of children.
Roger Draper, 7144 Forest Run Court, spoke for Sherry Draper. She felt the proposal was
unacceptable and was concerned with the access to Coffman Road and SR 161. She said the
Coffman Extension needs access to US 33 not just a bridge over it. It should connect with 1-
270. The Post/Coffman intersection will be impacted. She quoted an ODOT official as saying
the US33/SR161 interchange may be worse than the Sawmill Road interchange.
Mr. Draper requested a traffic study. He wants traffic patterns to be properly planned. He said
the bikepath should go through the ravine to connect north and south portions of Dublin.
Chris Mohr, Treasurer, Dublin Board of Education, 7030 Coffman Road, spoke on behalf of
the Board. The Board's general position supports commercial development in the district. This
may contain over a million square feet of construction, which brings in revenue without
increasing enrollment or costs. Currently the 1993 7.9 mill levy will go through fiscal year
1998, with a new elementary and high school. This is two years longer than promised to the
voters. They work hard to manage funds, to limit the requests for operating levies. Their five-
year forecast predicts a big deficit in 1999 when a fourth middle school opens. Mr. Mohr said
this development will help them avoid a 1998 levy or seek a smaller one. Mr. Mohr said the
road will help the high schools to share facilities. The Board believes this proposed development
is in their best long-run financial interests.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 13
Mr. Mohr said the Board asks for a say in the development barrier, at no expense to the school
district, if the road is close to the high school property line. If school property is needed for
the road alignment, the district wants equal acres along the Woods of Indian Run. They
encourage keeping the ravine as a permanent nature area. The Board requests joint storm water
detention in two spots south of the road. The Board would like the right to use parking on the
south side of the road for activities and events. Mr. Mohr said the Board wants assistance to
pay for any infrastructure relocation made necessary by the realignment.
Ruth Reiss, 4193 Hitching Post Court, representing the Tree and Landscape Advisory
Commission (TLAC), read an April 19, 1995 memo. The TLAC recommends maintaining
integrity and beauty of natural areas, maintaining greenspace and buffers, and protecting
landmark trees. They recommend moving the road southward to minimize the width of the
stream crossing and aligning it to save landmark trees. TLAC strongly urges that sound
barriers, such as new or preserved woods, not concrete walls, be installed. A landscaped, treed
boulevard is encouraged along with maximum green space in the site design.
Jim Finn, 7095 Coventry Woods Drive, said the proximity to neighborhoods, traffic, noise,
environmental impact of the bridge on the 12-acre preserve, and egress/ingress of office traffic
without a Scioto bridge concern him. He wants the safety of newly-licensed high school drivers
considered. Mr. Finn wants "maximum sensitivity to the neighborhood residential environment
and with input from the neighborhood representatives" clarified in Condition #2. He asked that
the rezoning not be approved without resolution of major issues.
Keith Nichols, 7329 Roycroft Court, president of the Coventry Woods Civic Association, said
the residential vision of Dublin needs continual support. He is happy Cardinal Health is
contemplating this site. He asked that the same consideration, regarding density and setbacks,
be given to neighbors as in 1985.
Dave McKee, 7127 Coventry Woods Drive, said the personal and financial investments of the
Coventry Woods residents need protection and are as important as new tax dollars. He said
Dublin often asks corporations for their proposed tenants or for changes such as building or roof
design, using non-corporate colors, etc. He said the Dublin Hechinger's was the only brick one
in the u.s. Dublin may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the appearance of Dublin's
freeway interchange. He said the layout and tenants should be known prior to approval. He
said other road alignments had been done but were not presented. The neighbors deserve the
same careful attention given to others in the past, and this project should not be fast-tracked.
He reminded them that Joel Garreau had described residents with a "not in my backyard
attitude" as a real asset because they care deeply about their community.
Thomas Washbush, 4909 Lytfield Drive, was there as a neighbor but worked in development,
including work for the Ohio Department of Development. He said with additional time, he feels
all parties may work out a good solution. He supports changing Subarea 4 to upscale residential
use and said many Coventry Woods residents would be just as happy with a low offices similar
to The Millennium. He said revenues from a residential Subarea 4 would be greater than from
a poorly located office area that would not develop for three or four years. Mr. Washbush
addressed the financial incentives involved. He said he believes the city will buy the property
at $40,000 per acre and sell it to the end user at $10,000 per acre, having TIF financing at 100
percent for a 10 years. He said there is an Ohio tax credit at a 75 percent rate for 10 years.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 14
These programs will cost taxpayers over $10M over 10 years. In the first three years, Dublin
may spend $6 million. He said this is a fiscal compromise at best. He asked that the
commission table this until the applicant and civic associations can work out issues, or if action
is needed now, that Subarea 4 be rezoned residential with deed restrictions for upscale housing
as a transition from Coventry Woods to Cardinal Health.
Dean Knisley, 7109 Coventry Woods Court, said the proposed road is likened to Northwest
Boulevard and Muirfield Drive, but both have a lot of traffic. He said Northwest Boulevard is
noisy, 35 mph speed, goes through Upper Arlington and Grandview, is 4.7 miles long with 14
traffic signals. The only commercial area is Kingsdale shopping center. It is not divided by a
river or an outerbelt, but it is loud. He said the neighbors first choice is to move the road near
1-270, but at least farther from the Harlan residence. He said his neighbors have earned
credibility in their presentations and asked that their concerns be addressed.
Mr. Rauh thanked the speakers for their participation and opened the commission discussion.
Mr. Ferrara said he was shocked to hear the proposal that Subarea 4 be brought into a upscale
residential use. He said the neighbors expressed about the noise and he sympathized, but
changing Subarea 4 to homes exposes just that many more residents to the road noise. He
agreed that Subarea 4 might be best as a transition zone. He said the 1985 Planning
Commission noted the high school and office park entries are next to one another and everyone
will be trying to enter at the same time every morning. The bikepath is a concern and needs
study to see if it did more damage than good to the wooded areas. He said the application had
a lot to consume so short a time.
Mr. Fishman agreed on the time issue. He said they spent much more time on the architecture
of a church than on this. He said it would be unfair to vote on this application now. He wanted
information on how this would affect Dublin Road.
Mr. Zawaly said the "backyard issues" are usually the more sensitive and emotional issues.
Residents from other parts of Dublin want a balanced tax base. This will be weighed against the "'t
"backyard issues" to maintain the community's overall quality of life. Mr. Zawaly said some
residents knew long before today who the end user was and discussed it with him. He said he
is resistant to change Subarea 4 to residential because it is high valued commercial property, but
he will consider it given the residents comments. He would want only high end housing with
the same density and restrictions as Coventry Woods. He encouraged the neighbors and
developer to work together directly. Mr. Zawaly said the city also needs to be fair to developers
to assure revenues for future services and schools. Mr. Zawaly suggested a subcommittee to
work with the neighbors. Mr. Sutphen agreed.
Mr. Peplow agreed that this should be tabled to discuss issues such as the Tree and Landscape's
and Board of Education's concerns. He wanted a better transition in Subarea 4.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher congratulated the residents in their organization and quick response. She
said Dublin residents with great concern about the quality of life acted, rather than just
complaining. She was concerned about the fast-tracking because of the complex issues. She
agreed with a subcommittee to work with neighborhood representatives.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes - April 20, 1995
Page 15
Mr. Raub thanked everyone for staying so late and focusing on the issues. He asked about
relevant deadlines for this project. Mr.Foegler said the only time limits were with the purchase
contract, and he believes they can be adjusted. He said Staff would work within any time frame
the Commission needs for input and deliberation.
Mr. Hale requested that this application be tabled.
Mr. Foegler said all aspects of the economic deal were very different from those outlined by one
of the speakers. Staff cannot divulge the specifics, but nothing stated tonight is close to what
i is being negotiated. He said the city will not be taking ownership of this property.
Mr. Banchefsky said all subcommittee meetings need to be advertised 24 hours in advance.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made a motion to table this rezoning application to a special meeting on
Wednesday, May 3 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Peplow seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr.
Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mr.
Sutphen, yes; and Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. (Tabled 7-0.)
Mr. Ferrara asked if the city was having difficulty locating information from 1985. Ms. Clarke
said there is a file with minutes, staff reports, etc.. It does not include a landscape drawing
referenced in the text, nor do the Clerk's records. Ms. Clarke contacted Mr. Fox of Willow
Grove and he had the drawing. The residents from Willow Grove stated there was a three-story
limit in 1985, but that does not appear in any of the City's documents.
Mr. Sutphen said a nine-story limit was adopted in 1987 or 1988 due to fire apparatus.
Mr. Hale said he would agree with the height and setback limits requested by Willow Grove.
Mr. Zawaly moved that two representatives apiece from Coventry Woods, Willow Grove, and
Woods of Indian Run meet with any commissioners, staff, and the developer on April 27, at
. 7:30 p.m. at the Justice Center to discuss unresolved issues. Mr. Sutphen seconded. The vote
was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr.
~.,- .. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; and Mr. Zawaly, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
Libby Farley said the Council Chambers was available for the special meeting on May 3, 1995
at 6:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Rauh at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
21f~ ~,
Libby Farley 7'
Planning Division Secretary
.
~~~R (I
BROYNING 1 \'t==
CT
\ c:t:::J
I CsJo
~:z.
c:t:::c
DR
A3a
~8
:I:
?i
:I:
~ Ul
...;
~Y
oJ
~
0
t,)
,
,
llETRo PLACE ~ C ST
Q
-
~ \I.E\lO~ N'
~ --- ~.-
IJ
~~ ~
- - ~ ,-~
) -- if~"'~A.... ~ -~ __J\\ \\ - - - .
'\C :) r----',' -~. ..-J '" I -L
PUD ~ ",,' , '- ~~, PLR -
, ~', \ B"\i: :-.'-' -
~ _ ~-{~l-r~\ . I~~L- HRc ~.
_ i- ' \' ~ --- PUD"~ '. ;::;; -
tV , ~D · ~,m~~~ \( ~<g ..- - · r
) " y ,\ tfY \ . ==='".\ -/ ~ I ~ .-
, .', \ ~~ - ~~ .
__, -t\\I\\ D'\\\ fL -- . ;:::::.'"::::' I '
.' '- rJ'i"IT \ ~ \~ '
I ~~ '\- R-V' ~ R-' . ~ ' '
~'~', PLR - --I L;"..,\ \.> ' ,-
..._ ~ "'-.. : PUD 8:
'I ! , ..' - ~u - ;;\ .-
~~_'~ , ( '" UD -." _ ,~\ _R'-~ -- Pi
, ' ~ ):\ \' nr \\\;1 , iL"
~ R-'J. ~'f l~, \ -1'- .:..,\ ':- '
~'PIJ~ ..~ /~ -=- -L \ ~ -' --1 '-----'\
PL"._( \ 1 '1 ] ~-1\\ I I -4
_, R .. - ' .- a '
P.L.R PUI \ 'put' ,rc~ ': ,-. ,R-l 1 '
. I i _ ~ \ ~ I I C' \ ~= - ~---; i
~ ,D '- ',~,l_!' U '1!.1J \\...-~ h ~,~ iV1
,~ ':;. . P L R \ - ~ ,..---,--
~ I R-2' j ~ /,-0 '"'\ R\ - ~
10 ~k \9' Ii irl t~ 1~,I""7c- \ ~
" '_ i: U D \ .1J~ - -
':;] ~ -= R j ,~'.-",~ . --
~ \~ = ,,'"1.. __ --1& ' ... l..;:;-r~ L.J - " ~ :;
~ R\'~ff~ -. \:;~ ' \. = ~
" -d _PLR \ \ '~"D j)/ SITE 'W..f~' ~\
c peo " PU . ~r I \
. ." Ll ~ ,A;O'
~, .'
sc \
; III %~ r {l:R-Z C8 \ .
i ~ 'so .. ..
~ ' \ \ n 'cc j A [C,B '" -
--=-........~ ,- ! \ ..., T~' ' ~ ,," 1 , '
: ' ~ ',-, '- <L CC & - R \::: \
l---' \ RI ' J,: 0' ~ . '
\:;::: __ _,: ,I PUD "-- ='R<;4;- I. " ,: . ""
_ _______ 0 ! I l-_.!i'_~ 1j I l .R 12j I ? """ \ . >
L .,) I R ' IU' .--'--= I..S0 'I' . . - -
), p R~:~/f L=-__L PU~,.~~j~~J'1l" 'Jd
___ ,~. ~..-----. ~ ...-c; >>",., ~ f'~~ I
, __ L..:. " T 7/ '
RI"! ' f r, I 'PUD~. ~ ".' , II ~
I I -=---~' . tt
; , ", ,. (
.. I I J )7 '- :; 1 I
I ~ ' I R, --< i '- ~ ~ ' ~
''1, _3'_____ /.', OLR R-1' d" ii' '
, . \\. 1\ I R _ 1 \ - Rewning Application
~'I~ Ie. '\ 1 \ L Z95-004 If
_ :~ \ L;;:; ~ ,,\\ cc \501-"-_ McKitrick Office Park
. _ {I' _. _, .. ~,' \ A~!l'~ \ \ \~ ~\. .- 11-- ... 1 Revised Prel Dev Plan
_ T ~ \ \\~--=-=L. I
.~. -
. .
':./rr~'-. .~ - -
~ ..
, '"'"
... . ~I
. . ,"
r . .
..: . t ~
-. .... I. i
I
- ' ' "
, ,
~
- < .'
. ._.t. -
" , . :.. I
-
. '
.
.....
'f
,'i -
r
fl
-r
i
Iii il~~
~ ~ ~
I i+ It " I
ill .
'.
Rezoning Appiic~ti
Z95-004 on
Mc~trick Office Park ~
RevIsed Prel Dev Plan
1 '1
I
C):E
I
- dl
0 j
..
"'
0
"'
:t
...
..
""
..
0 L
. D_,.
0 . ~-
l!.~
: tI!: ":
i J a
m i ~ ~
. ~
)C . 5
:;;
...
..
~
3: 0
n
'"
~
.:%J
c;
'"
r:g
-
'-
on
on
m .
::tI
(")
0
3:
3:
::j
3:
m
Z
-l
,. I
/) \
\
4<-
C)
=e
r=
,..
0
=e
C)
::tI
0
<
m
'I; r .. - -
m! u= -
__0
:=. ! Iii
S.I! · ,.... >>
;Q: z r-,...
;i2 .. ".-
;:,.4 iI )C..-
,.~~ .. 0"
.s "00 l'II
liB ". ~>l
-. =Jl~
~ . ~i . .. :
.. :,. r
j
..
. '..
--- llU . Application
... m Rezomng
...... ... ~ ",
... ~ ~H ,,~~ Z95-?O~ k Office Park :2;\
".. ~~~ hr-
s,""
:-:-;Itt ~~f"
McKitnc I Dev Plan
Revised Pre
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 2, 1985.
Page Four
he felt that potential for "escape" through the property to . 161
(even if you did .eventually do it) would be advantageous. He d that ..
they would b llling to stub the road at the north side of th roperty.
Respondi to a question from Mr. Reiner regarding land us " .r. Smith said
that ey are proposing office in the front and condom. ums in the rear, with
oad all the way to S.R. 161 along the south or w. a road beginning on
the south and jogging to the north; thus puuin e access to the condominiums
on the north side of the property which wou take it away from the residential
development to the south. Then they wo back the residential units to the
north side, adjacent to the street, fronting the units to the south fac. g
the existing residential units. e garages and cars would thus be in rear
of the units.
Mr. Macklin suggested to . Smith that he contact the to the
south and discuss the roposed development.
It was also noted at that portion of Riverside
of f" of the C . Williams tra f fic survey.
Mr. Bowma aid that he would hate to jeopardize e 17 acre site for the 4 acre
site. e also said that the most preferable uation would be if the curb cut
, co be taken along the south property I. and then brought up the north. That
ould allow a tie in into the 17 acre nd S.R. 161-
*' 5. Rezoning Application Z85-005 - McKitrick/I-270.
.
Mr. Harrison Smith, Jr. representing the McKitrick family, spoke first to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and made the following comments:
.....t<<""'"
l- Other than the Muirfield zoning done some years ago this is probably t
most important zoning opportunity that the Village has had or is likel
to have.
2. Land use is always a question of choices. The applicant tends to list
his priorities in terms of returns - dollars. However, anything he
wants to do involves some kind of governmental consent as to whether
or not he can do it.
3. Mr. Smith discussed the transaction with the schools. Mr. Rich called
Mr. Smith and asked to meet with the McKitrick people. Mr. Smith also
said that the school si~e originally ~as put on the wrong side of
Coffman Road as well as on the wrong end of the McKitrick property.
4. The school wanted to expand. they left us ~OO' in. To gee up to the res:
of their acreage requirements they took a sliver "over here" - that
"sliver" is one of the two best things in all of Central Ohio.
5. Mr. Smith said that the problem was always access. Originally is was
to be a residential piece of ground with its access at the northern
point of the property on Coffman Road.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
. .
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 2. 1985
Page Five
6. The developer was offered that. They refused because it was "totally
destructive".
7. From the school standpoint they have "access aggravation" in the sense
that they are adding traffic flows north of them that are the same
peaks as are the residential.
8. If the site would remain residential, it would be a loss financ ia lly for
the schools as well as the Village, in addition to the traffic situation.
9. Therefore, it was agreed to trade ~creage.
10. The acreage transferred resulted in a net loss of 1/5 to 1/6 of the actual
value.
11- Every cent of the relocation comes out of the dollars to be paid to the
developer.
12. The dollars to be received will amount to $4,000 to $5,000 per acres, and
the obligation of the developer will amount to a third of a million
dollars to develop a single loaded street.
13. To develop office as opposed to residential would result in an excess of
one million dollars per year to the municipality. For the school district,
in excess of one million dollars per year also.
