Loading...
Ordinance 077-14RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton legal Blank, Inc. 77 -14 Ordinance No. Form No.30043 Passed _ 20 REZONING 23 PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 66.97 ACRES FROM BSC OFFICE RESIDENTIAL, BSC RESIDENTIAL, AND BSC COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO BSD SCIOTO RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND BSC PUBLIC DISTRICT. (CASE 14 -04OZ) NO THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring, that: Secti 1. The following described real estate (parcel numbers and portions of parcels as depicted on Exhibit A, Zoning Exhibit) 273 - 008242, 273 - 008244, 273- 008264, 273 - 008831,273- 008832,273- 008834, 273 - 008838,273- 008856, 273- 008857, 273 - 008858,273- 008859,273- 008867, 273- 008868,273- 008994,273- 008998, 273 - 009101, 273 - 009155, 273 - 011148, 273 - 012429, 273 - 012430 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSD -SRN, BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . The following described real estate (parcel numbers and portions of parcels as depicted on Exhibit A, Zoning Exhibit) 273 - 008245, 273 - 008802, 273- 012427 situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned BSC -P, BSC Public District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 3. The application includes the list of affected property owners, the rezoning map and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and all are incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed b law. Passed this �J , day of 2014. J ayor - Presiding cer ATTEST: Clerk of Council Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager "W� Date: August 7, 2014 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 77 -14 — Rezoning 23 parcels totaling approximately 66.97 acres from BSC Office Residential, BSC Residential, and BSC Commercial Districts to BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District and BSC Public District. (Case 14 -040Z) Background This area rezoning is intended to align the zoning designations for properties in the Scioto River Corridor portion of the Bridge Street District and to be consistent with the direction articulated in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report as incorporated into the Dublin Community Plan (Bridge Street District Plan). The City of Dublin is sponsoring this application as an area rezoning of 23 parcels (and portions of parcels) to the new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District (Ord. 77 -14 /Case 14- 039ADMC) and BSC Public District for the City -owned riverfront park land. The future riverfront park land is recommended as BSC Public District, which is an existing zoning district that applies to other public uses throughout the BSD, including the Dublin Schools property, the cemetery, Sycamore Ridge Park, and the AEP substation on Banker Drive. The new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District will be applied to land generally along the east side of the relocated Riverside Drive, including the existing Bridge Pointe shopping center, the former Wendy's restaurant site at the southeast corner of the Riverside /SR 161 intersection, properties along Dale Drive, the former driving range and Digger and Finch restaurant site, and land along the north side of the future John Shields Parkway. The Commission requested that the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District be placed on the two existing car dealerships at the intersection of Dale Drive and SR 161, as well as a parcel with an existing daycare center on the east side of Dale Drive. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Summary At the May 29, 2014 ART meeting, approval of the proposed Zoning Map amendment (area rezoning) was recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their meeting on June 5, 2014. In the ART's recommendation to the Commission, the existing Acura and Cadillac dealerships at the northwest and southwest corners of Dale Drive and SR 161 were to remain BSC Commercial District until the property owner chose to redevelop the land. Should the land redevelop, it would be eligible to be rezoned to either the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District or BSD Office (consistent with the office emphasis envisioned for this portion of the Bridge Street District in the "character districts" outlined in the Vision Plan). Memo re. Ord. 77 -14 Bridge Street District Scioto River Neighborhood Area Rezoning August 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 At their meeting on June 5 the Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the two car dealerships and the existing daycare center be included in the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District rezoning to ensure that the same development character is established on both sides of Dale Drive, leading up to Riverside Drive. Following these amendments, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council for the proposed Zoning Map amendment (area rezoning) at their meeting on July 10, 2014. Public Comment A representative of the car dealerships attended the July 1& Commission meeting and requested to be excluded from the proposed rezoning and remain zoned BSC Commercial District. The representative expressed concern that, under the current zoning, vehicular uses (specifically Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Repaii) are conditional uses, while under the proposed zoning, the use is no longer permitted. The Commission verified that the Existing Uses provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.059 allow the existing car dealerships to remain as conforming uses, and are furthermore permitted to change car dealerships, make modifications to existing structures on the sites, and expand their existing uses consistent with the Existing Uses and Existing Structures provisions of 153.062 unless or until the dealerships remove or abandon the use. Recommendation The proposed Zoning Code and subsequent Zoning Map amendments bring the Scioto River Corridor area into alignment with other similar areas of the BSD and the general recommendations outlined in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The amendments are a prerequisite for any proposed redevelopment in the Scioto River Corridor of a significant scale to move forward. Further, the proposed amendments are consistent with the City's policy of establishing as much clarity and predictability for developers as possible of the City's plans and expectations for the Bridge Street District. Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 77 -14 at the second reading /public hearing on August 25, 2014 Lme T•bk �'�• airrclbn lrrgla umMr u nsse',aw ss.00• ZONING EXHIBIT QUARTER TOWNSHIPS 2 AND 3, TOWNSHIP 2, RANGE 19 UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, STATE OF OHIO I I g3 1 } immomo�w I d I �n., rx ;� I I I iuwm, } `. I IR I (o, as =' 4 e I I oy � r�tray L�$ ° a`, r mir » � °t I I ,iuu caenar ue .x rn-m »n I I I .ai g r n ou»w oo �w,r»t I I Am} I I I I 1 I I 1 I L 1 I l ar `w� 1 1 1 1 1 1 �v�io »tit 1 I� 1 � 1 1 1 o.a w r. • I� 1 .o, niow x a Yy Lme T•bk �'�• airrclbn lrrgla umMr u nsse',aw ss.00• MAN n n n n n a O O n O H ER 3 W m =m a co a w m d N a n 0 �aaa�o IM 0) U) w w H o o o o O o w d fIi !%i N N n c X n Z y. m m m a co CD o z y (D 0 s CL o a T n v O c N A a CD m o0 CL o N o n � N O 7 7 tG v a, O o � o y O ° o o A O N N O T 00 (D >� F - , - 00 ch �f I / TT � � fill fll , o Y/ A� P"F �• O O A ip t� C � 031 W CL up Q U) ID v G rt Q A v 7- ,,� -� m n n n n n Q ' I c O m O n A F F 3 N x o m m C d m am d N a m 7 b ° : O W a 3t 0 I� m s n n n n n Ct n a U) , a 0 o m v 0 m YSf(Yif Q a o�7 rF 3 .0 g to g o , bi G C GA G n CL 0� N CL o MONTEiR Y _ m n �• cr .mo a 7 i . a g i m � i CAN Ru N � � 90 1 C sl cE cR lb a fD i x I I S m a (A I f M A C m 1p o c S_J _d I 'LL - s �/ Z SAW * Invictus Land Holding LLC *Central Ohio Transit Authority *Joseph Realty LLC 3248 W Henderson Rd 1600 McKinley Ave 250 E 5` St, STE 285 Columbus, OH 43220 Columbus, OH 43222 Cincinnati, OH 45202 *Larry Brueshaber *Dale Holding of Cols LLC * Enchanted Care Learning Center Elizabeth C. Connelly Attn: Lori *Tuller Henderson LLC CASE # 14 -040Z 6707 Sawmill Rd 1605 NW Professional PLZ West Chester, OH 45069 Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43220 *Tim Hortons *Jen -Josh LLC *Peace Hanson LLC 6490 Riverside Drive 10208 Wellington Blvd 8077 Crossgate Ct S Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 Dublin, OH 43017 *BPACQ LLC *Dublin Imaging & Sports Meds *FHTT LLC 555 Metro PI N, Ste 600 1695 Old Henderson Rd 42 Woodcroft Dr Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43220 Beaver Creek, OH 45430 * Invictus Land Holding LLC *Central Ohio Transit Authority *Joseph Realty LLC 3248 W Henderson Rd 1600 McKinley Ave 250 E 5` St, STE 285 Columbus, OH 43220 Columbus, OH 43222 Cincinnati, OH 45202 *Larry Brueshaber * Store Master Funding IV LLC * Enchanted Care Learning Center Elizabeth C. Connelly 8501 E Princess Drive #190 4370 Dale Drive 7454 Lake Park Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Dublin, OH 43017 West Chester, OH 45069 *Tim Hortons *Dublin Imaging & Sports Med 6490 Riverside Drive 4351 Dale Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Wendy's International, Inc. 1 Dave Thomas Boulevard Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Corporate Resident Peace Hanson LLC Invictus Land Holding LLC 6570 Riverside Drive 8077 Crossgate Ct 1605 NW Professional PLZ Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43220 FHTT LLC Dublin Corporate Resident Dublin Corporate Resident 42 Woodcroft Dr 6500 Riverside Drive 6504 Riverside Drive Beaver Creek, OH 45430 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Dublin Resident G &I VI Sycamore Ridge LLC 6530 Riverside Drive 6514 Riverside Drive 220 E 42' Street Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 New York, NY 10017 Dublin Resident City of Dublin Store Master Funding N LLC 4393 Tuller Road 6496 Riverside Drive 8501 E Princess Dr #190 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Dublin Resident 4340 W. Dublin - Granville Rd Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 4555 W. Dublin - Granville Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6700 Sycamore Ridge Blvd Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 4450 Dale Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 6570 Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident 4333 Tuller Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Corporate Resident Dublin Resident 4353 Tuller Road 4450 Dale Drive City of Dublin 6694 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017 I ci of Dublin Land Use and Long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 RECORD OF ACTION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohiousa.gov JULY 10, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Zoning Map Amendment — Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Scioto River Neighborhood District 14 -04OZ Zoning Map Amendment Proposal: An area rezoning of 23 parcels (approximately 66.96 acres) for the BSD Amy Kramb Scioto River Neighborhood District and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge John Hardt Street District. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed zoning Victoria Newell map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 Amy Salay and 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner II & Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, rray @dublin.oh.us or chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: John Hardt moved, Amy Kramb seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for this request for a Zoning Map Amendment (area rezoning) of 23 parcels (approx. 66.97 acres) to the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: The Zoning Map Amendment was recommended for approval to City Council. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION Rachel S. Ray, AICP Planner II Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 1. Zoning Code Amendment - Bridge Street District Scioto River Neighborhood District 14- 039ADMC Zoning Code Amendment and 2. Zoning Map Amendment /Area Rezoning - Bridge Street District 14 -04OZ Scioto River Neighborhood District Zoning Map Amendment Chris Amorose Groomes said the following two cases were previously tabled and will be heard together but will require separate actions. She said the following applications are requests for review and recommendation to City Council for modifications to the Zoning Code to establish a new Bridge Street District zoning district and related Code amendments for the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District and for an area rezoning of 23 parcels for the BSD Scioto River Neighbortrood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. Rachel Ray said this case was tabled at the June 5"' Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She said Planning has modified the name of the district from ^BSO Riverside Neighborhood District" to the "BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District" in response to the Commission's comments from the last. review. Ms. Ray said the majority of the Zoning Code amendments, involve the Neighborhood Standards, which includes the new standards for the Scioto .River Neighborhood, In addition to related Code amendments to some of the other main sections of the Bridge Street District zoning regulations. Ms. Ray said the text follows the same general format and outline as the other neighborhood districts. She explained the history for the creation of the neighborhood -districts, and noted that the components had been drafted in coordination witI,1 the developers and landowners who were working on plans for the Indian Run and Sawmill Center neig„I rhood districts at the time. She said the general locations for the shopping corridors, street network fr mework, Open space network, and other elements that the developers were contemplating had been incorporated Into the draft regulations and the associated graphics. Ms. Ray referred to the updated Riverside Neighborhood District graphic and noted the updates, including an arrow at the east end of the shopping corridor for a mixed use activity node, a designation on the graphic indicating limited vehicular access adjacent to the roundabout at the intersection of Riverside Drive and State Route 161, and modifications to the boundaries of this district consistent with the modifications to the zoning map. Ms. Ray said the modification to the proposed zoning text included the District Scope and Intent to emphasize the importance of a balance of land uses, in addition to a modification to the use table to require conditional use review for transit stations and conference centers. She said the Law Director's office requested that the reference of the "Group Residences" be eliminated from the use table entirely. She said the most significant modification is related to the Building Types. She stated that at the June 5 0 ' meeting, the Commission requested the elimination of wood and fiber cement siding as a permitted primary material and also to reduce the maximum permitted height for corridor buildings from 7.5 down to 5.5 stories in all Bridge Street District zoning districts. She said they have received three letters from potential developers in the Bridge Street District with some concerns about those two provisions, along with the fact that drive- through uses are prohibited other than for banks in certain BSD zoning districts. She said that the letters had been provided to the Commission prior to the meeting. Ms. Ray referred to the building types requirements related to permitted primary facade materials. She explained that the Code requires permitted primary materials to be used on a minimum of 80 percent of each facade, and that can be through a combination of any of the permitted primary materials which include stone, cultured stone, brick, glass, wood, and fiber cement siding, as well as other high quality Dublin Planning and Zoning commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 durable, natural materials. She said wood and fiber cement siding are only permitted to be used as primary building materials mainly for the more residential -scale building types or those used in the Historic District. She said the reason for listing the range of permitted primary building materials has to do with the diversity requirements in the Code and the intent to maintain an interesting mix of building types and building characters. She said fiber cement siding could provide an interesting mix of colors, textures, with a variety of applications such as flat or vertical panels or lap siding. Ms. Ray said the reduction in the permitted building height from a maximum of 7.5 stories down to 5.5 stories is inconsistent with the objectives for the Bridge Street District. She said the mixes of land use, the building height, and massing are the most significant elements that contribute to the diversity of building types and development character throughout the Bridge Street District. She said when the regulations were initially drafted it was acknowledged that height limitations are appropriate around the Historic District as the development transitions in scale farther south to the residential neighborhoods south of the Bridge Street District, but in some areas around 1 -tor closet to Sawmill Road there are opportunities to be taken advantage of for some higher building heights. She said the building heights are important to establish the density of employment as well as residential development to support the commercial uses that are anticipated throughout the Bridge Street District. Ms. Ray summarized the recommendation of approval to City Council for this request for an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a new Bridge Street District and related Code Amendments for the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District, maintaining the existing maximum corridor building height provisions of the Zoning Code as well as eliminating the group residences use from Table 153.059A and related use specific standards. Ms. Ray said the Zoning Map amendment showed the areas Included In the area rezoning that recognizes the future right -of -way for tare relocated Riverside [ffive nd the roundabout. She said they are recommending that the four paredl5 totaling 11 acres on the west side of the relocated Riverside Drive be rezoned to the Bridge Street Corridor Public District, which is consistent with the zoning for other public spaces within the Bridge Street District. She said the new Scioto River Neighborhood District land consists of the land on the east side of the relocated Riverside .Drive including the existing Bridge Pointe shopping center, the former driving range, and the area north of the John Shields Parkway. She said a modification since the June 5"' meeting Included three other parcels that include two existing car dealerships and a daycare facility, based on the Gommission's desire to see consistent zoning for land on both sides of Dale Drive. Ms. Ray stated that approval to City C until is recommended for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment for the 23 parcels. David Brown, Stockamp Brown, Attorneys at Law, representing Acura of Columbus, said two years ago they went through the process with the current businesses along SR161 including the Acura Dealership. He said at that tlrne, the land was proposed to be zoned BSC Office, and with the support of the dealership, the zoning . as changed to BSC Commercial. He said the dealership would like to remain BSC Commercial because the investment they have made in the property to remain a commercial parcel. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if, with this rezoning, the dealership could continue to operate the business that they have until whatever time they decided to no longer operate that business. Jennifer Readier said there were extensive discussions on this at the time of the original rezoning, and as a result, a significant effort was made to draft provisions that would allow the existing businesses protections to expand, improve, and continue their businesses. She said the main difference between the BSC Commercial designation and the proposed zoning district is that Vehicle Sa les, Rental and Repair is currently a conditional use, which would be eliminated with the proposed rezoning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that regardless of the proposed rezoning, that the car dealerships would be able to continue to do business. Ms. Readier said they are protected under the Existing Uses provisions. She explained that if they abandoned the use, they would still have the opportunity to come forward with a conditional use request with the existing zoning. She said under the new district, if they abandoned the use under the definition of "abandonment," they would not be able to come back with any vehicle - related use on the parcel. Ms. Ray said the abandonment provisions are extensive and would require the business to abandon the use for over a year, including turning off utilities, taking down signs, etc. She said they are considered a conforming use. She stated that the title "BSC Commercial District" [a a misnomer because the "BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District" is also a commercial zoning designation. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the Acura Dealership understood the rights they enjoy related to the changes. Mr. Brown said they understand that continued use of that property will never cha a unless they discontinue the use, but they are concerned that the highest and best.use for that prop¢ may always be a retail automotive dealership, and preferred that If they do deride to discontinue the , they could still revert back to that use if another dealership would like to be situated there. He said with the new zoning, once the use was abandoned, they would no longer have the opportunity to entertain the business of a vehicular retail sales, leasing, rental, or service facility,. Ms. Ray said the overall range of vehicular uses is minimized and Is not the desired direction moving forward for this area. Mr. Langworthy said the only disadvantage from the :dealership's point of view, is if they wanted to expand beyond the allowance of the Existing Strvcture provisions; however, they could come in for a conditional use to verify the use and allow the use to expand beyond the limits of the allowed 50 percent. Amy Kramb said the new zoning opens up the possibilities to even more building types than the existing zoning, which would make the land more vaY"'able. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone else wanted to speak with respect to this application. [Hearing none.] Ms. Kramb referred to the Zoning Code amendment related to permitted primary materials, and said she is okay with wood siding being a permitted material for building types. She said that although she is concerned with the overall height of buildings, she is not necessarily concerned with the overall number of stories of buildings. Mr. Taylor referred to the Code modifications related to the corridor building height, and said if they are going to not do what was discussed on June 5"', then they should default back to the Code as written and leave it alone, which will solve the problems because it allows the additional 2 stories under certain circumstances. Mr. Hardt asked Mr. Yoder if that would address his concern for his project. Mr. Yoder said allowing six -story buildings would accommodate what is needed throughout the Scioto River Neighborhood District. Mr. Hardt said it was his intention not to allow taller buildings for the entire Bridge Street District area without first seeing the buildings, but it was also not his intention to lower the allowable height of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 4of7 buildings from what Code currently allows. He said he agreed with Mr. Yoder's earlier statement that a half story does not make any sense for buildings in this District. He said he would support changing the permitted story height to six stories for corridor buildings. Ms. Newell said there is no perceived difference from a five story to a seven story building when you're a pedestrian standing next to one. She said she would be supportive of six story buildings. She said she has seen buildings that are eight stories and is comfortable with them in business settings. Ms. Kramb noted that since building height is based on number of stories, she asked how that would translate to maximum height in feet. Ms. Ray said the maximum ground floor height for corridor buildings Is 16 feet, with a maximum upper story height of 14 feet. Ms. Newell said those are appropriate floor heights and suggested that the Code stay the way it was written. Mr. Taylor said he wants developers to have the ability to have -taller buildings, but he wants the Commission to be able to decide when they are too tall with the ability to negotiate where appropriate. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that Waiver requests are encouraged and welcomed when appropriate. She said the Commission does not pretend to have written the perfect Code, and she encouraged developers to come forward with their greatest ideas to achieve their goals for the Bridge Street District, regardless of whether Waivers are required for the architecture. Mr. Hardt said he would advocate for six stories acraz the board for the corridor buildings within neighborhood districts. Mr. Hardt asked if the hotel proposed is gofngtto be six stories. Mr. Yoder said it would be four stories over a ground floor, with a rooftop amenity which may be considered as a story, so that would snake it six stories. Ve said they have a hard time working around a half story when implementing contemporary building d1ons. Mr. Hardt said he agrees that the half stories do not make any sense and suggested leaving the text the way it is Written but changing the numerals to "6" and "7," respectively. Mr. Taylor agreed that the text should remain the same and if the developers want a taller building they should come, back for a Waiver. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was concerned about keeping the Neighborhood Districts as similar as possible, and the changes made in this district would have a direct impact on the other Neighborhood Districts. Mr. Hardt said that is why he is supportive of changing the height to six stories. Mr. Taylor said he had a few other comments on the proposed Zoning Code amendment. He referred to the General Intent Statement for the districts and said they should be the same throughout the Code. He said he wants to keep the "Principles of Walkable Urbanism" in the beginning of the Code so they stay subjective and overriding principals for the district and are not intermingled with actual regulations, so where referenced, the new "Section 153.065(I)" should be eliminated, removing the references to the Walkability Standards. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Mr. Taylor said referred to page 4 under (F), which states "predominant land uses are intended to be" and should say "predominant land uses include residential, office employment and supporting services commercial uses." Mr. Taylor said to eliminate the word "natural" from the "durable, natural materials" under the permitted materials section because he could not think of a material that is not natural that is inappropriate. Mr. Taylor said there was a reference in one of the letters received to not allow some of the fiber cement materials which would eliminate some of the panel options. He clarified tl"mmission's objection to fiber cement was related only to cementitious lap siding and he did not think there was any issue with large panels on the walls in some places where appropriate. Mr. Hardt agreed that they were presuming lap siding. He said fber cement materials were part of the primary permitted materials and thought the appropriate use of the materials is .tied directly to the scale and height of the building. Ms. Amorose Groomes said one of the letters talked about using different materials on higher levels of buildings because people wouldn't experience them in person at that h "ght. She said that is the reason why they should notbe used. She stated that a / /mater is should lac du ble and of high quality. Ms. Ray agreed that developers would be required to use a variety of materials, and they could not just have a building constructed entirely of fiber cement. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she thought they are gofrrg to have to go back to the Waiver option for materials because she was concerned that the proposed amendment Ise reaction to a specific developer and she is uncomfortable with writing Code language that would apply across the Bridge Street District for buildings a particular developer wants to build and the Commissicur hasn't yet seen. Mr. Hardt said he agrees that they are playing '*hat if" games, and that for every building that is proposed in this area the Commission will have an opportunity to review, under provisions in the Code that require a high level of architectural quality and variety. He said he thought the Code text should be left alone as it was originally when. Ms. Krarilb agreed. Ms. Ray summarized that the Commission decided to eliminate all proposed changes to Sections (E) and (I) under 153.062, Building Types. Ms. Kramb suggested the same thing for the height and not add anything new, specific or different about the height of cord buildings within the Scioto River District, allowing it to default to what it has been in all the other exishl, , strlcts. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the only issue is that they were weak in allowing as much fiber cement siding as they did, because they are giving away a tremendous amount of density in these areas and in return expect to have the highest quality architecture. Mr. Hardt agreed and said he is still comfortable with the Code language as approved two years ago. Mr. Yoder said the developers have been moving forward with the existing regulations and they will be submitting detailed building elevations for review and feedback. He said there are key things in the Code that give flexibility to keep the process moving and get the project in the ground when expected. He said he would like to lobby for the Commission's support on both of the proposals. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 Mr. Taylor said his concern was that this neighborhood district was being created for a project that was substantially designed and the Commission had not seen any details in eight months. He said his hesitation had to do with not knowing what was in this District that is in direct response to the designs of elements in this development. He said usually, we write Code and the developer responds to the Code, and it seems to be the other way around her. He said he believes they are all on the right track and is more comfortable knowing the proposed project will be their best efforts. He said it would help tremendously if they would communicate to the Commission through staff more often, knowing that the next steps will come through for review very quickly. He said he would have been more comfortable with this project had they been involved as it progressed instead of going from November to July with no communication. Ms. Amorose Groomes said no one on the Commission has any interest In slowing down the project, and reiterated that any applicant should not hesitate to bring forward Waiver requests. She said it is difficult writing Code text for a project that exists, yet has not been officially reviewed, Mr. Hardt said the neighborhood district unified the regulations across the project with a chunk of the site not allowing corridor buildings that are being proposed. He said he does not mind creating a new zoning district to make sure the right elements of the project are accommodated. Ms. Kramb said the draft Code language the Commission reviewed In June was almost identical to the existing neighborhood districts, and she felt the few changes were too developer - specific. She said those elements were struck from the text, having asked that they remain similar to the other districts. She said the current version has two major differences, Which are changes that the Commission requested. She said she feels that it should be restored to the original text and as it currently applies to other districts. Mr. Hardt said he agrees but recommends changing the 5.5 stories to 6. Ms. Kramb said she agrees with 6 stories, but Nought it should be included in the overall Code update, rather than with this Code amendment for the new zoning district. She said she was ok with the revised Zoning Map with the revisions that show consistent zoning on both sides of Dale Drive. Ms. Ray summa0ed the proposed ,changes associated with the Zoning Code amendment: maintaining the existing fnaximUrn corridor buffding height and returning to status quo; ensuring the consistency of the District Intent Statements between 153.058 and 153.063 ". correcting the references to the Principals of Walkable Urbanism; and eliminating the changes to 153.062 regarding materials and balconies. Mr. Hardt requested that a copy of the updated Code language be sent to the Commission, showing all of the final revisions. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any other comments. [There were none.] Motion and Vote Richard Taylor moved to recommend approval to City Council for the Zoning Code Amendment to establish a new Bridge Street District zoning district and related Code amendments for the BSD Scioto Riverside Neighborhood District; changing the maximum corridor building height to six stories and eliminating the exceptions in 153.062(0)(5); eliminating "Group Residences" from Table 153.059 -A and the associated Use Specific Standards; ensuring the consistency of the District Intent statements of 153.058 and 153.063 and addressing the references to the mix of land uses in 153.063(F)(1); removing the references to the Principles of Walkable Urbanism of 153.065(1); and eliminating the changes to 153.062(E) and (I). Mr. Hardt seconded. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.) Dublin Planning and Zoning commission July 10, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 7of7 Motion and Vote John Hardt moved to recommend approval to City Council for this request for a Zoning Map Amendment (area rezoning) of 23 parcels (approx. 66.97 acres) to the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. Ms. Kramb seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.) City of Dublin LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING Zoning Map Amendment 14 -040Z July 10, 2014 Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District -- Scioto River Neighborhood District This is a request for an area rezoning of 23 parcels (approx. 66.97 acres) for the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. This is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Date of Application Acceptance Monday, April 28, 2014 Date of ART Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, May 29, 2014 Case Managers Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner II (614) 410 -4656 1 rray @dublin.oh.us Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II (614) 410 -4675 1 chusak @dublin.oh.us Planning & Zoning Commission I Thursday, July 10, 2014 14 -04OZ — Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) — Bridge Street District — Scioto River Neighborhood District Page 2 of 6 PART I: APPLICATION OVERVIEW Review Type Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) Proposal Rezoning 20 parcels comprising an area of approximately 57.75 acres of land from BSC Office Residential, BSC Residential, and BSC Commercial Districts to BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts Parcels 273008242, 273008244, 273008245, 273008264, 273008802, 273008831, 273008832, 273008834, 273008838, 273008856, 273008857, 273008858, 273008867, 273008994, 273008998, 273009101, 273009155, 273012427, 273012429,273012430 Parcels recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be included in the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District. 273008859,273008868,273011148 Applicant Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin Case Managers Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner II ( (614) 410 -4656 1 rray @dublin.oh.us Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II ( (614) 410 -4675 1 chusak @dublin.oh.us Application Review Procedure: Area Rezoning — Zoning Map Amendment The Review and Approval Procedures and Criteria for the Bridge Street District state that the amendment procedures of Zoning Code Section 153.234 shall apply in the Bridge Street District zoning districts for Zoning Map and Zoning Text amendments. As part of the review process, the ART shall make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for their consideration. Zoning Code Section 153.232(B) grants the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to review amendments to the Zoning Map and to the Zoning Ordinance and make a recommendation of action to Council. The Commission should review the proposed amendment, provide input where necessary, and vote on the proposal. The draft Zoning Map amendment will be forwarded to City Council for final review and action. Application Contents and Overview Summary This area rezoning is intended to align the zoning designations for properties in the Scioto River Corridor portion of the Bridge Street District and to be consistent with the direction articulated in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report as