14. Historically, school districts reach a peak need for both buildings and
space. In the arrangement proposed, the eight acres of excess property,
if ever sold, would pay for every cent of the total expenditure
involved, and more.
15. Developing the acreage fully as office would provide enough federal money
for all of the capital improvements (highway) needed over a five year
period.
Mr. Larry Helman presented the following information, covering four main
topics:
1- Land Use
Mr. Helman, citing the regional aspects of the project, mentioned the
"now" shortage of land for quality office sites in the community, if the
Vi llage wantS to continue the trend it has had over t~e last 20 years.
In the a.m. peak there would be no interference with the movement of the
residential people outbound - the office movement being on the inside,
the residential movement being on the outside.
2. Traffic
The ability to use the other side of "that street" cannot be underestimatec
Anything that is of a residential nar.ure just adds to the same side - the
office traffic flow would be to the other side. There is nO improvement
to the street system that has otherwise not been anticipate4 that has
to be increased because of this proposal. The only thing that would be
affected would be the timing.
Improvement to the street system will be required, including the four
laning of Coffman Road over Indian Run, the upgrading to four lanes of
the interchanges, and improvemcncs to the interseccion co "accommodace
these trips". Rezoning Application
Z9S-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
.'
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 2, 1985
Page Six
3. Other impacts on neighboring properties - Willow Crove specifically.
The developers have met with the Willow Crove residents. Regarding their
existing back door. the developer will create a 100' parking setback. p,q
a 200' building setback. and a retention area needing upgrading. It
will provide a finish to the back side of the buildings.
4. Financial Impact Analysis - (See attached handout).
Mr. Helman also noted the following: nothing will happen in the first
three years. At the fifth year the accumulated tax revenue already
been generated would be $800,000.00; at full development in 10 years
it will have generated 3 million dollars; at 20 years it will have
generated 8 million dollars. There would be no interest involved. no
increase in income tax. He then cited the difference with residential
development, presuming it takes 10 years to develop. and also noted
that residential development requires services. At the halfway mark
it would cost the Village one million dollars, and at full development
it would cost 3.7 million dollars. The estimated revenue differential
would be 21 million dollars at the 10 year threshhold.
Mr. Jezerinac expressed concerns regarding traffic, mentioning that in a 10
\ year period approximately one and a half million square feet of office space
would mean a generation of approximately 6000 cars per day. HoW' wi 11 that
be handled? He said that he felt that before there was a commitment to the
rezoning, the road systems need to be definitely addressed and definitely
worked out, specifically mentioning the "rat's nest" on Sawmill Road which
should ce avoided.
Mr. Helman said that the project which would seem to create the traffic
problem has the ability to solve the traffic problem before it would get
solved otherwise.
Mr. Bowman said that staff feels that it would be a tremendous development
asset to the Village. What staff would recommend would be that Dublin
take on the challenge that the development would present - that Dublin
should be in a position to dictate to the development rather than have the
development dictate to the Village. He suggested working with the private
sector, producing a good mutual effort. He said that one of the conditions
would be that after a period of three years, when they are ready to develop,
that everyone would get together and be. in a position to look at a more
detailed site plan as well as look at a very detailed capital improvements
program.
Hr. Macklin mentioned that the property at the present time is zoned
residential (116 houses).
Mr. Smith said that they had met with the Mayor and Village Staff. The base
idea was that they would generate a local share. The prioritizing of the
two bridges for federal participation would be likely to get started.
Mr. Smith also said that they have a contract with the schools. with the
only contingency being the rezoning.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
. Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
April 2, 1985
Page Seven
Mr. Barry Hanks. Chairman of the Willow Crove Task Force, spoke to che
Commission. The Willow Crove Associacion did meet with che developer at
which time they presented an overview of the proposed development. Mr.
Hanks referred co che handout which was discribuced to Commission members
prior to the meeting (copy attached). The three primary areas of concern
a re as fo tlows:
1- Traffic congescion and related traffic safecy issues.
2. Rain water runoff managemenc and proper drainage provisions.
3. Aesthetics and compatibilicy wich surrounding property holde~s.
They have noC received a f 0 r:::a 1 reply to the concerns but are willing to
work with the developer and with the community to establish mutual satis-
faction regarding the concerns as much as possible. and they need to
establish dialogue with che developer.
Mr. Smith said that the concerns are being addressed.
Hr. Macklin suggested that Mr. Bowman also be in contact with Mr. Hanks and
inform him of the P.U.D. process in case it would be rezoned.
Hr. Jezerinac asked what has happened to ~he possibility of a link to Dublin
Road. He noted that on che rendering. it showed a boulevard ending in a
cul-de-sac.
Hr. Bowman said that the developers are giving the Village the option of
extending che boulevard through to Dublin Road. .
Hr. Callahan said thac wichout a bridge across the river with access. che street
goes nowhere. as Dublin Road goes nowhere.
Mr. Smith said chac you have a boulevard because of fire proteccion laws. He
also said that there will be an easement on the cul-de-sac, if and when che
Village needs ic.
Hr. Jezerinac suggesced perhaps caking the boulevard to the north property
line.
Mr. Reiner suggested that the Village look into reducing some of the indebted-
ness for major road improvements. The traffic situation would be disastrous
at Frantz Road and S.R. 161- What about the bridges - who will pay for whac?
He also reiterated that the property is presently zoned R-l.
Mr. Callahan said that he basically agreed wich the use of the property for
"high class office development". He did inquire whey they ~ere requesting a
P.U.D. zoning - if it is to be an office park then zone if for offices.
Mr. Berlin said that he was hoping for a more complete traffic study.
Mr. Miller said that he also agreed with the proposed use but that there
were definite problems to be solved.
Mrs. Headlee mentioned che 90 acres of McKicrick property ac Post and Avery
Roads which is zoned Lighc Induscrial, nocing chac there is also McKitrick
owned property on Post Road. also noting that there is already a craffic
problem on Pose Road and will be for a long time. She suggested taking
Coffman Road, extending it to come out on S.R. 33 (through the Thomas
property where the loop is now), make another loop that goes onto 270,
doing awai with the bottleneck on Post Road.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Ap d 1 2, 1985
Page Eight
She suggested exploring that possibility.
Mr. Smith said that they could try to get access behind Chi Chi's, etc.
and also some connection into "here".
Mrs. Headlee moved to table the request for one month until the staff has
more time to study the traffic situation.
Mr. Bowman said that he felt that the key was in the planning - the timing,
the phasing, the ability of the Village to fund it. He also said that those
issues will not be gotten at by examing the traffic information.
Hr. Smith said that the project can be the "trigger" for the process to
get those things done, but "those things" wi 11 get done after the decision
is made on the zoning, involving state and county bureaucracy. Any other
type of zoning would result in a local problem only.
A Dublin Road resident expressed concern regarding traffic coming over a
widened bridge onto S.R. 161-
Hr. Smith again mentioned the reverse traffic flow created from an office
'. park as opposed to residential. He also said that the traffic engineer
says that this rezoning requires no additional capital improvements over
and above those required without it. The timing of the improvements also
does not change "one whit".
Hr. Jezerinac said that he did not think it appropriace to "skip over" the
.. concept plan to go directly to a preliminary plan submittal.
..
- Mr. Smith said that they do not have time to do it any other way.
-- Mr. Helman said that it was a concept and preliminary plan submittal.
- Hr. Jezerinac seconded Mrs. Headlee's motion.
.- The vote was 7-0 in favor of tabling.
There was a five minute break.
6. Rezoning A Z85-006 - Dunn Property
velopment will be called
Hr. Vince Rakestraw, the attorney for Mr. D who is the executor of his
mocher's estate, spoke to the Commisso Hr. Dunn was present as
Hr. Robert Rhein, the proposed d oper, Mr. David Reibold of the
Company, as well as Mr. Don Hausfeld of Trott and Bean. Mr.
noted that the deisgn been substantially changed. Mr. estraW also
mentioned the le r from the River Forest Civic Assoc. 10n which metnioned
four concer - density, tra f fic flow, drainage, a buffer area for
the m 1-family area to the so~th of the 54 e tract. He said that
y had met with Mrs. Durfey and the Ass ation to discuss the new plan.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
. Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
&J~j78 c/9d~?
6665 Coffman Road
Dublin. Ohio 43017
MINUTES OF HEETING
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Ha y 8, 1985
.
The regularly scheduled meeci of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commisso
was called co order by th airman, Mr. Gerald Macklin, at 7:30 P.M.
Wednesday, May 8, 198
were: Mr. Berlin, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Mackl' t Mr. Miller and Mr.
Headlee and Mr. Jezerinac were absent. so presenc were: Mr.
y, Assistant Law Director, and Mr. Bowman nd Mr. Warner of the Village
Hr. Miller moved to approve the minute 2, 1985 meecing.
I seconded the motion. The vote was
Tabled Cases
.
_. 1. Rezoning A Riverside Drive.
-
lin announced that the withdrew his request for the
or _ the application will The vote was 4-0 to
... on the table.
- ..
- -
>F 2. Rezoning Application Z8S-00S - McKitrick/I-270
-
Mr. Bowman said that staff is taking the position that this rezoning presents
a good development opportunity. Staff will be able to work with the appli-
cant during the three year time lag to examine the capital improvement
needs, and at which time any final development plan is brought forch the
Village will be able to match up their plan with the expecced capical
improvements plan. The applicant has agreed to do chat.
It was noted by Mr. Macklin that in the last discussion the Commission did
not have problems with the zoning request; the problems were wich the
capital improvements on Coffman and Post Roads.
Mr. Harrison Smich, Jr. presented the following commenCs:
1 . They have met with the Willow Grove people. They have reached a
s~bscantial agreement with cheir concerns.
2. A soil sc~dy has been completed. Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
. Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
Minuces of Meeting
Dublin P.lanning and Zoning Commission
May 8 t 1985
Page Two
3. They have noc found anybody in Dublin who does noc consider the plan
a good land use.
4. The problem is in dealing wich decisions chac must be made thac they
cannoc make - those dealing with che traffic study and improvements
that must be made in the community. Those decisions must be made
regardless of the land use of this parcicular piece of property.
Mr. Smith said thac he wanted to make some statements and commitments in
cerms of the capital improvement program as they see them:
1- The connection chrough to S.R. 745. Their commitment, as stated by
Mr. Smith. is that if Dublin says to do it, they will do it.
Z. He also promised that in any final development plan they would not
produce an inability in terms of what thac plan is co comple:e that
system. However, that decision must be made by the Village.
Mr. Smith read the following addenda to the text:
"The applica.nt requires a waiver of the requirement of Section 1181.07i(5)
for submission of a final development plan within 240 days of approval of
the preliminary development plan but agrees that in return for said
waiver applicant will agree to and will submit and process a final develop-
ment plan for each phase of its development, all in accordance with
Chapter 1181 of the Planning and Zoning Code and agrees that said plans
shall be processed and considered in the light of capital improvement
program~ then completed, in process, or planned.
Developer understands that the Village of Dublin is under no obligation
to have services and improvements in place as per the developers' schedule."
t-lr. Smich also said that they have had conversations with the Mid Ohio
Regional Planning Commission about several things - the possible piercing ~
of the limited access on S.R. 161, prioritizing the Post Road Bridge over
the freeway, and other improvements in the Village of Dublin. He also
mentioned that the 150 plus acres of prime/major office location is
extremely interesting to every allocator of federal and state funds in Ohio.
Mr. Robert Harris, President of the Dublin Board of Education, said that
they are working closely with the developer and have no objection to what
is being proposed. .'
Mr. Banchefsky said that they have been working closely with Mr. Smith's
office and that they are also quite satisfied with what is being proposed.
Mr. Berlin said thae his only concern was implementing some sore of inter-
change on limited access on S.R. 161-
Mr. Miller said ehae he agreed wieh ehe land use. He said he felt that chose
things that need to be done need co be negotiated by the Village and the
developers to arrive at a plan thae will work as far as the traffic is
conce rned.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
.
Min~tes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Ma '/ 8, 1985
Page Three
It was noted to Mr. Callahan that the commitment to S.R. 745 was in the
original submission.
Mr. Callahan asked if the developer was willing to commit any monies to
necessary improvements. Mr. Smith pointed out that the intention of the
addenda was that they will discuss and process and finalize development
plans in terms of capital improvement programs then completed, in process,
or planned. He said that they would be willing and able to discuss those;
however, the only time they can discuss them is after they get on "somebody's
drawing board" and when they are finalizing plans. He indicated that they
have no present capability as long as they have no users providing that
kind of assistance. He also said that they are pledged to work cooperatively
with M.O.R.P.C. Mr. Smith said they "may be" and do understand in terms
of the final development plans that the commitment to specific monies will
be discussed.
Mr. Bowman said that the timing is most important. He also said that he felt
that if the impact of the development at a period in time is too great on
the existing system, it simply cannot happen.
Mr. Smith said that "if you are going to review whatever we propose in light
of capital improvement situation as it is, one of the opportunities we have
is to assist in solving them...in light of those improvements you have a
shot as...that becomes a relevant subject of discussion in terms of your say."
Mr. Reiner expressed two concerns - the traffic and where does the tax
burden of the capital improvements fallon, and what is the ratio of who
is going to pay for the improvements. He also said that he would be
~ interested in seeing a more concrete and more complicated type of
progression where all the details are worked out as to what proportion of
the improvements the developer would be interested in paying for and how the
.. r traffic problem will be resolved. Mr. Reiner mentioned the traffic problems
created by the Busch Boulevard development. He said that he felt the
.; developers should. present a more concrete package for resolving the issues.
. Mr. Bowman said that he felt that the Village does not want to necessarily
do capital improvements or make commitments at this time based upon a single
proposal. The Village will have to look at capital improvements on a policy
basis as it affects all of Dublin.
Mr. Helman made the following points:
1- Independent of any development on this particular piece of ground. the
traffic studies indicate Coffman Road and the other systems will need
to be widened at some point in the mid 1990s.
2. If it develops residentially then the date becomes 1994; if it develops
for office use then that date becomes 1991-
Rezoning Application
Z9S-004
McKitrick Office Park
. Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
i Minutes of Meeting
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 8, 1985
Page Four
3. Financially it means if it develops residentially there is no
ability to pay for the capital expenses. If the Village would ear-
mark the income tax revenues alone out of this particular develop-
ment. at the ten year threshold the Village would have 8~ million
dollars to do capital improvements with.
Mr. Macklin noted that the Commission is in favor of the land use. The
. - main concern is getting the capital improvements to handle the situation
as it is at the present time and what it is going to do.
Mr. Reiner said should the rezoning be changed (R-1 to SO) the developer
will realize a tremendous potential for increasing the value of the .
property. He said that he would be interested in knowing how much
they would be willing to share with the community in terms of capital
improvements (dollars).
Mr. Smith said that the improvements must be determined and that would
depend upon the type of user - for example, one user, one set of circum-
stances. If there were one user they could provide a major portion of
I whatever needed (they would have dollars).
Mr. Smith suggested the Village get those improvements "in line", get
them scheduled, go to M.O.R.P.C., get prioritized and then let them
market to get the "best user in the world". The improvements must be
there before a major office user can be gotten on the site.
Mr. Reiner said that he felt that there was a moral obligation to the
community to guarantee that the community would not "get stuck" paying
for all the capital improvements on a 160 acre major office site.
Mr. Smith said, "You can turn me down if I don'c do enough".
Mr. Helman said that until there is a user there is not a source of money.
Mr. Callahan moved to approve the rezoning with the qualification that
che final development plan will be approved only for office use and only
as traffic solutions are realized or monies are committed which may
require financial assistance from the developer if needed. Mr. Berlin
seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Miller,
yes; Mr. Macklin, yes; Mr. Berlin, yes; Mr. Callahan, yes.
New Cases
1. Llewellyn iscussion
turned over~rkS and Recreation
Mr. lin recommended that
ommittee and the Planne
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
M iI/lites (If Dublin Village Council Meeting Meet il/~
~ NaUonaJ Craphi" Corp.. Col... o. Foma No. ln1.
_.
I
lldcl ....June..17, ..1985.............. ....___....... ... ............. u... ..u ... ..u........ .. 19..
Village Council
_. on Monday, June
,
I
I
were: Mr. Amorose, Mr. Close,
Sutphen, and Mr. Thornton.
r. Smith, Law Director, and Mr. Sheldon, ge Manager were present
as were Mr. Bowman, Ms. Prushing, and rner of the Village Staff.
Mrs. Headlee moved to approve the m tes of the Special Joint Meeting
of May 28, 1985. Mr. Thornton s onded the motion. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Thornton, yes; ~l . Sutphen, abstain; Ms. Maurer; yes;
~layor Lewis, yes; Mrs. Ilea ee, yes; Mr. Close, abstain; Mr. Amoro
yes.
approve the
the motion.
bills.
* Publ ic Hearin~
, Ordinance No. 11-85 - Rezone 158.3 Acres - McKitrick and School Properties
I
I Second Reading.
Those registering as proponents were: Mr. Harrison Smith, Jr., Mr. Ben
Hale, Jr. and Mr. Jim Houk. There were no registered opponents.
Mr. Smith's comments are summarized as follows:
1. Background information regarding dealings with Dublin school people.
2. The best site possible for a "top class office development".
3. Basically a trade of 40 acres for approximately 20 acres with the
schools.
4. Relocation of the athletic facilities.
5. Nothing is planned for several years. ,
6. Hopefully a major user toward 1-270; smaller users toward Coffman 1
Road.
7. Revenue differences between residential use versus office use;
on a projected 20 year basis, at the end of 10 years a 21 million
dollar revenue difference.
8. Met with Willow Grove residents regarding the landscaping treat-
ment. Green lawn area next to their homes first; then the shielding
area (mounding, trees, etc.).
Discussed proposed entry feature with Willow Grove residents.
Discussion also held regarding the piece of property not owned by
the developer - if bought it will not be developed, and will
remain as it is.
9. Will go back to Willow Grove people when coming in with Final
Development Plan and discuss details, especially the retention
I basin.
10. An addenda has been added to the text that at any point in time up
to the submission of the Final Development Plan that if the Village I
requests a connection made to S.R. 745 they will provide the
easement to construct it. i
II. Traffic study by Gary Wilcox shows reverse peak hours. By 1993
basic improvements on Post/Coffman Roads have to be in place.
12. Talked with M.O.R.P.C. Chances of receiving state help remain
greater with major corporate headquarters versus residential.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
Revised Prel Dev Plan
:1 History
.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.\1 ;/1 III es IIf Dublin Villaee Co~ncil Mepting Med;1I1-:
~ Natlornal Craphh:. Corp.. Co.... o. ronn No. 1017"':
Held --- June ..17L1985 . .. ..~..... .. .... ... . _. --. . . . ...... . ..... ..... . 19.
.,
Page Two
Ms. Maurer mentioned the plan developed by Godwin-Bohm several years
ago which reserved S.R. 745 as a scenic route, with an effort to
reduce traffic along the road rather than increase it, hence the
suggestion for the extension of Muirfield Drive, etc. She asked
why there was not a residential area planned along S.R. 745 to conform
to the rest of Dublin Road.
Mr. Smith said that he felt that the office development would be a
better use, and that if the Dublin Village Council, at any point in
time, wants the connection from 1-270 to S.R. 745 they will do it.
Ms. Maurer asked Mr. Bowman if there was a commitment with a P.U.D.
regarding a certian amount of green space/parkland that the Village
should receive. Mr. Bowman noted that requirements is for a residential
P.U.D., not office. He also said that the open space amenity would be
discussed when the Final Development Plan comes in.
Mr. Smith said that there will be open space discussion in terms of
Final Development Plans. He noted that with extensive office develop-
ments such as Ashland, etc. there is a tremendous amount of green space.
He also said that there will be a bikeway connection to the school,
and noted that the setback represents at least five (5) acres.
Mr. Amorose asked Mr. Bowman if the Fire Department has reviewed the
plan, specifically what appears to be a long cul-de-sac. Mr. Bowman
: said that road and other roads would probably depend upon how the
i site develops and that item will also be discussed at the time of
I Final Development Plan submittal.
I
j Mr. Amorose expressed concern regarding traffic and said that he felt
I
that the roads should be in place at the time of construction or for
certain when the first building is occupied.
Mr. Amorose and Mr. Smith agreed that the developer and Village do need
to work together.
A question was raised regarding provisions made on current roads with
regard to construction traffic, mud on the roads, etc.
Mayor Lewis referred to the ordinance that Dublin has which states that
any developer in Dublin who brings equipment off the road is responsible
for keeping the road clean.
Mayor Lewis also stated, in response to a concern of Ms. Maurer, that
it has been stated in writing that the Village will not issue a building
permit for this development unless adequate services are in place.
Ordinance No. 24-85 - prove Design Report Proposal - West Branch Sewe
Second Reading.
Mr. Thornto cntioned
east b
I I Ordinance No. 27-85 - Accept Bid for 1985 S First
\
t. Reading.
Mr. Amorose introduced the ordinan moved to approve the
recommendation of the Village ager of Northwood Stone and Asphalt,
Inc. for 1985 street imp ments in the amount of $174,665.70, do
with the three time ing rule and treat as an emergency. Mr.
Sutphen seconde emotion. The vote was 6-0 in favor. The te ~
the ordina was 6-0.
Since bid was under the amount that
r streets will be examined for
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
I Revised Prel Dev Plan
I' History
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.\1 illllles /If Dublin Villa~e Council Meet;lI~
HaUonal CraphJca Corp.. CoiL. O. r..... H.. Jon ~
-
fIdel ...July1....1.985...... .. .. -- --~.. - -...... -...... .... ..... ". -. ...- ... .. - -.... -.... . 19.
Page Two
.-
from David Road and that t e would be a major curb cut on S.R. 161-
Mr. Bowman also said th the curb cut and the north/south secondar
road would ~ at the time of the CDD review.
said that being planned is a 30,0
building as well as a small b ing facility.
Mr. Dur also noted that they had discussed with M owman the pos-
sib' ty of putting in a 50' right-of-way across e tract at such time at
ich the Village of Dublin requests it. He mmented that were the re-
zoning approved they would still have to through the site plan approval
process.
Regarding the possible service r it was noted that there are
along S.R. 161 on which the V' age does not have commitments.
Ordinance No. - Proposed Budget for Fiscal Hearing.
Second Readi
There wer no registered proponents or opponents
It oted that action .onthe ordinance wi to be taken at the
J 15th meeting of Council.
~ Ordinance No. 11-85 - Rezone 158.3 Acres - McKitrick and School Properties.
Third Reading.
I Mrs. Headlee said that she had been called by heirs of persons buried in
the cemetery as to how the situation would be handled. Mr. Helman said
that they had no intention of removing or relocating the cemetery - that
they would be able to work around it.
The Law Director read the following addenda to the text which will be
a part of the ordinance:
Addenda to Text for PUD
McKitrick Property
West Side of Coffman Road
The applicant requires a waiver of the requirement of Section
118l.07i(5) for submission of a final development plan within
240 days of approval of the preliminary development plan but
agrees that in return for said waiver applicant will agree to
and will submit and process a final development plan for each
phase of its development, all in accordance with Chapter 1181
of the Planning and Zoning Code and agrees that said plans
shall be processed and considered in the light of capital
improvement programs then completed, in process, or planned.
Developer understands that the Village of Dublin is under no
obligation to have services and improvements in place as per
the developers' schedule.
The vote on the ordinance was 7-0 for approval.
Ordinance No. 24-85
Third Reading.
Mayor Lewis comme troversy regarding th sewer.
He said that ce the City of Columb not prepared to id ify the
route fo e sewer, that he would tertain a motion to ta e the
ordi ceo Mr. Close so moved. s. Maurer seconded the tion. The
e was 7-0 in favor.
Rezoning Application
Z95-004
McKitrick Office Park
I Revised Prel Dev Plan
History
~J< h 1'111- ])
NBBJ
Plonning ond londscope Arthifeclure
June 15, 1995
Mr. Terry Foegler
Mr. Bobbie Clarke
City of Dublin
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017
RE: McKitrick Text Changes from May 31, 1995
Dear Terry and Bobbie:
These changes were made with input from Cardinal Health, Alter Group, Willow Grove, Ben Hale,
and the City of Dublin Planning Department. Changes are as follows:
. There was confusion regarding sections 1.03, 1.04, and 1.06. Sections 1.04: Height
Requirements, and 1.06, Setback Requirements, have been combined in 1.03. In addition,
to reach a compromise between Alter Group (the developer of Subarea I) and Willow
Grove, modifications were made in Subarea 1 to reference a four-story height limitation
and set a maximum building height of 56 feet at the 280-foot building setback. Buildings
could exceed 56 feet in height, but must not be greater than 66 feet, and must be set back
from the 280- foot building setback two feet for every foot in height over 56 feet.
. S~.tion 1.03, #3: Subarea 4 Single-Family Residential - After review of the Coventry
Woods Standards and final plat, it showed rear yard no-build zones varied throughout the
development. The minimum no-build zone shown was 25 feet. The rear yard no-build
zones have been revised in the text to require 40 feet on the north and west boundaries of
Subarea 4 and 25 feet minimum on all other lots. These are to be designated on the final
plat. In addition, play structures will be permitted within the no-build zone.
. Section 1.04, #4: Traffic and Circulation - This standard has been revised to delete text
locating curb cuts with 200-foot spacing, per the request of Burgess & Niple and the City
Engineer, who are coordinating curb cut locations.
. Section 1.08, #10, #11: Landscaping, Open Space, Parks and Pedestrian Paths _
Clarification was made and agreed upon by the developer of Subarea 1, the applicant, and
Willow Grove, for landscape requirements and installation of landscape along the west ,
property line of Subarea I and Willow Grove.
. Section 1.08, #12-An opportunity to provide an alternative buffer treatment along 1-270
in lieu of the code requirement is provided in this section, It was agreed upon by the
applicant, Cardinal Health, and the Planning Department.
...
A r i Z 0 n 0 ( 0 I i for n i 0 New Yo r k Nor f h (0 r 0 I i n 0 o h i 0 W 0 \ h i n g f 0 n
55 Notionwide Boule,ord (olumbus. Ohio 43115 1614) 114.7156 fox 1614) 114-2771
Mr. Terry Foegler
Mr. Bobbie Clarke
Page 2
June 15, 1995
An outstanding issue still remains with Willow Grove. The text does not provide a commitment for
a buffer or other acceptable landscape treatment south of the Coffman/Sawmill Connector and on
the Blankenship property. The City of Dublin planning staff has met to discuss options and
potential landscape treatments.
10 M. Menerey, ASI.:A
Vice President
Director of Development & Land Planning
/Is
cc: City Council Members
Ben Hale, Smith & Hale
Stephen Park, Alter Group
Cardinal Health
Rich Rubenstein
Jack Brickner
Frank Dunbar
Steve Smith
.01.
PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT:
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT June 15, 1995
AMENDED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
McKITRICK PROPERTYII-270 AND COFFMAN ROAD
Prepared by NBBJ
PURPOSE:
The site of approximately 150 acres was originally zoned as a PUD to contain office uses and to permit an
exchange of land for the expansion of the high school on Coffman Road. Since the original zoning both
market trends and the infrastructure needs of the City have changed. In addition, the City initiated a study
to locate a bridge crossing the Scioto River. This bridge location has been identified on State Route 745
immediately east of the site and impacts the road alignment as determined in the original zoning. The
McKitrick parcel has become an opportunity to provide a new critical component to an overall
transportation network for the City. This new road network would link the core of the community to both
the southwest and the northeast area. The amended preliminary development plan addresses this by
providing the road linkage (the Coffman/Sawmill Connector) through the McKitrick parcel to the
proposed bridge crossing at the river. Office uses would be freeway oriented, and located adjacent to 1-
270.
Tax increment financing is in place in the City of Dublin for infrastructure improvements, and the City
has hired an independent traffic consultant to review the Coffman/Sawmill Connector. Discussions have
occurred between the City of Dublin and the School Board to explore a revised road alignment for the
Coffman/Sawmill Connector.
WAIVER REQUEST:
The applicant requires a waiver of the requirement of Section 1181.07i(5) for submission of a final
development plan within 240 days of approval of the preliminary development plan Exhibit 1 but agrees
that in return for said waiver applicant will agree to and will submit and process a final development plan
for each phase of its development, all in accordance with Chapter 1181 of the Planning and Zoning Code,
and agrees that said plans shall be processed and considered in the light of capital improvement programs
then completed, in process, or planned.
1
1. North Point and Scale:
Provided on PUD Map.
2. Proposed Location and Size of Residential Uses:
Single family residential uses are planned for Subarea 4 immediately adjacent to existing single
family residences in Coventry Woods east ofIndian Run creek as shown on the Subarea 4 Preliminary
Development Plan Dated May 1, 1995.
3. Location and use of non-residential portions of the tract:
Subareas 1,2, and 3, will be available for office uses, and a Daycare Facility/Center may be located
only in Subareas 2 and 3.
As indicated on the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan, the site would be developed in a
range of square footages and heights. The most intense uses would be located in the middle of the site
along 1-270, with intensity decreasing to the north, east and west. This amended zoning requests an
increase in the square footage from 10,000 square feet to 12,000 and 15,000 square feet per acre
respectively in Subareas 1 and 2 and limits the height in the office subareas. The original zoning
allowed for approximately 1,500,000 square feet of office uses. This application would allow
approximately 1,200,000 square feet of office uses and represents an overall decrease in the office
square footage. This application would also allow a portion of the site in Subarea 4 west of Indian
Run to be developed in park, play and practice fields.
4. The Proposed Provision of Water, Sanitary and Stonn Water:
Water service will be provided for the entire tract via the existing 16" waterlines located along
Coffman Road and SR 745. A water line will be constructed along the length of the Coffman/Sawmill
Connector that will serve the entire tract.
Sanitary sewer service is presently available from three sources: the 24" sewer that runs along the
west bank of the North Fork of Indian Run, the 8" sewer at the southwest comer of the site (east of
the existing multi family) and the 36" sewer that runs along the east side of SR 745. It is anticipated
that the ultimate site development will require that each of these outlets be utilized due to phasing and
topographic considerations.
The majority of the site drainage is tributary to the North Fork of Indian Run and the Scioto River. A
small area at the southwest corner of the development is tributary to the South Fork of Indian Run. It
is anticipated that storm water detention/retention will be provided on a regional basis in
conformance with the City of Dublin storm water management policies. Individual site basins may be
provided in lieu of the regional concept if dictated by phasing. Detention/retention plans shall be
completed for each development on the site per City of Dublin requirements. An overall master plan
may be considered for detention/retention on this site. All storm water facilities will be coordinated
with the public improvements that will be constructed as part of the new roadway.
5. The Proposed Traffic Circulation Pattern:
The revised Preliminary Development Plan indicates the approximate and desired location of the
Coffman/Sawmill Connector. The City has retained the services of Burgess and Niple to study the
2
exact road alignment. The Coffman/Sawmill Connector would intersect with Coffman Road between
the High School and Willow Grove, involving perhaps some portion of the Blankenship property. It
will generally run eastward through the site and bridge Indian Run. The northern right-of-way line
shall at no point be closer than 200' from any current development bordering the site to the north. The
Coffman/Sawmill Connector will intersect State Route 745 just north of Interstate 270 on the
expected alignment for the new Scioto River bridge. Eventually the Coffman/Sawmill Connector
would be extended by the City east of State Route 745 and cross the river. Pedestrian circulation
would occur along the Coffman I Sawmill Connector . It is anticipated that a bike path would be
developed on the north side and a sidewalk on the south side to be constructed as part of the roadway
construction of Coffman ISawmill Connector. A bike path shall be constructed within Subarea 4
along the west side of State Route 745 by the developer of Subarea 4.
To facilitate the new alignment of Coffman Road coordination will be required between the City and
the School Board to acquire, exchange and/or transfer land as necessary.
6. The Proposed Schedule of Site Development:
The city has retained the firm of Burgess & Niple to do a traffic analysis and detailed design
documents for the Coffman/Sawmill Connector. The alignment analysis is being completed.
Concurrently, a major corporate user is preparing documents for a Phase I, 120,000+ square foot
office building to start construction in the summer of 1995, pending finalized economic inducement
agreements and approval of this amended application. A second major corporate office user is
anticipated to locate a 6O-acre corporate campus on this site within three years.
7. The Relationship of Proposed Development to Existing and Future Land Use:
The proposed site would join a fairly impressive list of existing freeway oriented corporate uses
presently within the City of Dublin. Having strong visual attachment to both Midvo and OCLC, the
proposed office development and the potential major corporate office users represent a logical
completion and preservation of superior office sites in an area that is already established and
recognized for such developments. This Preliminary Development Plan also provides another critical
portion of a major east -west road network to link Dublin.
3
General Development Standards
1. It is the intent for this development to be a unified, high quality office parle
2. Mid-rise, signature type offices will be promoted along the freeway.
3. Detailed architectural standards will be set forth in deed restrictions providing for
coordinated use of materials and architectural character throughout the development.
4. Signage shape, size, color, and style will be controlled by signage standards set forth for the
entire development and shall comply with the standards of the City of Dublin. All site
planning will be done in a manner consistent with prudent planning principles and practice.
5. If these standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, then the
Planned Unit District shall prevail. Standards in the City of Dublin Zoning Code applicable
to matters not covered in this document shall apply to the following standards outlined in
this Planned Unit District.
6. The alignment shown for the Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be as reflected on the
preliminary development plan.
Office
1.01 Description and Acreage:
The site is approximately 150 acres immediately adjacent to 1-270 on both sides of Indian Run
Creek. The Coffman/Sawmill Connector will divide the site into two areas. The south side will
contain freeway oriented mid-rise signature office buildings similar to those bordering 1-270 on
the south. The office uses for the southern portion may include, but are not limited to, general
office uses, corporate headquarters and offices of major institutional uses. The north side will
contain single family residential, park, practice and playing field uses.
1.02 Permitted Uses:
1. Subareas 1, 2, and 3 shall be permitted general office uses including without limitation,
corporate headquarters and offices of major institutional users. In addition, subareas 2 and 3
shall be permitted a Daycare Center/Facility. Subarea 4 shall only be permitted single family
residential uses, park and school related uses, including recreational fields.
2. This zoning does not constitute approval of a preliminary plat for Subarea 4. The applicant
shall process a preliminary plat which establishes points of ingress and egress, road
alignment, and park locations for Subarea 4 in accordance with code requirements prior to
submission of a final development plan.
4
1.03 Permitted Densitv. Heieht. and Setback ReQuirements:
1. Subarea 1: Office
. Subarea 1 shall serve as an area of transition from residential uses on the west to more
intense office uses on the east. Subarea 1 shall be permitted 12,000 square feet of
building per gross acre and a maximum of four stories in height above grade.
. Pavement setbacks shall be as follows:
30 feet from the Coffman/Sawmill Connector
50 feet from 1-270 right of way
75 feet from the west property line in Subarea 1 adjacent to Willow Grove
Condominiums
. Building setbacks shall be as follows:
100 feet minimum from both the Coffman/Sawmill Connector and 1-270 right of way
200 feet minimum from the west property line shared with Willow Grove
for buildings three stories or less above grade, and 280 feet from the
west property line shared with Willow Grove for buildings four stories and/or 56' in
height above grade. Buildings exceeding the 56' height requirement must be
setback 2' from the 280' building setback line for everv I' of height in excess of
the 56' height restriction. But in no case shall any building exceed four stories and a
maximum of 66' in height.