incorporated into the Dublin Community Plan (Bridge Street District Plan). The City of Dublin is sponsoring this application to rezone 20 parcels (and portions of parcels) to the new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District (refer to the Planning Report for case 14- 039ADMC, Zoning Code Amendment, for additional information about the new zoning district) and BSC Public District for the City- owned riverfront park land. Background Between 2010 and 2012, the Bridge Street District planning and zoning efforts moved toward implementation, including the adoption of the Vision Plan and the subsequent adoption of zoning regulations and an area Planning & Zoning Commission I Thursday, July 10, 2014 14 -04OZ — Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) — Bridge Street District — Scioto River Neighborhood District Page 3 of 6 rezoning for Bridge Street District zoning districts. The parcels affected by this proposed area rezoning were placed into three different zoning districts: BSC Residential, BSCOfte Residential, and BSC Commercial. These zoning districts all permit a mix of uses, but each includes an emphasis on a specific character of uses indicated by the district name. These zoning districts were designed to reflect the "Character Districts" outlined in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report, particularly where certain areas take on more of a supporting role to allow a critical mass of highly mixed -use development to thrive in specific, targeted areas. The neighborhood zoning districts, on the other hand, allow a much wider range of uses with specific placemaking considerations guided by accompanying graphics (refer to "Scioto River Neighborhood District" below for more about the Neighborhood Districts). At the time of the 2011 -2012 Bridge Street District area rezoning, the land ownership in this area was divided, and each of the owners had differing concerns. Some were principally concerned about ensuring that the new zoning was as similar to the previous zoning (especially the Community Commercial District) as possible. Others wanted to ensure that approved projects were not affected. Scioto River Corridor Planning Efforts Clearly, circumstances have changed dramatically. Following the initial rezoning to the Bridge Street Districts in early 2012, a development entity (Crawford Hoying Development Partners) began assembling much of the land within the Scioto River Corridor. At the same time, the City acquired several strategic properties needed for public infrastructure improvements, putting the City in a much more advantageous position to unify the development of this area. The attention on this area advanced further in late 2012 when City staff was directed by City Council to focus its Bridge Street District planning efforts mainly on the Scioto River Corridor. As planning progressed in the river corridor, it was noted that unlike the property ownership pattern in place at the time of the original BSD code adoption and area rezoning, ownership circumstances would permit the creation of a more unified zoning plan to create the more intensely developed, mixed -use environment envisioned by the BSD zoning regulations, designed to be implemented through the neighborhood district standards. Certainly, given the size of the vacant property in this area and its transformational potential to open up the riverfront, it would have been advantageous to have established a more unified zoning in 2012. This would have been Staff's recommendation had the property owners been more interested in redeveloping the area in a more coordinated fashion. BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District The three existing Neighborhood Districts (BSC Sawmill Center Neighborhood, BSC Historic Transition Neighborhood, and BSC Indian Run Neighborhood) are intended to create signature places consistent with the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report and Dublin Community Plan (Bridge Street District Special Area Plan). The neighborhood districts are intended for areas with a greater mix of uses and the highest commercial and residential densities and as a result, require special attention to the location and character of buildings, streets, and open spaces to accommodate well defined districts with larger scale, coordinated development and redevelopment that accommodate a variety of uses. Planning & Zoning Commission I Thursday, July 10, 2014 14 -04OZ — Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) — Bridge Street District — SdotD River Neighborhood District Page 4 of 6 Creating the new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District allows the Bridge Street District zoning regulations to better fit the intent of the larger, unified development anticipated for the Scioto River Corridor area. The new zoning district allows a coordinated combination of regulations that apply across the previous three zoning districts, including the application of such provisions as the creation of a new "shopping corridor," new building type requirements, greater diversity of uses, a finer grain for lot and block requirements, comprehensive sign plans, coordinated open spaces, and parking requirements that maximize opportunities for shared parking. This approach also facilitates the review process by allowing these elements to be addressed more comprehensively and in a coordinated fashion through the single BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District, rather than three separate zoning districts with boundaries separated by parcels as they exist today. The neighborhood approach is consistent with that taken for the other neighborhood districts when they were first created where special conditions or preliminary development concepts helped inform certain elements of the zoning provisions (such as limitations or opportunities associated with the Indian Run, or proximity to Sawmill Road). The BSD zoning regulations for this area are generally consistent with the previously mentioned neighborhoods and the City's vision for this area. The City has been the applicant on all of the other related, larger scale BSD code provisions, and, because this area has multiple owners, including the City, Dublin is the logical entity to sponsor this amendment. Proposed Zoning Map Amendments As Recommended by PZC on June S, 2014 TUL'. ER qL • . . ., r ■ , • Ilse Public seer • ; Boo • f4 but • I y ■ sC * ■` toric sition •* • Rhn" ,■ ■ F. ♦ ■■ ■ BSC Con BSD Scioto River Neighborhood SSC Public Proposed Zoning Map Amendments The future riverfront park land is recommended to be zoned BSC Public District, which is an existing zoning district that applies to other public uses throughout the BSD, including the Dublin Schools property, the cemetery, Sycamore Ridge Park, and the AEP substation on Banker Drive. The new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District will be applied to land generally along the east side of the relocated Riverside Drive, including the existing Bridge Pointe shopping center, the former Wendy's restaurant site at the southeast corner of the Riverside /SR 161 intersection, properties along Dale Drive, the former driving range and "Digger and Finch" restaurant site, and land along the north side of the future John Shields Parkway. In the ART's recommendation to the Commission, the existing Acura car dealership at the northwest corner of Dale Drive and SR 161 was shown to remain BSC Commercial District until the property owner chose to redevelop the land. Should the land redevelop, it would be eligible to be rezoned to the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District. Similarly, the ART also recommended that the existing Capitol Cadillac dealership remain in the same zoning district (BSC Commercial) until such time that the property owner chooses to redevelop, at which point it would likely be recommended for rezoning to the BSC Office District, consistent with the office emphasis envisioned for this portion of the Bridge Street District in the "character districts" outlined in the Vision Plan for the Bridge Street District. The Planning and Zoning Commission requested that the two car dealerships, in addition to the existing daycare center zoned BSC Residential District to coincide with the "residential core" envisioned for this part of Planning & Zoning Commission I Thursday, July 10, 2014 14 -04OZ — Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) — Bridge Street District — Scioto River Neighborhood District Page 5 of 6 the Bridge Street District, be included in the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District rezoning to ensure that the same development character is established on both sides of Dale Drive, leading up to Riverside Drive. Refer to the Proposed Zoning Map, attached, showing the existing and proposed Bridge Street District zoning districts, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on June 5, 2014. PART II: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM COMMENTS Planning The proposed Zoning Code and subsequent Zoning Map amendments bring the Scioto River Corridor area into alignment with other similar areas of the BSD and the general recommendations outlined in the 2010 Bridge Street Corridor Vision Report. The amendments are a prerequisite for any proposed redevelopment in the Scioto River Corridor of a significant scale to move forward. Further, the proposed amendments are consistent with the tray's policy of establishing