. Setbacks shall be detennined as described above; where a setback is not designated, the
required setback shall be 25 feet for pavement and buildings.
2. Subareas 2 and 3: Office
. Subarea 2 shall serve as freeway oriented, major corporate office uses. Subarea 2 shall be
pennitted 15,000 square feet of building per gross acre, and a maximum five story
height above grade. Buildings shall be limited to 80' in height at the minimum building
setback lines. Buildings exceeding 80' in height shall be set back an additional two feet
for each additional one foot in building height.
. Subarea 3 shall serve as a transition area from corporate office to existing residential to
the east. Subarea 3 shall be permitted 10,000 square feet of building per gross acre, and
a maximum of three stories above grade.
. Pavement setbacks in Subareas 2 and 3 shall be the following:
30 feet from Coffman/Sawmill Connector
50 feet from 1-270 right of way ,
. Building setbacks in Subareas 2 and 3 shall be the following:
100 feet minimum from both the Coffman/Sawmill Connector and 1-270 right of way.
For buildings exceeding 80' in height (plus mechanicals) at the minimum setback line,
the building shall be set back an additional two feet for each additional one foot in
building height.
5
. Where a setback is not designated in Subareas 2 and 3, the required setback shall be 25
feet for pavement and buildings.
. Freestanding daycare facilities in Subareas 2 and 3 shall have the following setbacks:
Pavement setbacks: 30' from Coffman/Sawmill Connector
50' from 1-270 right-of-way
25' where a setback is not designated
Building setbacks: 100' from Coffman/Sawmill Connector and 1-270
50' where a setback is not designated
Outdoor play areas: 50' from Coffman/Sawmill Connector and 1-270
25' where a setback is not designated
3. Subarea 4: Single-Family Residential
. Subarea 4 is divided into two parcels by the North Fork of Indian Run. It shall serve as a
transition area between higher density office uses to the south and residential areas to
the north. Subarea 4 shall permit single family homes east of Indian Run, not to exceed
a density of 1.7 dwelling units per gross acre and lots with 90 feet of frontage at the
building setback line. Height limitations for Subarea 4 shall be governed by the City of
Dublin Code.
. Front yard/building setback shall be 30 feet minimum, and may be staggered in S-foot
increments, but shall not exceed 40 feet from the right of way.
. A 4O-foot rear yard no-build zone shall be reQuird on all perimeter lots along the north
and west boundaries of Subarea 4. All other. interior lots shall have a minimum rear
yard no-build zone of 25 feet. Rear yard no-build zone locations shall be indicated on the
final plat.
. Side yard setback shall be 8 feet minimum one side, with a combined side yard setback
of20'.
. Single family design guidelines indicating setbacks, no-build zones, driveway locations,
and street tree program, are indicated in Exhibit A.
4. Maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 70 percent of the total lot area for all subareas.
5. Setbacks within Subareas 1, 2, and 3 will not apply along internal lot lines of combined
coordinated developments with cross access easements and common or connected parking
lots/circulation areas.
6. Limitations on the number of stories and building height for any structures located in
Subareas 1, 2, and 3 do not include any HV AC or other mechanical equipment and any
parapet surrounding it installed on the roof of said structures.
1.04 Traffic and Circulation:
1. Ingress and egress to parcels shall be provided along the Coffman/Sawmill Connector.
6
2. The final right-of-way of the Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be located approximately as
indicated on the Preliminary Development Plan.
3. The fmal right of way location on the Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be located no closer
than 200 feet from the Coventry Woods subdivision as indicated on the Preliminary
Development Plan.
4. Curb cuts on the Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be approved per the discretion of the
City. No curb cut shall be permitted from the Coffman/Sawmill Connector to the High
School site. No driveway curb cuts shall be permitted from lots in Subarea 4 east of Indian
Run onto the Coffman/Sawmill Connector.
5. The Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be designed and constructed by the City to meet the
following criteria:
. Provide maximum sensitivity to the neighboring residential environment.
. Provide for review and comment by a committee of residents from the Coventry Woods ,
Woods of Indian Run, and Willow Grove developments with respect to the design of the
road and bridge crossing immediately adjacent to their neighborhoods.
. Design the Coffman/Sawmill Connector and the bridge over Indian Run to mitigate
noise to the extent practical .
. Meet the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
1.05 Parking and Loading:
L Size, ratio, and type of parking and loading facilities shall be regulated by City of Dublin
Zoning Code Chapter 1193.
2. Exceptions from strict application of code standards may be granted at the discretion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Loading areas shall be screened according to City of Dublin Code Chapter 1187.
4. Parking within the development., to facilitate the use of the existing park, will be resolved at
final development plan review, and should it be located south of the Coffman/Sawmill
Connector, it may (at the option of the owner or developer) be established by revocable
license.
1.06 Waste and Refuse:
All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid brick wall or
wood fence to a height of one foot above the height of the item being screened.
1.07 Storage and Equipment:
l. No materials, supplies, equipment., or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any
portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure.
7
2. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be
screened from public view with landscape materials or materials harmonious with the
building.
3. Mechanical equipment not on or attached to any building must be screened with either
landscape materials or a structure constructed of materials harmonious with the building.
1.08 Landscaping, Open Space, Parks, and Pedestrian Paths:
For purposes of this text. a no-build zone shall be defined as an area that allows no construction.
no buildings, outbuildings. structures, or fences of any kind. Play structures are permitted in the
no-build zones. but not in the 40-foot perimeter no-build zone or in the preservation zone.
1. All landscaping shall be according to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Chapter 1187.
2. The City of Dublin shall develop an innovative design standard and landscape plan to
implement along the Coffman/Sawmill Connector.
3. Existing tree lines along the west and north property lines in Subarea 4 adjacent to
residential properties shall be maintained.
4. The cemetery in Subarea 3 shall be established as a no-build zone and be appropriately
preserved.
5. A tree preservation plan and conceptual plan shall be submitted prior to filing a final
development plan for any treed portion of the site that outlines standards for development,
including utility placement, sets preservation zones, and provides appropriate development
standards for all phases of construction for wooded areas located along the Indian Run and
existing tree rows, it being understood that the developer will be allowed to locate buildings,
parking, access driveways, and related amenities within the existing treed area consistent
with a tree preservation plan that preserves the natural beauty of the site. Applicants will
submit the tree preservation plan and conceptual plan two months prior to submittal of a
fmal development plan to be approved by staff.
6. The developer and City agree to limit areas of construction activity and implement
sedimentation and erosion control measures to avoid unintended tree loss and minimize
erosion and sediment damage to the Indian Run creek and adjacent ravine areas during
construction.
7. Any portion of a lot upon which a building or parking area is not constructed in Subareas I,
2, or 3 excluding ravines and wooded areas shall be fanned or landscaped with lawn at a
minimum. This requirement only applies to the phase being developed. Undeveloped phases
may be maintained as an agricultural use or graded and seeded until developed.
8. The ravine shall be properly protected by environmentally sensitive site design(s) and
limitation on grading, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices during all
phases of construction, in accordance with a staff approved preservation plan.
9. The City of Dublin agrees to construct buffering as part of road construction in Subarea 1. A
buffer plan will be developed with input from neighbors and subject to approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
8
10. The developer of Subarea 1 agrees that earth mounding and/or other landscaoelbuffer
treatment acceptable to Willow Grove shall be installed parallel to the entire length of the
western property line in Subarea 1 (common to the east property line of Willow Grove
Condominiums). If an acceptable landscapelbuffer plan can not be agreed to by Willow
Grove and the developer of Subarea 1 then the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
determine the final and acceptable landscapelbuffer treatment. Where the detention facility is
not adiacent to Willow Grove an earthen mound shall be installed not less than 6 feet in
elevation above the elevation within 33 feet of the west edge of the parking or driving
pavement to which it is adiacent or to which it is closest. If earthmounding is not feasible
along the expanded detention facility, then an initial screening of six feet in height shall be
provided between the western edge of Subarea 1 and the western edge of the parking or
driving pavement in Subarea 1.
11. Installation of the earthmounding and screening along Willow Grove shall commence with
the initial grading of Subarea 1 and proceed without interruption in accordance with prudent
construction, planting installation and horticultural practices. Final landscaping, including
seeding or sodding, must be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
12. The developer of Subareas 1, 2. and 3 is encouraged to develop a creative alternative buffer
treatment along 1-270 in lieu of the six-foot buffer currently required by code. This
alternative buffer treatment shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. In all cases, parking lots will be screened as per the Landscape Code.
13. Park areas shall be reserved in Subarea 4. The exact acreage of park shall be determined
when a preliminary plat is prepared as referenced in Section 1.02 (2) of this zoning text. The
developer of Subarea 4 agrees that total acreage of open spaceJpark shall be no less than the
code requirement. An open space buffer of approximately 100', or as determined by the
preliminary plat, shall be maintained from the right-of-way of SR 745.
14. An 8-foot bike path shall be installed by the City along the north side of the
Coffman/Sawmill Connector within the right of way.
15. The developer of Subarea 4 shall construct an 8-foot bike path along an easement at the
terminus of the Coventry Woods drive into Subarea 4 as indicated as Bike Path Option A on
the Preliminary Development Plan. If this easement cannot be obtained, then the developer
shall construct an 8-foot bike path from the terminus of the existing bike path in Coventry
Woods between lot numbers 152 and 153 through the park south along Indian Run Creek to
tie to the Coffman/Sawmill Connector, as indicated as Bike Plan Option B on. the
Preliminary Development Plan. In addition, an 8-foot bike path shall be installed by the
developer of Subarea 4 along the west side of Dublin Road within Subarea 4. A bike path or
any other public path shall not be extended under or south of the Coffman Sawmill
Connector through Subareas I, 2, and 3.
16. A 40 foot no-build zone shall be enforced along the north and west boundaries of Subarea 4 .
Within this 40 foot no-build zone a 25 foot no disruption or preservation zone shall be
defmed as the 25 feet closest to the property line. This 25 foot preservation zone is intended
for the preservation of the existing tree row and allows for the selective removal or dead
limbs dead trees, and obnoxious plants. Additional trees and plant materials may be planted
in this area to augment existing vegetation.
9
1.09 FenceslWalls:
1. No chain link or wire fencing shall be permitted in Subareas 1,2,3, or 4.
1.10 Signage and Graphics:
Except as otherwise herein stated:
1. All signage and graphics shall conform to the City of Dublin Zoning Code Chapter 1189.
2. All signage shall be subject to applicable signage setbacks of Chapter 1189, Signs.
3. No signs shall be applied to windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising.
4. No roof signs shall be permitted, nor should a sign extend higher than the building.
5. No flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittently illuminated signs may be used.
6. No billboards, or electrical or other advertising signs shall be allowed, other than a sign
carrying the name of the business occupying the site.
1.11 Lighting:
Except as otherwise herein stated, all lighting must conform to the City of Dublin Lighting
Guidelines.
1. External lighting within all subareas shall be cut-off type fixtures.
i All types of parking, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall
mounted cut-off fixtures, and shall be of the same type and style.
3. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall either be a dark brown or
bronze metal.
4. Parking lot lighting shall be no higher than 28 feet.
5. Cut-off type landscaping and building uplighting shall be permitted.
6. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent property.
7. All building illumination shall be from concealed sources.
8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of buildings.
9. Landscape lighting along the Coffman/Sawmill Connector shall be ground mounted with a
low level of illumination.
10. All lighting of parking/driving areas and buildings in Subareas I, 2, 3, and the
Coffman/Sawmill Connector will be designed and constructed so that it will be directed away
from the Willow Grove Condominiums and other adjacent residential subdivisions.
10
11. Proposed lighting for Subarea 4 west of Indian Run Creek shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Commission.
12. A lighting plan conforming to the City's Lighting Guidelines must be submitted to the City
as part of the Final Development Plan.
1.12 Architectural Standards:
Standards for Subareas 1,2, and 3:
1. All buildings and associated structures shall be harmonious in character, and reflect an
upscale, high quality, signature, office park development. Final architectural drawings shall
be presented for approval according to the process identified by the Final Development Plan.
2. All buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. The preferred
building material shall be a blended brick in the red-beige-gray range. Stone, metal panels or
decorative precast concrete panels shall be acceptable alternative materials, as long as they
are harmonious with and do not detract from the overall unified theme.
3. Stucco may be used as an accent building material, but shall be limited to a maximum of 25
percent of the total of all solid areas on building fa~ades.
4. Fa~ade colors and materials on individual buildings shall be coordinated to complement each
other. Fa~ade colors of excessively high chroma or intensity are not permitted.
5. Highly reflective glass is discouraged. If reflective glass is used it may not exceed 20 percent
reflectivity and 60 percent of the total of all building facades.
6: Glass and curtain wall color should be coordinated to complement each other and the color
palette of the building.
7. Freestanding daycare facilities in Subareas 2 and 3 shall have exteriors of brick, stone, or
other natural materials, and shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. Wood
or stucco may be used as accent materials, but may not constitute any more than 25 percent
of any singular facade.
8. Outdoor play areas and play structures associated with a daycare facility must be constructed
of natural materials or painted with natural earth-tone colors that are harmonious with the
building.
9. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof shall be screened to the height of
the equipment. Screening of equipment must be harmonious with the building .#
materials/colors.
11
1.13 Maintenance:
All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas, and other improvements shall at
all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and sightly appearance.
Landscape areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the Plan and in a healthy living
state, mowed, pruned, watered, and otherwise maintained as appropriate. There shall be provided
and kept in good working order, trash compactors and/or depositories at approved locations
which shall be emptied prior to becoming full, and a pest and rodent control program shall be
provided if necessary. Tenants will be required to deposit trash only in said compactors or
depositories. Said properties shall be kept free of litter under all reasonable conditions, and
parking and paved areas shall be power swept where necessary. All signage shall be kept in good
repair. Lighting, painting, and associated materials on signage shall be kept in a continuously
upgraded condition.
12
.., It) o~ <t Z en
CD 0> ..... W
CD 0> I'-ca .- ~ z
z p .Q
C\I~ .- -
.. .1: - ..J
It) >< en w
p I ca w
G) _.0 W C
&: ::s -
C :J
~ ~cn
.., "
(.) >
..J
.-
I- -
... :E
.- <(
~
u.
(.) w
~
..J
"
Z
-
en
-
.'
I
~
~., \
d;:~f~:.l ::':~':'.~''':.~~''..\: o. -c en
.;: . ":~l
. ....:
"1g I- ~
...,,: :~: )~~:~:;: :' :':f: ctS
. .:~: \"\.j~ (.)
. >-
0
. C'a
.~.~.:: ~~;:~'::J";:~' .. . 'U" ...oQ>.~. ....
:::.~~ti~::~~ i,i~~l ' -'.,. ._ .... .c
.~:1~:~ ,~:~~:~.~~~....~;." ..:...:~ r:
1~:.;~~{~;.t..:.s;l.ts .~:i ..-
~~i 0 (1)
ifi\.7:j 1-
LL. en
. -c
.
. (1)
0
...~. ..:..'::.....:...:.".;...<..'.'..:.. .. \ --
..;;~;~i~~t~~~l~t. .. . . I-
~
.::. ..
0
0
,
.
0
:~iii j.~ll~ll~~~;~~~:~ . 0
".'0
IlIli;":':} 0
0
'tel_I
. lil~~~,:::"~ .-
0 :
_. ,",oJ'<. .....,..>....;.......,.... 'V.. .... . "
.it ;~~~~(;!~~)~:;i~~~~~?:: ::':.: .~:'::
\~} ..
II .
.
. ,... ....<-%.... . .:........
. :::Jt~~\;;T~~:~- ~; "'~~~
:.")';
--;.Lnl~ :~~~~J{~~i!.1~.:~ '.' . ..
I
," "-'~'m
~Jli /,::3 ., .
0
~
:.;~#:~i~0~+/ ~i~~ .:.~t~;.:I~..~:
I -
Q) (I)
. ~
. -
-
CtJ 0
~ res
CtJ .c
c. ......
I C1)
. c C/)
. 0
Z -c
.' J..
~
.....
c:
. 0
. at
. .
..-
.
.
.
.
. .'
..-
.
.
.
.
.
. .:.....:J..:.~:..~::::
..... ..
....:. ." ;
../......... .... .
.y^.... ....
tWjfJi; .
, L..-
l )
l -c CI)
. . C1)
O' Jw::
_.- - u
C)
" c:: m
<t .c
....,
... C1)
(1) en
c:: .
... -c
0 J..
CO
() >-
....
t:
0
at:
r" ".'
": I,
· .. l"~ .
.... .;.
f"I .
.\
. ":.:i~~U1~
.
- '~f:i];~'~i~1%~i
o.
-- IB~r~
. ..
.
I \ ~g
: 1 1.0
- J- -.' CD ..
.. ~
9(1)
-
::JI:
........~ 0 ><
o
. to
. ~
,
m;t." ," "m" J~ l~
co I:
. .eO
... 0 ct)
_0
_ca
I:ct)
col
E(1)
_ _"'0
cal
co "'5
'::::::/).~h:::.i;::':~';,::. .::: 0
..y::;;'.':\:~:::::::bri:/:::::'L\::..... ~ -g
ca-
.eca
_I:
coO)
. CDC;;
. c co
><"C
- 0
01'=
c
..
co
.. ...
.. ". 0
z
, .
--'--- .-
-
-CP
tn C
CP 0
o N
C
I CP'O
LL=
....,B
. 0
\~\. .' i ~~
~ .. ~ 0_
' ., 2 ~
. . : wll
C1> o_
r- tn_
.... Cl-
O~E
N'Ocp
:J Co
"'C al ~
.. - '5 ~
. "5 0 Sl
rn .... ....
...... tn :J
. . Cl 13
-. . -- 0 C :J
. . '6 ~
Z- -
"3 tn
... al >-
... ~
o _
ZQ..
- -
~.:.~~,..:: _.:~
",>,v.:".~~<(~ .--- ,.t~~.
. ,i~~~~ ,.:, ~:'. '''~ . . .
.... ~._"".. ~P.. . . '"
ll;'f~~i~~:;'~~~;&l ~ -E
'^ .... "'-'" -. -, ....... . '" .g '0
.~'t;:i.1""."" ;';':'~'"';;.~=.-.". g C ~
-.. .. ...;;...' .~N ..~:.;..,.k~:)' '" ::> '"
. .. ... .- ... ~ ~ .8 oJ
. ~-."'" .....~- "0-,".. '" "
::R:,u~;;.. ...z '""'~> '6 ~ i!!
..... .~_...... '. "<-.., E '" ~
\-;~:.~~':;;;< '. )1;;" ::> ~ .c
. ..,,,.;,..".... . '.., .. E '0 =
'. .~"'...,. - c '"
.,--. ". . c :c
l~~~Lt~~i; '~:~~l '; i ~o
",...- . ~ ....... -
. . "'...,.... .' ., .~><~. '" C N
. .:!~: .:~~ ~ :~?:1:~ I .5 ~ ~
. .....'" ..... ".. 2' - ::>
~~. :1iP:. ~ 5 '.;
I. ."" "ix'", '; . J ':; '" C
.- - >".. ,. - -
~.' . ."',~r .... .<: 0 E
.:;:..,. . - '" :: ::>
=.:;:, ...,',~..,,' '" 0 E
I "':.'i:;i,';:{;. 5 -; c
. ~ "~.v>'.\ ...... NeE
':L~~r:~ '.. . '0 ~ On
.' .. "'. ;.\ ' B "'"
V. ._v -:~.'.. ..J Cp
" ........ 0 ~ <
. .... ... C ~
. . '. ", '0 '<:..t ,;
....- -
~.E~.2
>-O~....
.... ..... CD Cp
~-..o..c
.. Cp- :J-
....OtnO
Cp~ _
..c_-cu
....00.
~ ~
otJ
o
. Z
. .
.
---- .., E
(1)
(1) co
... ...
..... en
tJ) 0
...
c..
-
..
. (1)
.
(1)
...
I-
- .
.
.
.
-
.
.
.. 0
.
- -
-. 0
.
-.
0
~
-.
.
. ,
-
. .
..
--
.. CD ~ rn
..... (U
ca c
~ c ~ 0
.-
... CD ~
CD > CO
..... .- u
- ...
<t C 0
.J
. .
..
-
. .
"
...
. .
-~
.
,
.
. 0
. .. ~
}~~~;,~~~~~'!~~~1fi:%~~~~ '~!f~4f4m~~,~;g.~~~~~ ~
. ..". , '. .... I .c
: ".. . -: . :- . ~ .",' .
:. . .~ . . ,". . ....
. . . . .
... .. .e. . .... ... \
-. '" '. .. .' ..... i1:J
~ ~~"E.
.. -... I'f"'If. ...
....",. .... ,'-'
: .'. ;: .-. .: ~
. .. e...." . .. ~
: .. -: .. ,_.. :
-iloilo .. iloilo . .t ., C1.)
" === ==== ~
.. "..:.... .. : ~ iloilo -.. ..,
.. .." : ....'
iloilo .. .. , ..,.. t
. -'
iloilo .. .. ..
.. ~ iloilo . .. : .. " ,:
... .. -... ... .. ..,
:==== .:=~~
.... .,,- .: .. .. ""," , ..
:.. \.. '.." !.
.. . ..,
."''' .. .. ,
;:.: .':: - ~~ ,:. .' ,~.. :
"C
ct
.S:::
:c -'
E~
. .. .. '. '. C
.." "" .....
. . . .- . \ . ,. '7 I (.) 0
~'. =:-~!!
. . ... .. - C en
.', :. - . C
.. .. "C
. . . ,. . E a..
: . :. . .. . . ca
.. .: :. ..': ... ,," .." =' >-
~.c;;; ..~ =~ I~
, .. .." .~ \ :: ~ .. : a:,
".. .' .. -;" .... .. ".": ..
, .... .... .. ..
o ~ .. .. &. .. .." .. .. , U).
. . . .. . .~
: .' , . ..~. . 0
~~~~~~1t1~t,;-%.f:9]i~~*tt~k'4g:~:$t:~'ZilBi*i,~,~;:~~~#:%.*~#01BW#t€#P.$f.t,:\ :z:
-
, j
I 1.-.'1" / I / ).
, I; " / ,II I' r /'
: I: ,I : / 1/ I ,I : /,' I I\! r I ,m '
,I ' . '.' 'II ' " I, \, , I' r \' _.......' ! '
\' I I ,'I", I II ! /1 \ \ I ,I, ,.. '1 " , / , - --
, I' II'" I '\ ,_..,r I
\ ' :1 , . ,: I' I I " " ," ...'
, ," ' ,.' ,.,
I II,' ,/. , J I" ,I ,. ,'I /1/' ,"\ , . I It,I,>-,.J..
f _" I"~ I ' \" ' ... "
" I ' " " \ ' I ,\ I ; -~ J 'J" ; m
, ,,,,' ," . ,'(......~ ...
; ......:::l=L.:d~... ...~t1h:"ood~~~::::"'"'-:""'':'''''''''' ./:,......A,:.c.:,~'~~.:c":"'~R ".:')1 /,l! I I I ' ~ " ~ ~
r ...:...-:::::::=:::~:::::=!:::::';';:::::":;;;;;:;;~:::-"=;C:;:::"=::::':=::::::;:::::::::::"':=::::::::~:"-"'.':~,:" .....~:.. ;;',- .,-, ' ...!-J i ... zl ~ ~ ~ "
I :: il ~ ~ ~
, ' " iil"
, ~ ~ a~
.' 1< /. 5 0 02
, " / ..... w ~~
s:- If ~ III .~
~ ~ ' ' 1:1 ~ ~~ ~
e 3 ~ i I I' il' ~ ~
~ ~ . ,I "I J 0 ~
~ $~ ill' U ~
e~' '\ I li1
~~~ i I i
~~~ I, i
.0_ '
ffi
i3Q
~~
...
... -- ---- -- ' ~ ~
_ __ __ ~~I~~cr I
, ... -!!rn~ ~-
If:>~ ~-l5~.- ---
~.~ 0 .h _~ _ r
I "0 0"" - -
'0/0 . u -=--
~8~~e ".~. -- .
I I I ~~~~-~3 ~~ ~~~5 - -,- - - - - ~ -........ -
15-'lIl J:iS 08 ~u~---- - :z
I I 'i';" Mm ~ ""
I ~~~Z~Y.l !2!i ~ ~ ~
I I I - ~~~ · o~ .....- - -
e1515w-ffi U 0: --
\ I I \ ~i~~~~ ~~ .~
\ \ ~~~~~~ ~~
~WWlLlIl ~o
\ \ ' \ ~;~~~~ ~~ O~
, E~z ~< ElIl
\' \ ~~~~~~ ~~ in
I I ·
_... . .
.. ---".. - .. - \ \ \ \ ~
/ _ u _.
" ----,. .... \ \
t.., I -.. .001; \
/ '- >!r"--"" -, , \
" \
, . " Z
......, .. <t.,' I I - 0
,', "rr:JJ? _:._' -' \ ~. . -c' \ :::::;:.. ' "" - - ~~ t-
)' "' ','. _rl I ~ ....., .-...
, ,<" .. _ " U
, ' <!' .:.,' ... > ::. - ~, .'
'-./,,~ " '_, --:"J _; ~ /' /\ \ ' \. ~ ILl
o~v/" . , oF...' (/) ·
G , .. / , ~ < / " '
/' _. Ji:" / \ \ \ .
" . ,+0' .
, '. ,...::.- -.' . \ ~ ~
/ / '. " I . U~
/"" ' '" I .. ~ _, / \ I I \ ~j n:
" '_" .... ./ " 80 " .. >-
, '.,' / "\ ..: :!! J-
> / - " '
. _ e ·
'/ / ~ ' \ I I ~$
/ ~ . \ ' \ \ ~~
/ u.
,__ .. : 1
_.. __,,' ._ _' -" " ,,_: w
/.' I ~ m'
_. ....._ I m
.. I '" - - - .
)' ~ .! - .~
... VI 0
, <0-' ---- ..
__ ~ i ,~ :J;ll~ j!: I
FlllUO ---
, ; '~-> -----
, .
,
t '
/... < ~"
, .~
.. \ ' B~
I
,
n., .;
",. ~.. ""':- "'- ....................... \.
.....'If....
1.
.. .\
" .
I
...J
8 I
G "T",""'"
U') -N....
:x: I ',f ,,\.
Cl I '.
:E .,' J" I
I t::--..... /
~ l" 'I "-...1/
~ '1' f
I::: "" '
8 /,'
II ..'
. Z '<.,
8 ~ ' ...-............--....-
~ ? a ..-.......- /
.. '
~ I t "--" ----..-. '
I /'r'" !
I /{ r- -I
_,! r'-'--~
c-----.--I.'/ I
.... ""-V",.'"
~.~~::,.._ / "\~'1
- - - - ... . -\
---- \. '
~ ':, '
_ l ".\ I
, - --- - '-- .
I --- - - 1 J
,; .~ -~
,\.. -
,
,~/,. .....................
'J
I
!
I r~.--.::.:~:~:::~:
'"
......f......,
'-- \
'\ i '
". . I , I I
,
lJ I / \ ,.
, I
I
() " / I \
't C
, ""~
': ~2 " \
, I' Q.~
, , o~ ' f
/ I If::l 1 I I
, '-' I' i /
/ i I I /.....
I '" I ......
I ____ ' J ......
I I
Do.
%
VI
~ jl;
~~ !
i
I F
I
... .
\
..; -
- - ---- - - -- -
.- -
--
9- ~ 0 ~ " ~ f '-;- I
II; / ~\,- 1 - , ~:;)! /,:;~I :i&;&~61/:~j'l, i-- V~1' ,,:. / \<~ .''-. : ", <'\\ \: :7~: ':3 ,L -11' i)l
. / ) eo : I 7/' /f /~/I f \ I I' '- '- I "-..); r ~ ~'" If "<:,t \.) \ ^ \ ',~ ~> - 1 ~ \ . \. J .-) ~....::>y - f ,}, f ,
'/ "' (\/y![ / .... / / ~ ,,'" fi- '''" vi 1 n -.'./ I
I -< -( I\:;1.. 1/ I - / '-<......., _______ 1-._ t $ '~'- / :: J J I ,/ ">\,, \:. o-iJ ---...... f-! .... C f'" .I
/ / , ,/ 1/ !:.~~,<Iy('(;--,~j f/ /1 ^ "', () ~ 1):0/(\\ \ (\- (r I ""~" l ~,o"" 1 '1,- '" ! I ~ / / ....
~ { If "~~lt - ' / J'!!t!/l . '~\ r \\. ~.s /,- \ \ \ "l J . ')
'I I · /. l . 1 ! ,: ere, ~ \ r \ - - \ 1 \\ n \ \ \ 'c':Z ' ,', ~",,-,'
'. 1,( , /ti"~JI~1 r f J r~} 7 ~,", {' 1 l \ f ~J\ " ,~: t '~" ~A"
I I ~ ~\ 1 I f., ! I ' I:- ~ \ V 1 r r. 1.} i r J I~ ' \ - . .\~\~\."Y\ "v /. - - I "-- '.... .<.> \
~\ ' 1 tJ ,'{ -I J' . 1 - I 1 (I 1 u ? '\).. I 1 J I '
/ j " ~ I - I : .. I J I 'I ~, I \ t ,,' ~' -J I "-,.., r' '-..."
{, l- Ij '\ ' 1 I / 1 \] i 1 Ill, fl I I l" f\. <Y:----~< IJ.' IiI/f.,,' /N.':-'''-.., - Ii,
t , ' \ f -, , ~ I r r ~ t. J - I v~" '-. . . ('
, ',' , ' : ' , j'.' J ',' I" . ' J} ,I t I \ \ ll1 t , I ~: ' : 1 <....., '-. I, JI~"; '\ \, <; ; ifi:' II
J /: :':L 'L." 1 Lit L. ~- \ I 1 ~ \ . \ I J 1 ~\ I t \1 I I ~I " {/ r 1 \\ ,,~ I' ~ '! ~ 1\
wr~ r t L ~. fl ~ f r ) I r 1 I r I I I \ I I I I I'; I z I,
/-, I 1 j.. -. J \ i. ,L ,~ 1 I J ~ I ,,, I
" ,-"'. . : 0 1:1' I/i' 1/11J~r( ""l' [/f1 111111.~ L\ I' lId!. It '\ ;1\ ::;;: I I t (', ,/11:/ '~ 1[1
I I I ! I "^ /" . \\...~ y l \ I \ ,I ,r " , I
'-_ I I I I /' ;< /-\ - < \ J L I ~t r 1 T.. I .~' I I I' PI < \ I
, f' { \ I I I '\' 1 1 I I ' '\ I I , " : J 1 I t 1 I
, I I J. I I '\ I I ~ 1
/~~ - , '1 I I I;, ~, r.1 \ I , l' I I, ! I
, 1 I I \ I I r j I ~ I \, I J
I .L I I \ I l ) I :{ I I t n" I I I I I ,:
~ 0 ~. J I I I , I
__ __ - --___ .- I I I I ~ I'
, / f ..)t:i~ ~~-~-----.-. ,t . )\t~~j. ,~ ' ':!
" 1 I I I 1, /1 1 1\f' ~ . T' \ ,., .-
( I ~ I' I )t 1 \ '7,
" I \' ~ I I I' I i
, .. \ , I \ \ I 0 I' III I I ( r T "
" ' \ \. ' III -( I ,
, ." . \ rl" 1\ \ I '- \) \ 1 II I ~ f 1 I 1 I
I I, ' ~. I \ \ ( I'
/. . I I " I ---...... I
, '.,"'., I I l]' \ ' I ',' ,\1 r' "-.,". ' ". I, !
,~~.;~:>.. ' I \ 1 1" III ' I" 1 . I I I I ~\ I \ \, ' , \ I ) 'v r' 'r ,
":::. " '.. I I I ( 1\ '1 ~. ,
, ....... \ r , ... .
'-..... ~ 'y" I I I ,I.
'':::Y , I , or ~ ( ) ~ \ I 'I \ \ L, j.. I,' \
....." ~ f r I I : I II .-"
"-.. I \' ~ "
} '_ _ _ _ _ I~,' II \ 1 1 ) \ 'I I \ ",," I I
<*. . / M \ ' I , I I I
I ' '; I. 1 I I I I I! I:
~ '" "t I j I I
,.. '" ) I '
~,'.. ell ~ I 1 I r I I i I \ ' "'-....., I I I )
.' I' ~).J I, ~' II 1\' ~ " I: I I L\ \ I I : '-- "\ I (II I I~ '>'-1 , I
, N ---1 )> V> rrl ,\ ' , ! . \, II I I
{ _ _' 0 0 Z rrl X"'. \ I I - \. _ I . ' 1 \
... _ .........-" <OJ I' .r '- I I
- _ _ _ _ ... _ ... ... ..... ... _ 0 :E V> I ir"-----..--.,. I II ' I"',
J, ,-- - -..l-rrl~-l ,,- - I
, \J -.- --' -n - 7.\ __ ,. - - - - - __ __ I I -
-'--..;vZ. I - j"'!"'- -- - '
__ rrl rrl I 1 ' I . I I ' l J .- T - - - - - t - - - - - -- - '
, ;;U rrl ---1 C) I , I 1 1 'i - .,.. - -- ~.
~(')ZO I 1\ I 'I I \ ~ I 1 I. 1
/ I )> -t co:: " , " I I I ~.,\ ---...... I _ _ _ 1'_ - - : l \ t I I -
---...... I~, ~-<O(lJ I J \ I I, I I I I
'y '- z<:::tjrrllJ I \ ,I I r ' ~.' \, \ 1\ I I I I I l
.' ---1 <::: :::u \ I I 0'
"-- , \ --' (') ;;U _ I ,I ,I I ' I 00 I I -
...... '" ~ I /0 ... I
'~." _ .......... I )> rrl < t. . \ 11\ I 0 I I \ I
" '. '. rrl )> '\ I' "\ I It ' !
,..... ':, ~r. ". " )> ---1 j; ---1 I ~ '. l' I \ \ .' . .. 1\.11..;' ,. " , " 'r' ",
,-,<:'r " ..~ ' ~ )> 8 (lJ rrl I .. 1 .j' \ \ \ \ I ~. I \. \ ; r' It., I i
'--;.. ..)' ., ~ IV> ~ I " \ \ q I I I '
" ' \ rrl ---1 )> , I \ \ \. \ "I I I t j
, ~ ',z )> z r - I( I I, ~ ' I I I I I
_, . ---1 ---1- I I I I I
""~""" , I" rrl ~ I \" \ I It 1 ,I ,: 1 I. I I lj ,I I
~ r' \ 0 -n I I I l' I 'l ' I I I I I 1 I j
.>1 " .;v I I" II I I'
-< I j J r \' I I I \
, , , I '- j I I - I
_\. . 11' 1
, , , ;. \ "\ I I ' I I I I \ 1
I '-.......' _. 1 ,,\ , '~\' ~ I I I~' I \ I. t \
'I ... I ---1 (lJ V> )> \) \ \', \" ~ / I, / I I,.. .... I t ~ " " I I I WI I r W "l',")[ x \ "
I \ I I -< )> lJ \ \ \ \ If"' [ \1' 1. I. I ~ '
i , I rrl Z -U ( \ ~ \' ~ ) I I Ii\ \ ~ 11.\ I \ .1 I : I 1 I I I'" t j
.. ---1 ---1 ;;U \ \ ' " \ r {'I' I ,., I .1.' I" (' ---...... I
I \ (') I )> 0 \,' \ \ '\ '- ' '\ \ I ., I I , (, ---......
\ :<rrl-nX , , ' l \1 I J 'I -<.1 'I '-
-"oJ r' \ \, I ) I I I / Y
\ -< _ ') '\ \ \\ , I I I I" " i......
I 0 ~ \: \ \ ,\\' '-, \' , I \: II I ~ I j \ I I I \ ~ '
I ~~V>---1 \\\ \ \ \ ---' II' Ie I \ I }.-..-< ,
I ---1 rrl rrl rrl" , I \ \ " \ I \. I \\~ \ ..:: <
- ---.. \ I I :E \ \' \ \ \ \ \ '\ - I I \ \ \1 \ \ '
'- I '0 rrl I _ \ ' \ \ I , \-, f I "
o ;;UO _.. " , \ ' I '
J ... \ )> ;::$! (') ........ \ ,\ \ \ '\, , ' III \ \ 1 \ I, I \ ./>> '
I f N I 'I ---1 )> , \ \ \ '\ , ' I' I I \ I ,/ .
I ;;U ^., 'I -<
I " I < ~ 0 ---1 L \ \ \ '\" \ \\ \ \ \. tr! ' ~ I '" --' \
\ \ \ 1" ,)> (lJ 0 , ) \ \ '\ \ \ '< I " , I '" ,/ / \ >
\ , lJ Z rrl Z " ,11 '~'\ \ \ ,\ \ \' ,1 I. "
\ ' rrl 0 "-. .. t I \ '\V' \ I ..1 I \ \ \
;;U 00 "-.. "" \ \ . ~1,.0. ' '- ' ,.' \ /
'- , /',;:: 0 0" ; j \ , \ 0 ' ~ \ \ 1\, \ ' T , - ./
______ )> rrl Z ' 'I \ \Vi' "c.~ " I I .......
-....... I \ 1 Z 0 V> CO:: ':.. ,I I ' , ~.~ \ ;)' ~ \ I I >1
'-... '. \, rrl (') ---1,) \ '\'\~. \ \-.L\' \ \ 0 1\~ " , ~
.. Z )> ;;U " ( \ \":,, . \ 0 / I , \,
\ '-. _ -', \ ---1 ~ C ' " "-.. ") . \ \ ' ~~. ' fJ\ \ ,~ \ ,1 I
\ _ \ I 'I 0, ,/ \",\", A . I '
\ __ rrl 0 ---1 L / ';; \ "io \ :\ \:;;0 I r /,. \ 'I
" I)> rrl ~,,, \\, '
\ \ ' I V> ---1 0 0 / ( ,:: \ '\ \.\ \~\. ' ~ - - I - II /~ ,\ I\."
rrl 0 ) // \ \ . '\ \ \ , :2: /' It ). ...'--
\ f.- ~ .... \ \' \ " \ \ III \ ~ - ""
rrl \ \ . \ ' ,\, I' '\ ..,J-. /
\ 'r Z ' \ ,y I
---1 \ \ \ -I
\ \ / --, ~
' \ I I (' l I
'-- .. .. ,\ \, \ " \\ \ \ I '" \ '
_c /\ \' '\ ,\ '\.\ ~ 1-.' - - J. ~
.~ \ /. I
_', ' I I" .",,,
, " \ I I'. .'\ \. ."
.- , /' ~ r '.
- .- , If J -'>, \ ' "- '-
~- ~/
- .. ~
__ );rT1'
\ I . I ,.
X "
V>-
rrlV>
~---1 -
\ rrlZ
_ _ _~~ 1 . -- . ~, ! f f r - Z C)
I _ ~ '--.t
J ~ ....... _"'-"l>>."~ ,..- n...- ..",.,.
- ~,
, I I
,1 t ~ - - > i " . N'. i ", , "
I' l.' I " I
)' I I \' .:' I -..... '\
I I I I( I ' \ f '\ \ \ \' , I I '. '. / I I \\1 \
I I' I \ I 1 ' I I \\,
, \\ : 1\ \ l I, \\\ \ \~I \ ,---'_ L__-L----"!l I
\ I' , r f \ \ NORT-
\ ' I 'I '- /. / \ \. I I., H FORK - I I
I \ \\ ,. J \, I I \ \,,\ \ \'-,,\ , \ iNDiAN RUN ' '
\ f ! \ \' '" , II ',- 'J
~ I' \ ~\I I I . ., ' " I '- \ I \ \ \~( '.1 \ ~~~.~.. \ ~ I 11 '----'\ '
, I} '( I' /~ \\,\ \\\1 II .
Z I: " " _/ "j ~ \. ) I . \ \ \~ ~.. ~ I I II
I' ~ "- '. ~ I I r. 1 // 1 \.' ,.>. V> rrl I '
It" "--;<< '_ _'., / l c- r / / 1 I \ \\ \\ ~ ~ \ \1 ) '-,
I " '- - - / '-- 1 0 _ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \..\ )> Z I I ,f;"
- ~ . \ . ;;UC) I I
I "-.. _ \ '- ~ \__ \ . -< I i
I \ '\ \ I \../ v>N \ I'" lr
\/\' rrl~ I I
I "'0>?11< fCIR" ,/ , ,\ ~ - 1 I I' I
INWAN ~L '" /' _ \ I . , ' 1
- r \\;;U I" I
, / _ __ c.::::.. . " \ \ \ I I I
I ' -- //T ! ~ :~ ",~-- / ; f \\ \\ - \ 1 I 'L \ ~
, //\ I I I "'",''''' I, I I I \ t
j ... ". ' " I " ,\
\ I '. '. I I I
\. - , ' ,// \ ~ -.....:::- '. . .. I \, \ I - \ \
': .:::It I ' Y , \ I! , " . ~ ,. .~ .00: ':. "/ ' ,\\ \ I' ,\ \ '-
'jf-. 1 _ _ _ - _ _ -----('" \ I II t ~"I 1 I \ \\ I I I I II I,
r \: 1- -f. ,,)0 j t \ <. ....." I I I \ \ \ 1 ). ,
~ \ - /' ,);. ,\ J \ ~\ I : I I I : \ \\ ' I \ I \ ~ ~ ;g I IL / .... ,
1\ ~0 \ " L --... ) 1 j I \'\ I \ Z 0 I ~ \
\ , \ \. 1 1>' ,~I, ,.. -" I I, I I \ (') ---1 lJ I
, <. V f I -t )> 0 ,1
I\', ... \ . -~- /\ I' ! -<;;UV> I..., i
\ ''\\ \" /, '\ ~ I I I \ \ \ I -< rrl " . 'I
) X -.. \ \ ' I I I , I 0 0 1 I
,\ \ lq \ \ ,i 1 I I \ .,V> I'
~ \ ~ \ \0 ~ .\\ \'1 \ '\ J Ill, I ' \\ \ \ : 0 ~ co:: ~ I~" ~\'
... ., \ \ \ \ ,\ I \ -<: , 1\ 1
,-'II ...'\ " I Crrl
.,.\ \ .>.\ . .v'. ) ,,\ _ ' I \ \ \ I (lJ ;;U I., I
, .,', _.. ,. \'.. ~ . ~" '\ I 'I '1'
\ 1. '<'~' I .. 'I - ' ,
, \ '" \. ~../. ,II. ., , \ \ \ Z I I I
.~ '" .i.\ '0.. ,. V I ",/ \ \' \ I I I I
I , ~\ ~ /' ./ ~~~\..:: ../" ",' II. "'" 1 I \ \ \ \. \ ~.
o 1. Ci' \ '" I, \ \
( ,__ \. . ~" \ ... ., \ I
, : ' / \ \ "\~?<- I "if I I \ \\ \ I \
I ~' ~ ....\ '\ \.. I ~ _\ \ II: I I I \ \ ~ ' \ ; II \
\ \ \\ ,) II I , \ ,
I .I . \ \~, \ \\\", I ' \ \ ' : \
--' \ ,'. I' \ I' \ \\ \
" '- '~ '\ I I ) I J!. : i I I .J I " \ \ I _ - : ~ _ ~ l' -=- ~ I
I J~ r ' I \ I I
--1- - I .. 4 ,I 1 ~ l . - - .... - - - - -- -... - --
_,......... .. T _ __ ........ 7' _ - ....,..... . - - - - ~.. \ \ \ \ -q I
I I II' I ., I I I I I I I \
- I ~1 I'... ' . I ' \ \ \ 1 I I
( I.. t Ij I. - \ \
_ ~ i ~ I -...,.- -r:' I I \ \ I \. - -'I
\ I I \ \ \ V> rT1 " ~..
I I ' , ,. I
, , I \ ',I L . I I I " \ \ \\ \ \ ~ X ) -"y
I J I I j \ , _V>
I ,. \ I I. ' II t I I, ; j I : I ' \ \ \ : \'\\ \ \ ~ ~ ,. ",j t ;1~,,(
_ r 1 ~ . I 1 \ \ \;;U \ ,.
. \ (,' i rl 1 ,;, I I I I J , \ -< C) __ ;' ..1
I f I J 'I~ (J I,' , ,I' I I ,\ \ , \ \ \ \ I --
, I . 'III I, \ V> (,N j
, I: ,~ I I, I \ i, \) , \ t I \ rrl q > 1~ ,II
,I " J , ~, '}I I I \ \ :E u, I ~ \
\ ' I rt I, ., . \ rrl 1 -. \. . I
I, , ' f> " " , 'I'''' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ;0 ! " I j ,
" " , ,I 1,' .,> ] 'y i, 1_ , 'I , ' , I i '-:! I I \ ,\ \ . .,. I, - '\I~ (\0 ~ ~ I , ~
I \'" I I '. [' ~ ~~\ \~ ~\ Ij Il '- -, 1 11 I 1; ,I l '. ") I [ ~:. J II ;1) I \,\ \\ \ \~ \ \ .:: _ ___ ~. {, .:J ~~'. ~'(j ~\ \ ') ~.. \ II ~ \~
'j I '\'~ \ \ " ", r J ' "t \\) 'J;' - I 0' II' .11 '
I I \ " ) LJ 1. , . ' \ II \ I ~,L- \ I I . ,. I I \ ,
,\ I '--....~ . j ~ \ \ \ \ ,I / ; /;Y i ' " / I _ __ . \ \L /' ; J l - --" J;..:-- -- - 1\\ ~ c; ~ I \1 I '! I 'i, n I ~ \ I \ , r(
\ , '-. .. / )\ \\I I .' / I . , ./ - - " '. ,I, '. _ ~ , \ 1'\ I I I I I
, L _ _ _ _~ 1 ~~_ _ jilt! -: ' "I. II "J,,,,,.J,j r"':",:: -=::. ~ :""',,' _ _ " \ \ \. \ . \ . _~ ~ - \ \ ! "" \\!~ \ ,'\' .j i \:' Ir
, '. \ i t J\1 I V7 1\\ I. ! I"~", .1~/1 ---~I'\\\\ I-~J\I~;...-r \~~lll \ I ~ 1\111\\ \ ,! ~\I t,~ '~'.\II \~l {
, 'I .. 1,/ ~ I 1 \1 I ...... I I t ~ ' I r' \ I' I j I \ d. \ ( I I
r ~ I. . \ I \ "\ I \ r -"'::::.' I I" f I I \ 'li' I I '\ I ,~. .... I I I ,I I ....-:::: '\ \.. J I I \ ' \ \ It '
\. . 1 , I (~( I \ r 1 1 I I 'I'" \
1 ~ ,~. - .) \ 1 I j I I I ~ I I I I I
~ I I I I. I I '" ~... / ( \ \ I J 1 1 I: J: ~ ~ (1, I · ~, '\; [; \J r I \ I I ~ I ~ I \ (J I \ l \ ] f f I l i ~ l j \ \ I I ~ I' J I
\I r \ '\\\ I I I I 1 I \ I I I I I ,I I , I I \" .....
M '/( . I I J-, \ \ I' J I I I I I I 1 I I :' I 'J I I I I '.\ ,.
.. (') , \ I I \ J I I \ I I I \ I I I \ \ 1.1 r I 1 ,T 1\ ~'
\ \, ',I I I I '
~:: ~ ()o I I 0. '\ I I : J) \ III I I I I \ I \ I ,I \ I \ , I I \ \ I I I I I~l I I I I \ \
., -0 h)) I /r\' , I I I I ^J (\ ,I I I I I I
II ~ :;;O"'Tl ,i 1,-) ,11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
~ O"'Tl 'I d I I , \ I '"' \ ~'" 0 I I I I \ J l' I I~ I L I' I I I I I ,I I I
N -0 ~ ~ .. I' .... I ,..... - I I I 1 /' -1 \ r t '-~. , . I I' ' ~ ~ I
o :::u --l 0)> III 2: ' J.' 'I. II I I \D II I I' I \J 1 r - \ I I I 1 \ L -.. J 11 1 L t , I I - -
o :;;0 ZO I' , \ I - .. '1 , - -
- 0 c (f) "'" - n Q I I . I K I ~ '- 1/ r / @ \1 I I ,/ , '
fTl (J) =< III - I 1 J I '- r") ')-. I I I I
---1 Z 0 )> I , l I . \ I 1 ,I ~ I . -_ " .t. ", , -....
o ^ - 2: -L-' I \, I " - - -
(f) :Eo oi" ~~...- ~ - ---, ! 1 I I I 1 ~ '- , /'\ I' I '
Or)> ~ "'Tl ' , "- - I I I t \ l ..... . I I ;, , NA<;IHN' I~, -101<'
C 0 Z - .. .. / ~ -- .:1..... '----I I I ~ ..... , I /} \. 1/ ,-
ill 0- ro nlll" - L-- ..../- - -- -1-.... " . '-
I --l r .' ). I ~-"\,~ I " -+
Z )> )> c oi" ----, ~ I .\ '.)' t (). /...{ . ~!~ -- ........... , \ Ct
--l -n () rT'1 " I- r( " I '----.. ' '. .'.
-/V v.J.. '.. . I
;;u 0 -< 0 r - - - - ~- . - \~ (\ J -
o Z Z Z _ _'. -- ... '<::.>,'. I~ - --, f 1/ - ~- ~. _ r ..
(f) (f) Z (.-_ - ~.------.- I 'r 11 I J I I
fTl .- ~\ ---- - c 1I I "T '
tn <:::: rr1 \ --_____ ' 2 --' l' ,
. <:: () - -~ I I;~ 1"'- I I
;;U fTl --l '- - I ~ :
c.... . -n 0 . IY'I! f I , I
-......J /V '1\' .r ,() " f II . I '" I
~ t;, :;0 "\ ~ \ ( '\ ' '\ 1 r' . ,) r I \ ( 2 l [ ~ 1 J / j: A ~'- \ L 1 J 1
'---/ ~ ~ . ~ I J ' I \\ ' J III f \ '
~ I u I L I I
. ~ 1 ' . . \ \ l .
ill . I ! 1 "'\7')y ,a
,r. I "'L, ,
"-' 1./ ">
(Jl . I I ."" I --'- ---'-
- _.__ _.. I ,--
1_ __- ---
- - - - - - - - _..-
~ ~~ - - - --- -- - - -
--
:' ..~'''''': ,.~ w " ~.~- l' -'III! ..
~,...., , ,~
. '. ~..... ;".,..d....~.
.
...
.....c ' " ,., ,
'. .. . . . .,...>",.
.' :.. .' . ~. "-. ..-.
.""" !'. 'I' · .- '0 .'
:. :. ,"
, " "" ".
- " , ",
.., "', ''''
, "
, ~'
, ... '
I .." '- t -
-', -...
, .
\ " ". ~
\ . , "."", ,\ ...
. ..... .,1 \"
I ..... \
I "
I," 1
\ ........."
, . /'
" :' i 1
" ',0 f' Q ~ \
, ~ '
" 0 '
.. >.,.... c:'" I
" . '
. ' ".. d \,,"
. '" ",,- \ Q. ...
, - ,,--- -'
" H' ,0'"
. ....'
, " + 0" '
, " '.,-'"
" . ,
, ...... 9" ,It
.~ ~,~
,~_~ (')>'r'i~"''''
--" .' . "
.. ."
,-.- .'
.' ... _" _, 0 '.
._-,-' .. \ j
_" n ·
.".. '
" .. .. -- ". ,
..'_ 0 '
" 0 'c
-- - -
"-..
.
f- ---" . \
I O'-)>,^ \
. -h ~ \JrI \
" ~ ,,1.1 C 1
n (') $))) 0'" \
) tn.... -' \
_ "~ "At--- I ! -
O ,-
I -
~ ' r.....~--
...,.,..~ ~ .r......... _.....-
/' --,. - '-
,." ""--~~' .."...-" -.
;1
//
,
\
\.
'"
-_. 1
--
~ ~
...
.
" oI~'
"",/
,f'
'.. (' "......,
'. / ......
..... .. I ""-... ' ').
. / '
" . ,/ ..--
. .. I / '
",. . I t ./
~_.,. "
- /" ""--_.__/
.., /' ,---
.' I ,r
I ,/
_ fl'
,,' i ! /....
I ,I ..-___" ~___' ""..-_..- (1
, ".,"'-
/ I I
; ,. i,' "
" , " "
." . I I I /'
. __ I I f
, "J I
,: . .. ,,,/ ... II ~ /
. ...... ,I . a
,'" ,/ I r::::J'
,.. I"'" '
I I '" .,' /' ! I 10 ".,.. ..' ,"
I' .... .." I I
/' .' '
, ,( \. " . I
I \ /
. ".'
I' .-
, . ,_/
, " r ( ~
I 1 '. 2 -
., '\ '.....,
." .
I ....
i ,,4
- ,-~, ' .. ,"
~ -. .. " "
" ' ."
....
, --' " ' ,.
" '
....... . .,.... ""'-
.... .' ....., "
..' .
, " ".. 'c, -.... . -- "
.. .... ,"
. .... ... ...
, ."
. .. ,/ ......
-- ...",,,' .. . ..,.... """ ...... "." ' ,.,./
..~ -..' / "" ~.,.... ./ -
, , ". . -." .. \ /~
. ' ." " ' 01
, . ,,"" ' \ '.r".....
, . " ..,.... ,,~ /,
. --~ . . . . /
,., '" ."...... ." ,..,.,,,. - -,..-'" . . \., \
. t" .. " '" "-. /" . , " -
" '. II ," '.....w .~ .-' ... N.
,," ". . -. ... "
", ' .., .... ",--' " -... -.. ..
,,' ',. .. .. ...-.-" ,...... .... '. , '" .. "- " ,,' ...." ....,,_. "...--"" -'" -,." "...,,'
\ .. , .."..... - "",..
, .
'.' ", " ",.. "'. '" -
, '. ...
, ," . " "" ,,"...'
I', ' .......... .". ". . ^'
, "..... "'---","
1 '. '". ........ -... . '" -.' -.. "".
I.", ", "
., .. ' ''''"
,.1,' '" -.. "
, ," '
t ' I' . "'"
I . ~- ~ -~~- ~
, ---- .
. ' .
" : I 1 \ ......... . - ,- ,
, " " .."
. ' " ." '~
\ ,.",1,\.,' ..
, ',\' ..
\ ,I , j'
, I I
I l' 1 I
I 1\1
1 ~ . 1
I 1 "
I I I \
\ I I! \,
\ l I t\ \\ .. /'...-..... ~
. I c' ....
\ " " , l,', C. / !
,\1. I t ll~'"
, ,\
'" ,I '. \.
· IJ ' \\ \ \.
) I' \'
. " ' 1 1 '
I \,"
I I II \ \ ,
I \ t l'Il ~ I W "'"
. 1 11 ,
.. t ' · , '
\ " 11\11. )
" "'1,,1, --
I \ I 1\,., \ ...._-----r'- ;a
I I " l' 1 , ' ....../ ~ ,."
'. ",1\ __ 7 l/l C
1. 1 I"'" . ." " -~~. ;a
. " . ,,-
1 t ~\.' ' '.. -- " .....-' <
, ,. , .." . '"
" ' . , '....,/ ",
" . . I \ ' . "'!
,. ~ j
, ' .. "
, '" ..
j . .\, '.. . (\
.. ~..-
\ ''. \~ _//.-.....~\.
IiI'" i I
I,' 11 .. ~~j
\ -~
. ----..
\ . ----,--.---
, ~ 4
, ~
.. \ '
, \ . ..."-
~~ --
t
,
It'
'.
. ~
'"
, 3
-< '
'" r' · I
"TI<D ~ I\l .t
~-o (') ~ 0 I '
:Kg-aU'! ~ () 0
z =' c:: U'! ... 0
s: 0",32 11 Z (J) ~
~ _.zg~ ~ Z -i (') 0 I m\JC/)
.... ~~_C/lo g. Cd 0 Q) 0 <JJ
. ~_:::I:::;: C CD
.... -C1'>O~ <l> ,. C
co I'.) ~ 2: a. ~ Cd ]) I\l ..,.. m m
<t> ~=-o '" " ~ 0 . '"
'" f'~"'CO ~ Z " 0 r' ..... r OJ
c>~""< .. , -i ,-.'
~f'~p. "" I m 0 )> 0 -)> '.
CD -::; ~ g ]) 0 :;::II'
t;.~' ~ Z '"'0 ~ JJ
r 8~ 3:zm '
m)>)> ·
ZlJ~
-1-<
+
.... +++
-'" ........-..
O(]'l-.-...JJ:o. I
en' . CD 0'> (J'1 (J'1
c>>~-...J :...,.. r-v
.' > 0 ~ '" 0
,(" o>C -p-
.. ('). --. (') 0 .-
_ .... > ... f' '
R
- -
------
...J'
,0
, ' ~
~>z '
U ~ <(
..... c: ~
~ a: LL
~W~ 0 (
C~O ~ 8 \
~ () (J ~ -.i. ,.~ ~
() 0 CI <C Z ' ::> Ii .\Q;:;:~
"'I::: a: z ...... <( 8 ffi t Q: ~ C'>J ~ C'>J
..::::: ^ <( 1.1.1 '" I- I .. 10 ~ ~ <;>
..... 0 I- -.J 0 JI Z "".",.,.., ~ Q) 0 ~~ to
a. 0 ........ - "0.-"- C'-I 0)
~ (.) ._.s:::(O
1"-' W '" .. a:: "".",.,.., ,~ ~ o-;! .....
C\J1 ' ^ 11 5 ........ ti ,2"; ci~ re
_ \JJ 0 ., I- Z -< roEz . .......
~ ~ Z 8. Z g ~~ ~
O <Ill l.O- 0
__ " ~ ",o.c~
() "0 <..:> 0.. ro
c: Q)U-
~ _ ?-f:. _ _" 0 '" ::l ~
. r-.::: "'X r{' I
" ~ '
~ 1- _ _ , ~ _ " / "', __,c_,," "-
~ ~ ) ~ ,~h.''''-~=.:Ic _--'__:::'-l~ .
r I ~ -,
/ """ . \' r"" ~- ': ",' ":" ' . -
I....... .uI~ n~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ,,~,,~= ,,' ,
(.. _...... ./ \ ~ ,^,,';, rl ~ ~ ,," ,-" ~"'-,---
:IIU 1"""'-' - ~ - ~t! / .' ~ ," - ./:--' - - - -- ,.--., -. - - · ~. --
. ~ r. ~.. /. -- . ' -~ - ' = ~-
8 NO.lON_ 7" ";?-) "",-", /.' . ' ~---- -j ~)'" c::: --= __......-t:... "" -2".~ - -
'- ,,_ fLi:-3, ':__ . . ~'.., 'fr ,,"~ . " - "-'''''' '- -,' .- - -
~ -=- _ \" _ __ --r.....- ""'II: ~_ . 1 .\ -- -,~ " w......."'" ,.... "'---' '
, ,-. " ~ . ---- .~ -' '
_ ---.:: _.. ~./ ~__ _""~' . ...J,--> :;. ,- - .- - - , "r-r - 212
~_ ' ',,~__'2" - - --
"" _ _ 270
"'::::c:::::= -- __ I T 1 _ 7W / ~- - - -- '- "~.-' "",-" ""-" ~ -
--:::-=- "0 ,_ -=- " 0=-''; ""'" -' - -- ~- ,-,--- --.. --
- - ...I' ....-' \ ~- ~""......:--' - ......-------
..... _ ..;' ~ ".I' _' _ '" !t-I · l' ~ r.- I/ - -- - "
" ~ ~ ;E..J r.....---' ,'~'~'<" ,<" '" .~ ~ I.., N .. N" ", 3 - -fil · ,n. ~; "" ""'-" . -- --~; ,
;j; ~ __ ~ '" ..,. " " I ~ It) ~' ' - - - ,
, ~.' /~~ ~ ",,-::,,~~ _ ~.r.;:::::c.-r' ~:/ \, I : @ ~ \-.J, "....... ,,:jf7 '" i i ~,.,I.\ l '-e
. 0<- ~ "".c- >- r....'~~..,\'>,~. I". · q ~J, -"- .. l-~II ~ .
,-I i ~~ ~ = ~ ~_ ~: F.fi=.. \ ~~~~ :,;;~ \ ,V'j" '" e'" \-!:..::..'---':- _______I-...!@.I'orl ' ~ ! l~: ! .
} I to -< ~ ~ ( ~~ FrI :II \. \. ~ . ~ ~\'" _ ~ :::::F' "" ~ \I ~ ----:: ; -.' ::...\ ! i '-../ .i ' · I J ' ) ~ a , g!!
..,.., _ . ,_ _ .... 'U 1\...._ r _ ~ c"1' \ \ ::-:: :--s:': = ~ -= ~, '--. ," :. if L't-,,' , . - - - ,,j' Ii ' ~
.j (]) /, uc-.. 1/ '-" _ _ _ l 7A ~, ... ' ~ - - =--~ k::~ "' .- ' : to, "'""" . '='~ ....;.--+- - . ...-f'= ~ ,v -.::.-:- 7- I ~ '- ' A ' '\ l - ~~ &1
." ~ ,/ I. '-. .." \~ :.....J:- \ ,_...,.- _"" \ \ V . '- " ~. _ ,.... ' .,,' - - -=-' ,,:-~r-\', -. "'. L "'; - , " J , .-- -" '''' "', , ~
__ ~ _--///;1'"",' ~ \. I /...~ ~ ~~.. III 'L/~ /1"............ .::::.-........~I-.... V_"''0 ,~~_ v(} , ' . ~.""== ~ - -,,' --,' ~,=-=~ -- 'i}~--':-:'~ -=::~- --', '''~-- _. /iii"d~~~' ,~"'" "
_ ___ ~ 'vi '-.. rJ~ /~"- /~ r--",,- """ "= 'U "N . s:::--. ,--' -.0_ ~-~-. --:<<:
, f-' ,_ ~ .....: " ' ' ". - ~ ' ~ -- - , - =c- '" -- ,,:,", "~,;,, ~~
. 0." 1\ . /~\, _ __:c _ _ .' 1 c. " . ,- ' -' ~ ~ <~; "-='.... ~ ,~ ",,,,,,,,,--;A
_ ' .., , '- _ ~__ _ " 0' _' .. . ' ~ _ ",. ,= ~ "'....... ,- 'V
_ _ J; \ ~ \.. ~ ~ .---_ ~ _~ -r --:J)--' 1<-"'" .. . ~..___~.c=~~-"""-- - ~~ ~~ .-- ~ i1tIi'\'" r')-., .-::;;':"'l.!c.t~Jl "'-~I
f \ -r--....... f.... ,. D I- " .,"' .... - - - - " - ~ ,~'" ")\L. ..J ," -.7...:;:--" -:-..::-1r'
::-.:::::...... \ l \ I ,............ ... ~ - ' "--- -, ' l- T ' " "......" ~ ~ =, ~~ '. ........- --' - ~~. ~~""'/o' -~,~: ' . ~
~~?~ I (~ . /i-~ h.. ~ _ ~ ...* .-- ~~-::--Sg-=>'7 ~ ~-~ )-, - II r', ~;l \ ~ ~--::-:..:...- ~'-- ~~f#~,,:" ,,::;-<-,,~ "~r~~:- ~E0=',~":~: ~~"Z~~7r="':=-..=-:" .~
~~~- ~~~~I ~.~~~~~'~~.; ~. \\~ ~\~~~=~~ ~~~~~:~;~~~---"~~~~~,.~~~~ -
/ '",.....'--''' N"\ ,,~ ~.....'c' <,0_ \)'0~,-- 0-.'V.-~ I 1\ .,. "<- _,-- . - -= - ". - --...' z:;;;.:. ~ ~ ' I'-~ ----" 'iJ.!r" 1=. ,,-
,\ \....- '" "'" .. __ r ~ J"~' \ '-.:::~ \1 "-,,~ v' ~--:::::::.. v:- _ . _ - ": ,\ \!' ~ -+-~~"" - :. ,,' ..:~i1 ,;c:::' ~ ~rr;!J -~ ,-- , - I ,~ "" ",,:.., .IIVr . - · -
'~_""'\\ I t I. t-:::::= ~J ) ... ,., -......... ~- "1 /.., l- -\- \" I , \ \ 'r II ~ r'0 -":::;'-:::' -" - ... ~- j ( i -:t . ... ~ - D!JI- ~ ~ " .-ol. '- ,.,... - - r = \'ii ~ ~
\ /'1 ~' I r t ' _______ 10 't -;/ I l' \.... \ \ ~l ~ ~ ,\1 1 \ ' 1'1'" "... --- , I't .. ] "
~/ ~:::..--\ ~ \\ 0t \ I "I V/""---- ,\ /~.." "//1 I V" '1 ~\".. \~1.\1 \ \\ I" ~_/---......-:-....,_.-... l' - ---- ~ -- -~~- -...... r ---~~ __+:1 (d.,,"~ :'--~2~
a;" . ""\ \ I'" / / i ....... ,"--,,/ ~ ..... \/:;: \ "-_ j ,.ill.. ~ <Ill \ \\~ \ \ If \ , ' --.,' ""'" ,,", I ' :1'...."'.. /1 r,) - ~(II ~ l\\n~
!w . I ~ 1/'''--./ ......----< '" I . .. ~\ r-I .' i' \\\\ \ 11\ '- --~ V" ,," , 1:---" i-tiP I~ ~/"
< .---1J F---/ i \ \ \ ; q$f , "3/~~ en <("'t-~ ~.... ~\ \~ \, \ ' \ ~ ..' . ' ' I I ,11. \ ",\L;'\, ,I I!! .....' r '
~ .. ""rl! ,,_ / "-.. .r --<11- e' _ ~/'" 1__ _ ,,' \....... \ \~ ,~\\~~\\ \ \ \ ~ ~~~ ... - - _/ - ' 'I' I \ I S ~ I ' j It..., '-(" , ,\ '
'. o,,~' /1. -;: /\J ,I{'-"~ .q +:. 16i\ \..........._ __ 1./ ~ {' / _ _ _ _--" ___ -" ' .\: ~" \ \\\\ \ ~ \\\~t.--". '" , - - - I \ (I " · I' }' '::J"J~- J :;~',,~j{t ' ; 1
,.// -........... ( J'\ ~ ( . ~(/) + E . I.r- '-!/~ I 1-/ ~ __...................... "~___ .... --/ ,'/---- - ~ -- _ \.... '\ \~\ \~,~~.\: \\\\~ A\' "ill I \ ,,,, I; \, l'~\.. J ~ ,~ \@'\! 1\ ~ \ ,\,,~\
~ /f'" ...;. ../ /__/~---.. ~./ O>~~.. _...." ~, \~~~~~~~ \ I ~~I~' '- '-- I I I I ,,/' \ I f oj~ J I ;1 I"-~\) )1
_ I' ."-- I ........... ([ ill / _ ' _ ,_,__' _ ,,\ \" ' ,!", ," f \ I ,z - ) '- ," ~ -' , "fi'
, ~; ~ ~ ......c-....; _ _ /;/ I : t- _/ ,-" -- ' .. '\ \ \\ i~~\ \\~ ~~\"i ') r / j \ IJ ( j i ~: ,.. < j ~ /~ - +;j~:':t ~'h~'-~ .~
-~4f-~- f,1 _) -J~ ~_____ ./ __I A~ ~ '... " \ \ \ \ 1\ :&\ ~ \\ ~\r '\ ,~,~\\ I . - - } r '). ,; -t:-_ ~ , "-::"'1.":'~ ~ - 1'-0;."::":. i,l
-Z 1- \ \ cT- l~ __ .... /.....( ~'-" 2' , I . a '-....., ") : J J' i \~~~\\\ \\' \~ \\\ !~\l I ~ / I , ,! y~ ~-'" -..: -",'.: + j lIP' ..~, ~~\~1' ~ '
. "\" '\ "'- ~M~ I) \ ~ r---.. __. \ I \" . ) \ \ , '\\\ 1\ ~,~ ~\ \%, J -' / ,(/ A;~';"' i-t- ,'. I\r 1 /~F~;J:-)~~
-;Jh ~,i ~ ~..--..... \ i ' _ . \ c / ' ,,' \ I \~', \' ~ ,'I \\ \' \ \ ~,'\/' /, :J;;; ~t X /L---""~, ~- . ' #oiti.': ~ ,," h;k r '?,. 4- ',i ~~~~;.;?l!
__' ". I I' ,\\,\ ,\, I, "\' \ \"/,, , ./ </ ~~ / ,....,~.."." ~-= ,,~ -~ ",,)f'-= ',' l · ~ - -
l.,r; _.... I ( , \ \" \,. 'i.' ~....,,~ ~. ,. > i" " .,'-" r:e.. -, ~ -.-" ,I.
.. ' ' ' ,,' ' . ...._ ." ....'" ^ . .. , ",,> _ _ ." _, " - "v "
~ /-)..:!... ,~~ ___ _ I J' \ \ \@:2" \~. _ ._" I ; (/' 4. I ., \, " :-'''' ".: .Jt<<,> ,~, // ,/- ,,-- ':- "- //..... ~ -" c,t -~~ · .'.- "'" ~ 7' "j," ~,~p
; ~ - ) , ' -- .. ",' ,." ' ",,' . -"
~/ ",. _, _ N / l \ I i (~"\. '-. 1\ "\"" _ _/ . ,/ \ /,..,:-,.; -' ,,' <?' ,,,,,, "/ . ""......., ,- '- - ". 1 '\~; - --- ~~-. ,- ,. 64
_ . -1\ I 'I If ~ '\ _ r \ ' - -- I ,/?",'-<' ,""- "" ";.0 ~,," - ."" ~"'>' ".,. '
'$' , I " I ' " . r'~.. "" .,' .' \ ,\, ^ -- , . " ' ' '\ j ~-- - ~...~ ,...
. "..1' ~"' \ ' ' ,,' ." J . . j, 'I. ~ \ \ \ \ \ Ii \ -." ~__J \ =-- 'E?"':% :r ~
~ __ ' . _~ 'I." ~ ~,' \, ,t. '. ' I 1,' l 1 '" . '" j:;J; ,;~. '\ ... \f' :' ~ ," \ ': ~\ ' ",,' " · , - - t - ,':' --- ~":- ~ -::" :-- - -"
7 _;y= ~'-I. I '~( '. \, i i.. \..~,). 1. ~\ '. . .' ~ .r1;/,' I ' \ ~\l'.\ ,\ 11' \ ~\" .1 l -."~" -..... "h} L ,'+" ,\ --
I _J 'j '\. ..... ' \ I _ \.. i - 'J 'Ii, I 1'\' \ \ \ 1 I .'. 'a ,,7 .' I /
, " __ _,. F/ ,/ , .. ., ,
,_ --' ' ~ ~ ,\, \..." '''',,/'' _ ,_.../ ...,., ,.'" \" ' ~\ "',"1 . 'I,' .. ~ .-'w I ..-, /-
.. .. ~ i " ,., ___ ., ' / ~. \ , - · r. I ,"
_ ~ ( :2- 0 ~ \ \ '- i \ \!:: z('fJ . ::.:. - - ~_ -:--. .- , ,- ~ 1.1' ~ ' '1-" '" \ ~\'J \ .. iD. . ... \: I'. ;' i' ~,I ' · ,l~ '
. I ' f'::,.. ~ _ _ ",'. r' ," '-. '- ,,' ' ,," " · ' " · '
_' -\ ~.. _ ", ' <<""-' =-, ... V ,. .? ' ' ' ." , " .,' · ·
__Jj; / ~ \ ~/~"'~" , . ""'L..~,~, '''_,..:-/ ",. .. .. \ ,,' ,\ i I' i , - ,. -' -. l-
, ~' I 0 i"",,' //. // " r/"" i) I'-"Q'/......-~ ! r "," ~ ' , , "\ \ \ " - ~ "- . '
,( ,-' '" /' ," .. . '" , F ,,' , '
~ ~ I I_I t\ .,~ / l- . ' "(, ,/9 I., '/;, ~;; >o'''~~~, ;:"'- >;;:-~ c .. '" -t--S\ \,'\\',\\' \ \\\ '':'' , I'. ,l" :-', ',~----:'
! ' _ ',.. :- ....... '\ I 0 :, .. . ,j,' A ;;. _ " ,,_ _, .. "" ' _, " ' q \ ll. \ \~\\ ", ' '\ ~ ~"" ' i ' ' , , , 0 "
, . ")/7f....f o"'f/, , 1'\ ,~ ~ .. ' / \ll CSl\ ,,~\, \ \' ",: ' I"
; \ ~.' ~ \-...~o\ Id~\VV '--... ~ ~ ~ r@~': ;' 911 ~~~r\\ i 'l ..c'-~~~' iCSl'b,\~~"\\~~\~~\'<\\\>~\~ '\..~ " \ """, \ wi V i',~".1< . ·
'\ ( ..::.. ~-J! iY-: ~~~ '#' . "ff/', '0,:, ,,'I'I, /r \ \ '''U'- . ~E....__ 1l> 'l- ,,\'\ \., \ " 'S.,~,N , \' , -' ' I
o _~" -,' ' , / r ,~,.," \' " , ~ , " ... -' ' , '
,~ ". \ (jf~! , ""~ f\t ~ _;II ~ /', '\ ~ l 4, :J ~ :::: p:l ~, '~\("\ ,Z%' \ ,:\, \\"U~'~ ' ,\. : ' · f '
?1< \ _ v. 'I> ""h "". C ' ~ ~, ,,' \: ..... - '" ' ,\ "",*' " .\ \\" ,',~, I i \ ' /' · r \ I I L-./
, ' ' ' 7 It; , //:' , / f' l ~ ..... ~\ll' 'tl1 ,'- _010 - , -" \ \ \is"' \ ,'-\ ' 1,\\\, ,'.,' , ' ' -- -" ,r "...."~
==::0 .. '.' ,\?,..."l' 'i//, /, " /, ~ I 0 ~ CSl\ <'>' "\ \ . ~lV ,~'\,~~~ ,\ ,i -.,' ,,; ~ i ,',' i t- -=--
~ ~;:.---, 0 ___ 'L:fOf.... /',1,' ''''",'' 4- ~ III \ 0 "'~ p" ' - - - "-' ,,\ ~ ,\ ,\\ ~ ' x~ \ ' '~ , ' ,-"" ' , · , ,
. "/ ~. _ \-. l, r " / \ to\ ... ' " - ""~~ ' \ ."" ." """" , r" - - .......~- """ "
~ "-"" _ /". i ~~~ -- ".f' I.' / J /1 -!.. ~, \ - '. \ J' - \ \,*" \,~' ;;'~~~Y ", <:-- ,,; :{;:" /",/- "~: ,-~-~~~ .
~F~-1..Ai\ '" ~~ 'Y ijffJ "S" \( \ .\\ ' , '\~\' \ ,~\\'~ ~.,~;,~\\ '. ":':,.......,.. -' i, "., //--
,;;:;,,;:~err;:;2:7-fc.,~r-...~..!...:.- ,\,\,,'!yl i /.'/~0 \ I \ \ .... \ ,- --" /~-- \ \ \ ,~:, ., \ \~,~ \~\ ~,\ - ~ 1 - "...,,~ \ ,. - '
/ ,,\; " ""-' ~ {f. · - ~ ......... I \ ' ' ' \ - ,,,. \ '\ \,\ ", . ..... 1
[/' :-- ,,,"\ .~~ .1iC~~~Q r "// I~ I - - -. '," \.- ,-,' \ · ,,' ~ ".. ~";"\"\ " ' '
. ~ - ~ ' - ~.... \ /', \., \' , ,:,' ". "
Ii;! r/l'l"/ ( \ ,- ;f r:@\ - ~-- - ~.......," \ V - '- \/ \ \. \' \ \ :-. '\ - -.-'
I ' , --,.;' / \ - '.. ~' '- ," \ ' , \ '
, i .,' " ~...... -", 'Ii;....,' ~ " \- \.," ,:\,,\ \ \\ ':\ ~,\ '-, . ' --- ~d
] , . I'l ' <( .-. ---- - '~~" '" ' ,.... . , , \ " " " / / .....
iI' ~\ 1 . 1..' 2 _@_'-...,',."'----,l\/\ \ \'\'~\"~'\~\\i.\ '- /" - -...":-;-;>-,,-
"'. _), _ , ij ....... ' , '" X \ '\' \\, \ .\ " \\ I ' D / - ~'
" i (/; i...-c: ~ ~~ ~( "" ~..~~ r ........ ~1 oli' ~t~, -~-'.... .. , I \~\- \\~\~\\\ ~.~\~\.'~~ "i' c;j," ..t g' i ~ -(..::.~~
i {l V , ~ ~Vh I ff""'""'-J t. \ ~. ' ~" ' '- - . \ .. \' \ ~\~ '" \ .. .." , , ,,' ~
r;; / ! r''''' ~c\'~~.L .' , 1\ ~ , 7 '\ (L't?-.... ", X"~' "" -- ,,-- -' J \} ~\\;~~~\\ ~~\ ! , \,," '::, :/:d,' ~ ' : " . .....~\\
pi J,~~'f / f!:.-tr['rli P (V .)~ Y i--- I re- -', ,"\~ ,,~,~~ '- ,/ .........,.'\ \( ,~X\~~:,\\"~~:\~' - ,)~,/(jV .t~, i "1'
Ie ' ' t. "J ,./1 \ r-:/--'''- \.. · '-.. ~~--- -, f - - ".,', ~ ,,-- -, / \ 'N'l\~'\ \~ ,"\\ I.' I '-I~~-
" '.-:. ~ ' "j'/: 1.--""'. ~ ' _ ' " .........,./" / ,.' ." \" \, ,'" " " of' '
"" ~." . . ' . _ ,\\...' _ . . ~ ' \. '\ \' , \-l \' \',' I " ."., I ' · ·
'2~ ,,{If ~~ ~,\ \' I(\r~ ;-- - -+' L .:. '-------_--/'ej 7~ 'Zi I.. -.." " - '-'-''5' ~ ,..' /'- --" . \ ~ '. "\-.~\:x.'" \\< l\. '" :'~'!'" , " ,~<
w,1SJ '\ 1~~ ~ Z I } , /, -to rJl_, '. -t :-. ~ ',,, \'" ......' /',... / \ I , ~~\ ' , ,\, ~" ,",'t 'I, ", , , '-.' '\
/_._ "f ii', "",1 5 " 1/ ,''E . ." ~,,,,,' ~>>..' ,../ ~' ~\ ~ .. \,~\\, ;,\ ,,~'\ "'ll'- l \' ,,-', ·
:r .~ 1! tr f1. -:"" - -- "e ..... 0 . ~' ..' ~ ~ ~.."./ ''', I \ \, .. " " , II,' .. ·
Ii :11! V ~ ~ 1/-1 / . /~ / f+ ~ - ~ --~-~ ~ . ~ .. _.. ~- '<l~ l' i,.... r/ \" ,- ~\>' \. \ '.' '\ 1,,1,', \ .....' ~. I ~ )-:s
r" . ,~ - --" 1 -" - "CD I " ... '.., ".. i - ,,~,' \ \ ' ,\ 1\ \" '''' ' ,,\ ' .... r' · -- L
, I ' . : ' - ' ' I,!:; '\ -: ~ ><" " ' , ' , \" ' \ '.,' ., \ " '- " -- '
; ", F.' ~ ,.... ;--..' / T"/-...L-= ~ __ _ ___ _7 / i' \ ': "l!' ,)":;~ "'-... ',- ,)0( :-." ,- ...."" ' \ '''.\'') l' ' C '/ i.
. ;;- ~~ 1 _ -I; , , "a ' ../ ...../ ~ j _ ...- ~~\ I ..-- _ ' _ - ' .:.- 'r~ Vtl -- -. - q ',i" \ !./ ,0> 0 ~,\ '- ,,~. \' ''\ \ ~ ~ i ,\ \\ / I J / .
__ _ _~ ~.... . ,'--'-"'~ IT~ '. "I 1..../ 1/ r" \ .." Jf~ " J..,., " \ 1(0 ~, III ~ ~. " '0\ ..' ' /
I f IV~ I~ "I _ '~, 17 r---:'" (....;:- - . - -' -' , ........"7~ ( · \.. ""-.....<. 't' r " 4,;" , '":J .~ ~'\ ,,'., \~ · ", ,,sJ \' ,', ,
2 ~ I /1 ~ ~ , ~ i ~ ) _____~ -- · I ~ r '- ....... - O:..~ ~\. ~ -~ ,.. ''It . ~ ",\. '~\ ~" ~\ \
, I. ,t ~ .. ,- ' .~ ,,,'" , .
OJ I.........'. - -" ."- ' .,......, ~ ,,-' ..'..,'
::7"'1 _ .:7':....' . . __~ ., ".. --:.: '\ . ( / I' , - - .........\~ 't"l J ,t ' ~ - ,~', ~ ~ \\, ~,\ \:"\~-~\-:\. ~.;--- -"" ,
. : :.,,/_~_ .r---11-. _ L7r'" _ --"I .,,~,~ /''' i ~ T \ \ [ /\ i, i ' ''IJ " · ~ ~ ! (, ~~I\ \\ \'\' \\\' ',\ ~ @ --
I 1-. 1 I \ ,/ r ~ . _ "-l-- - - \ l' I' """...--v) \' ,,;'l;' .. \ " ", \' ,~, '
lA' .I""" ~ \! ~ \ \ ~ f { (v"'" ....,......, ~ '\ . \ \.. I \ \ \& \" \ . \~'\.
:.-' ,---' -- - ' ' ' -.....:' " , ' - ," . " .., ~
. rt ' nil...... ~ ~ " .... /'-.... =, ~ \ I,' i ; -- - ~ /; / \1 i >> ' I -0-' '; ~ ",: , r:::::/1 jl ,1. '-. \.:...." \ '~
I \ ' ,,"- i' '-./ ~i -......; 'V \ (' ( · \. \ ~ ~. CD .,,' ." -i" -... - ." ' ... "'.. '" ,~
,," r I ,,~~ r= '"",- &11 _ ;;" Ir--~ ,-.,' J VI ) CJ \ .': -,':' -.. ,-L. ~\. -\'- ~ \;..:.. ,.....~.' "
t 1 t...r l/.:-- I '(::,," <:::: i t. r--~---""""" J'/ V ' r,,;l:; e - l"> "X " ~. '-. ~~~, '!\
'~ :. . ,A. ~ 0, i ~" " {~llfl M "i _ , dJ It ( ?X r~,g ".. ,"::~-, ;,,~ \ i -' ,~\ \ <, \ < \
1& 1:" ""\ /' )1"')-.. . rn I" ~ I 71 \~ ....\~- , "
~ \ i I . '\ i _ . , v./ I. f'1 "'""' (';;, II 1 \ ('I) E ' "" \-! --""ii: r ~""'3"'-" ~ , "~"~\~ ~,,"
_, .. ,f ~ 1""'/ f '>,J ::> I 0 if.' ,- tS~' ~ I S IOO~ I ~..
~ ---4- . _ xn f\ 1 I" ,)" i i' ",! =5.01 II (/ :t I :;: -= \ \,',' "0 ,," '0 7' ;, ) ". ~
L i --!' ...-.. ~ / \ l:) " J lfJ I \." , ,,,'.,, / If" ~'
,. _.J C--" 1 _ r':l I ti \ ,~ '\ \ ~ ",', ~ \" '..I-~ 11' 1 i \J ;:: i, / I J' ~'<' ,,....::L~..;.;__~-~~ ~
~ r J>- .............. ~ "- ' , ...... 1"1, ,; 1 -.:: <> -, "\ ~'" as )l"U\<l'ltl ,
_ I I I~ VS i ..;)' \:? ~ i ~~ · ~ ~ i'" "\ i - l -f {) JL! 95 L ~.!_-i--~. -11(C r - -" ,~C' ~~~:., - '~~ '\ '-~~~
._, .....-1.., ", \....,/',.. i 1 i iJ 1 ~:::s I ~h .. - . ll( ~", . \ ) J" J 1"\ r \ 1! r--:-.
L .' ,,, -J _, 1 ,~' .) i ' L) i9l C:l r- "" --u I .., :_~..~~ -\. j t~ oc;g:;1n, Flr-1 pgoc1DO'l ~
, ::c:- --< ,J' _ . _ ~ ; I;V , I J ~ ~" L I } ~ - = JID.lJt(PPO
, =-', __ .::J" -'-- r' ,~r-' _ IJ (. ,!:: ... ~. "'I ' ,I ., {,;;;aC' ' Iu;. ,
. If.. . r It _ ", T _ ~. ;0 _ " ""-.:-; . _ S -"""""1 \.\b-~; - --- -=- ' CD '. : ''f. ---,I 1L Cj 'U bJ
,l \ I' ~ . l- _ _ ~ . ' .---'----" - -. 0 > r. , I '-'>:.-::~, '....r- I .J,
'" ') 1 0 . 1. , ... ~ -=-~ 7-!" ~...,' _;2J I' E \ l' > ",. ',I
I:j'.. i {] !fm.1~ I. ~'::!l'N\[L, ~'\ ~17l-.rrY~'i~ ~J.o, r,IE ?.:~t..".....e_l\ fA ,i/f~~<~ll!j
" I ...... ~ 1 . . =tJ 1 fl0t.-i I ) t:_A\., / i "_' r I_~~ \ · -t.. - =-t:.:::- ~~ I;" / ,;.A:. - '1/0 -:;:t-..
, . > J ! . t...: ~ _ '" r-t."--"'" _ ~ ,t!L: J "]1' · ~ ~.,...'- _I I ~....,'I '" I '::Iti ~ I'.! u:..- ~'l
. ~ _J..'/'i ~ ~ .,<~= JU .I~f" . '- r; _. ." r-r rr ~ [1 ~ it' III 1 ~ iL Jrr'. 11._.....; I-- ~ oM,,^ ~-.l · -,,~, ""'. 1. i1t '" t !.. > ~\ ~. , ,:.. t ~ '. .1- - ,.';' ..7)1....
,,' "" ... 7//:'4(' " " u"-,:,, _ ~ :.., ? F "i'. . ~- · ~ ....-<" -" -~\ " ~ :- I '.":- """,,~I '. ;'),! ri Ill.
,.-. . 1. ' .......,.7 ""...."'/flT' HT~'" ~ X ( ,~~ Lf ~ 'j: IJ IT l~ !j~ 0 JA-. "'(- . -~_. I ~ ~ ~J '~}i tl f=\.lJ r-!;L ~ ". .~~~.,_~:i!..~.j . It!
. , " " , ...,... . .' .,., .'f/ ~\ '-.... ,. I r;;r-" u. .;; -![ J .c:..'\'. . J ~~.~~-, --r- -~ I ~ ijU '-D-':"~" i " ~ I -........ --, .~;'ij!..) JI' '~{
':~,'~. ~. '.~,t. ~:,' .";1' ;.., -'-~l ~.' ' , .' ",,"', \.. r ~ ra"; I.L '-=-<. ..-~'-I".~/- ~)\ \ti 1~ ~/;?:i1.. ~' u- \(.,,,-,~f ll~~'~ '. -,I- ~ ---:: b ~-,J..J.: r"-~i -~:)L"~ _'Vf'~&;-.." ~ J'I/. i
. " ' , , . ' ," " ,,"'f:J l' !\.. U--,=, '- , '--\ ~.u() "."'J'., ~.~ ~.~ I .
. . , " ." , , ' '. ' . " .. " ., ,'I. ," l' , ,- n ~ ,..~ _-f ,- 5. - ./ r '- I ..{: Ii,. ~''''''''' -. -
__ _ . " .r 1 'j ;f'r.c-FJ" _" ..~";, ' ' '~ ,. .....J ~II' CJ- \ . t ..."'-~~ '
_ \~ 1 ~ - H.~' - ,I I "II I ~ ~
. ' , ,,' "\' . I " II ." .",
.. - ' . " "q, ,-
_. ,,., ,,' ,"1-\'
. ' , , "
- -
. -