as much clarity and predictability for developers as possible of the City's plans and expectations for the Bridge Street District. At the May 29, 2014 ART meeting, Planning recommended approval of the proposed Zoning Map amendment (area rezoning) as depicted on the proposed BSD Zoning Map dated "PZC June 5, 2014," following a recommendation on case 14- 039ADMC, Zoning Code Amendment, establishing the new BSD Scioto River Neighborhood District. Engineering, Building Standards, Parks & Open Space, Economic Development, Fire and Police No comments PART III: REVIEW CRITERIA Compatibility with applicable land use policies Future Land Use The Future Land Use map of the Dublin Community Plan was updated and adopted by City Council on July 1, 2013. The Future Land Use map identifies the portions of the Bridge Street District east of the Scioto River as Mixed Use Urban Core, which is intended to accommodate a strong mixture of uses in an active, highly walkable environment. This classification allows for the widest mixture of uses and highest development densities within the City, and is intended for application specifically within the Bridge Street District. The proposed Zoning Code amendment is consistent with the Mixed Use Urban Core land use classification. Bridge Street District Area Plan I Dublin Community Plan The Bridge Street District Plan is intended to establish a vision for the transformation of underutilized land in the city's core into high- value, mixed -use development set in walkable environments — creating value for the community while continuing to enhance Dublin's overall economic strength and quality of life. The Bridge Street District reinforces the City's long -term competitiveness and promotes fiscal health and adaptability by creating new environments and amenities that will help retain, expand and attract the next generation of residents, employees and businesses to Dublin while remaining a center of community for all Dublin residents. Much of the area included in the proposed Zoning Map amendment is set within the "'Riverside District" character neighborhood, which the area plan notes is "poised to capture the untapped potential of making the Planning & Zoning Commission I Thursday, July 10, 2014 14 -040Z — Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) — Bridge street District — Scioto River Neighborhood District Page 6 of 6 Scioto River even more of a community amenity and centerpiece for high - quality mixed -use development. Introduction of a greenway and destination park along the east bank would substantially raise the river's profile as an asset in Dublin's park and greenway network, help bring residents from both sides of the river together around shared activities and places, and anchor a unique new neighborhood." The proposed Zoning Map amendment to the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts will facilitate implementation of the land use, transportation, and open space objectives of the Bridge Street District Area Plan of the Dublin Community Plan. PART IV: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATION Zoning Map Amendment (Area Rezoning) Recommendation of approval to City Council for this request for a Zoning Map Amendment (area rezoning) of 23 parcels (approx. 66.97 acres) to the BSD Scioto River Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. I ci of Dublin Yes Land Use and Long Yes Ra e Planni Yes 580 Shier Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Yes � 614.410 - RECORD OF ACTION www.dublinohlousa.gov 3UNE 5, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: S. Zoning Map Amendment /Area Rezoning - Bridge Street District - Riverside Neighborhood District Zoning Map Amendment 14 -04OZ Proposal: An area rezoning of 20 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed zoning map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Applicant: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager, City of Dublin. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, AICP, Planner II & Claudia Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, rray @dublin.oh.us or chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Victoria Newell moved to table this Zoning Map Amendment. John Hardt seconded the motion. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Zoning Map Amendment was tabled. RECORDE6 VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Yes Victoria Newell Yes Amy Saiay Yes STAFF CERTIfICAT Rachel S. Ray, AICP 1 Planner Ii J Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 20 yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Ms. Salay, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) 4. Zoning Code Amendment -Bridge Street District - Riverside Neighborhood District 14- O39ADMC Zoning Code Amendment and 5. Zoning Map Amendment /Area Rezoning -Bridge Street District - Riverside Neighborhood District Zoning Map Amendment 14 -O4OZ Ms. Amorose Groomes said the following two cases will be heard together as they are related to one another but will require separate actions. She said the following applications are requests for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for modifications to the Zoning Code to establish a new Bridge Street District zoning district and related Code amendments for the Riverside Neighborhood District and for an area rezoning of 20 parcels for the BSD Riverside Neighborhood and BSC Public Districts in the Bridge Street District. Rachel Ray said wanted to begin her presentation by briefly explaining how the zoning districts for the entire Bridge Street district were established. She said that Planning originally used the character districts included in the Vision Report for the Bridge Street District to generalize the land use character envisioned in different portions of the district. She said they envisioned from a form perspective the different types of building heights, massing and types of uses, which informed the proposed zoning districts. She explained once the zoning districts were created, Planning assigned zoning district designations to individual parcels throughout the entire Bridge Street District achieve the intent and overall objectives of the Bridge Street District Vision. Ms. Ray said some of the zoning districts are special, such as the neighborhood districts. She referred to the Historic Residential Neighborhood, which was intended to carry over the existing zoning standards in effect prior to the Bridge Street District zoning, because there was no need to make any changes to the zoning regulations applicable to the residential properties in the Historic District. She pointed out the Historic Transition Neighborhood, which has some degree of consolidated property ownership. She stated that this area is important because of the transition into the Historic District. Ms. Ray referred to the two neighborhood districts at each end of the District, which have the most significant opportunities for transformational placemaking for the Bridge Street District as the major mixed use centers of activity. She said the Neighborhood District graphics were created to guide the placemaking elements for each of these special zoning districts because there was an expectation that these properties would develop over time. Ms. Ray said after the Area Rezoning and the Zoning Code Amendment was approved in 2012, the City began to focus at City Council's direction on the Scioto River Corridor toward the end of 2012. She said it began with the acquisition of key properties for the implementation of some key public improvements such as the planned roundabout at SR161 and Riverside Drive, and the relocation of Riverside Drive to create the riverfront park. She explained that around the same time, a development entity came forward that began to consolidate many of the properties within the Scioto River Corridor area which was a significant change from the property ownership pattern at the time of the area rezoning. She said that when the Area Rezoning initially went forward the property ownership was highly fragmented. She said the owners at the time were less interested in the significant mixed use development opportunities along the riverfront and that is why the existing zoning of BSC Office Residential and BSC Commercial was recommended at that time. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 20 Ms. Ray summarized that clearly, circumstances have changed and given the new property owners for a lot of the land in this area and the opportunities to open up and expand access to and engage the riverfront, there is an opportunity to take another look at the zoning for this area. Ms. Ray said creating the new Riverside Neighborhood District allows the Bridge Street Zoning Regulations to better fit the intent of the larger unified development anticipated for the Scioto River Corridor area. She said the new zoning is largely a combination of the regulations that apply across the other neighborhood districts in addition to the provisions for placemaking elements including the "shopping corridor," which is a highly mixed use node within each Neighborhood District. She outlined the requirements for building types, comprehensive sign plans, and lot and block requirements. She said this also facilitates the review process by allowing these elements to be addressed more comprehensively and in a coordinated fashion rather than based on the separate zoning districts that apply to the individual parcels in this area. Ms. Ray said the related Code amendments involve a series of technical amendments as well as a few more substantive amendments. She said the Riverside District is structured nearly identical to the structures of the other Neighborhood Districts. She said the graphic is intended to show conceptual alignments for the street network, as well as open space corridors, gateways, and the location of the shopping corridor. Ms. Ray said this Neighborhood District does include a few diffierences intended to mitigate the need for future waivers or Code amendments when developments come forward based on unique site conditions. She said the first of which is block length, given the unique frontage configuration along the roundabout. She explained that whatever happens in the area, it is likely the block sizes will exceed the maximum block length requirement, but the proposed amendment still requires the mid -block pedestrian ways to ensure connectivity and that the development is broken down into smaller project elements. She said they included the provision that requires a minimum of 12 feet of dear sidewalk area along the shopping corridors free from any patios, bike facilities, street trees or any other furnishings to make sure there is plenty of room for the anticipated degree of pedestrian activity in this area. Ms. Ray said the City is sponsoring the application for an Area Rezoning for 20 parcels, which includes a combination of three zoning districts, the BSC Residential, Office Residential, and Commercial Districts. She said these were designed to reflect the character districts within the Vision Plan and intended to have more of a single use focus to support the more mixed -use nodes that are envisioned elsewhere. She said this zoning had much to do with the fragmented land ownership at the time of the original zoning in 2012. She said many property owners were concerned about their existing uses, and were concerned with the names of the zoning districts, and wanted to make sure their existing properties would not be impacted by the new zoning. Ms. Ray said the new Riverside Neighborhood District will be applied to the land along the east side of the relocated Riverside Drive including the driving range, the Bridge Point Shopping Center, properties along Dale Drive and the former Wendy's restaurant site. She said on the west side of the relocated Riverside Drive right -of -way, the BSC Public District is recommended, which is the same zoning district applied to the other parks and other publicly owned and operated uses throughout the Bridge Street District. Ms. Ray said the proposed Zoning Code and subsequent Zoning Map amendments bring this area into alignments with the overall vision and planning for the Scioto River corridor area and generally are consistent with City's policy for establishing as must clarity and predictability for developers as possible for the City's plans and expectations for development within the Bridge Street District. She said the amendments are a prerequisite for any redevelopment of the Scioto River Corridor of this scale and magnitude. She concluded that approval to City Council for the proposed Zoning Code Amendments to create the new Zoning District and a related Code Amendments has been recommended by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 20 Administrative Review Team. She stated that the Administrative Review Team also recommended approval to City Council for the Area Rezoning of 20 parcels to the BSD Riverside Neighborhood District and the BSC Public District. . Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone from the general public that would like to speak to this application. [There was none.] Amy Kramb said she read through all the other Neighborhood District texts to compare them with the proposed text and realized that it is almost identical, with only a handful of sentences that are different. She referred to the description of the district and noted that the phrase "substantial residential presence" should not be used because it implies there is a ton of residential development. She said this is too strong and suggested that it be changed to "residential base to complement a strong mixed - use..." She said she would like to see the land uses balanced. Ms. Kramb referred to (F)(4)(a)2 referring to corridor buildings with residential, hotel or office uses located on a parcel within 600 feet of SR161. She suggested eliminating the word "parcel" because a parcel could be a huge piece of land and should be changed to say "the corridor building [itself] should be within 600 feet of West Dublin - Granville Road." She said they should go off the building itself and not the parcel because she never wants to see a 7.5 -story building. Ms. Kramb asked for clarification of the intent of (F)(4)(15)1. Ms. Ray referred to page 26 of the Bridge Street District Code. She said in 153.062, there is a table to address building type incompatibilities. She pointed to the list of existing building types and said that if one of those building types exists, such as an existing single- family detached building, and a developer wants to build a corridor building, they couldn't do it next to a single - family detached given the scale difference. She said the reason why this was noted as a potential amendment is that, as the City has been working with Crawford Hoying, they have indicated that for a portion of their development, they would like to build townhomes first (which is a single- family attached type of product), and then build a corridor building across the street in one area as part of a later phase. She said this could create a conflict with the building type incompatibility table, and that is why Crawford Hoying requested that the amendment be included. Ms. Kramb said she was concerned with making an overall Zoning Code amendment as an exception for a single developer with an isolated issue. Victoria Newell agreed with Ms. Kramb and pointed out that was the purpose of the Waiver process. She thought a Waiver would be a much better solution in this instance. Ms. Ray said the amendment could be eliminated. Ms. Kramb agreed. She asked why conference centers could not be on the first floor of buildings, and if the restriction no longer applies, then the amendment should apply to all the districts and not just this Neighborhood District. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the nature of conference centers is that people are inside all day with no engagement with the street. She said this was counterproductive to the objectives of the Bridge Street District, because we want the street to be active. She recalled a lot of discussion on this topic when the Bridge Street Code was initially drafted, and she was concerned with the potential negative impact on the streetscape as a result. Ms. Ray said this Code Section just states that conference centers are permitted to be within one story buildings, not saying that they cannot be on the ground floor. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 Ms. Kramb said in the other zoning districts, conference centers are not permitted on the first floor. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed that regulations pertaining to conference centers should either apply to all the districts the same way, or applicants should request Waivers for something different. John Hardt said he is supportive of modifying the text to address fundamental structural issues in the Code that prohibit the present developer from doing what they are trying to do. He said he is not comfortable with changes in the Code that deal with one particular building or one instance that should be dealt with on a case -by -case basis, which is the reason why the Waiver process was conceived. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that Waivers should not be perceived as an obstacle. She said they should be encouraged in the sense that they are really an invitation to excellence. Ms. Kramb referred to the block length requirements along the roundabout ff)(3)(b)2). She asked if there was a better way to identify "blocks with frontage." Ms. Ray said the City is certain that there cannot be a new street with full access that would intersect Riverside Drive south of Dale Drive/ "Park Avenue" to meet the block requirements due to the roundabout right -of -way, so that is the reason, regardless of who comes forward with a development project, that this provision is recommended. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the area of influence for the roundabout should be defined. Richard Taylor referred to the Riverside Neighborhood District graphic. He said previously, they had discussed extending the shopping corridor farther to the east to at least to the intersection with the Dale/Tuller connector road. He said he hoped there would be accommodations made to allow for a great deal more activity that would allow the shopping corridor to extend all the way along that roadway east toward Sawmill road. He said if that is correct, he would like to see the shopping corridor extended to the east limit of this district. Ms. Ray noted that mixed -use development has to be fairly concentrated to be successful, and said that we would not want to detract from the success of commercial areas along Riverside Drive or the other Neighborhood Districts in lieu of what could potentially happen farther to the interior of the Bridge Street District. She pointed out that all of the zoning districts allow for a mix of uses and suggested that an arrow be drawn to the end of the shopping corridor diagram. Mr. Hardt said he agrees with the desire for a concentration of mixed -use development along Riverside Drive. He said he wanted to make sure whatever infrastructure is in place, between the streetscape design and the distance of buildings setback off the street, he would not want to do anything in the easternmost block that would result in a choke point that prohibits the shopping district from going farther east. He said if this is wildly successful as he envisions, the shopping district could someday connect up the hill to Dublin Village Center. Mr. Taylor said the parking garage height is also something of a concern. Mr. Taylor referred to page 5 in the district intent, he is not in favor of the statement that "this development within the district will include a strong residential presence." He said he doesn't think that by not including the statement they are denying residential uses in this area, but they are also not encouraging it in specific areas. He said the mix of uses needs to be looked at holistically. He said he would like to eliminate any reference to the "strong residential presence" and that will bring it more in line with the other two Neighborhood Districts that refer back to the charts and tables. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 - Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 Mr. Taylor referred to page 5, the BSD Riverside Neighborhood District Intent, and asked what was meant by "complementing the Historic District." Ms. Ray said the intent is the types and scale of uses that are possible in the Riverside Neighborhood District can help support the smaller scale businesses and uses within the Historic District. Mr. Taylor said he is worried that instead, we may end up creating two separate districts with a neat bridge between them. He said he is concerned that they are suggesting that they are "complementing" the Historic District on the west side of the river and he does not see anything that accomplishes a real connection between the two. Mr. Langworthy said the idea was to have strong attractions on both sides of the bridge. He said they may need to reword the statement to "coordinate with." Mr. Taylor referred to the list of permitted building types on page two and asked that this refer to the chart in Code Section 153.062 instead. Mr. Taylor said with respect to the building height provision referenced earlier, buildings exceeding 5.5 stories should be approved on an individual basis through Waivers, so that eliminates provision 2 under Building Types. Ms. Kramb pointed out that the other Neighborhood Districts have similar wording. Amy Salay confirmed that there is a provision within the Bridge Street District that allows up to 7.5 -story buildings. She said that height should not be permitted by right, but if there is a reason to allow that height, then it can be allowed as a Waiver. She said 7.5 stories is a large building, and that scale would dwarf everything around it. Ms. Ray clarified that Code allows for buildings with a maximum of 5.5 stories, but in certain areas, an additional two stories with a "step back" from the front facade of a minimum of eight feet could be permitted. She said the buildings with additional height are intended to be within proximity to I -270, so that if there is a taller building, it is in a more appropriate location for taller heights. Mr. Taylor said they have talked about larger and taller buildings and did not realize it was already in the other districts. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the height issue needs to be addressed now. She said 5.5 stories should be the maximum without a Waiver. Mr. Taylor asked for clarification on the sidewalk requirement of 12 feet. Ms. Ray said the intent was to have 12 feet of clear sidewalk space free of any planters, cycle tracks, or patios, to ensure a highly walkable area within the shopping corridor. Mr. Taylor said his biggest concern is that this provision and many of the others appear to be supporting the needs of a particular developer and they are being asked to make specific Code changes and to rezone an entire area without seeing what they are voting on. He said this might be the best approach given the situation but he is reluctant to take this much further without seeing any development proposals. He said the Commission is aware that there is already something that has been conceptually designed and presented informally months ago, although the plans may have changed. He said the Commission deserves to see the buildings and what they are voting on before they vote on the Code amendment. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 Mr. Hardt said he agrees with Mr. Taylor and requested an informal presentation with an update on the developer's current plans informing the proposed Code amendments. Mr. Hardt said he agreed with Ms. Kramb's earlier comments related to the Riverside Drive frontage and the first block close to the roundabout. He said with respect to the comments on building height, he is willing to consider 7.5 -story buildings on a case by case basis. He said he thought he recalled a discussion about parking structures not being permitted across the street from each other because they create dead streetscapes with no activity and no commercial uses, and the Commission didn't want them dominating a block. Ms. Ray agreed and said a provision to that effect was discussed with a potential update of the Code. She said it was a lengthy discussion and Planning intended to bring those amendments forward. Mr. Hardt said when they were having that discussion, he was envisioning above - ground parking structures. He said he could support the need to tweak those provisions to address below -ground parking structures, since that is a very different situation. He said he was expecting to see parking garages be the basis of the issue with building type incompatibilities because the proposed development has spots where there are multiple parking garages planned, which would potentially be fine because they are underground. He said from a Code perspective, there may be an issue. Mr. Hardt said he is not in support of gateways because they become monuments for developers to put their individual stamps out front indicating where their development starts and ends. He said he thought the intent is to have a cohesive district, from Sawmill Road to the I- 270/33 interchange. Ms. Ray said staff had talked about the intent of "gateways" as well. She said this is going to be a very public area with plaza spaces and open spaces and water features, and so on. She said the intent is that those areas have a higher degree of design to make a statement about entering a place and that is why they are along Riverside Drive and not at the edges of the development where the transition should be more seamless. . Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought that a major statement would be made with the use of granite curbs and paver streets, not with huge signs. She said there is nothing less attractive than a sign across I -270 with a development name on it. She said she thought the intent was to create a place that was identified by the overall sense of place. Ms. Newell said she thinks the gateway text is appropriate but the problem is with the way it is written, because it states that signs are specifically permitted. She suggested eliminating the reference to the sign provisions altogether, which presents an opportunity to review signs if they are presented as part of a gateway, or reject signs that are not appropriate. Ms. Ray suggested that in addition, the public function of the gateways could be emphasized. Mr. Langworthy said Council has asked that they develop a City -wide wayfinding system that includes gateway designs, and part of the presentation that the consultant team with Kolar Design will make will include examples of gateway designs based on location. Ms. Kramb pointed out that reference to signs in the gateway provisions is also in the other Neighborhood Districts, so the change will need to be made across the board. Mr. Hardt asked how the use table reflected the uses proposed by the developer. Ms. Ray said the use table is a mirror of the other Neighborhood Districts, with no differences. She said the developer asked for a potential for a drive -thru for restaurants, and staff was not supportive of that Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 use. She said that use would then have to be addressed separately. She said when the Commission went through the Code a few months ago, they noted other desired changes to the table and Planning intended to bring those back, but for this short term they wanted to keep it consistent with the other districts. Ms. Kramb said under the current zoning it is BSC Office and up to the north is BSC Office Residential, so comparing the office zoning districts, conference centers as zoned were conditional uses and in the proposed rezoning allows it to be a permitted use. She said religious institutions under the existing would be conditional and they had some specifics added to the condition and they are now permitted. She said transit stations are conditional uses under office and now would be permitted, and surface lots were permitted and now they are conditional uses under the new district. Ms. Ray said there are some other size limitations to retail, entertainment and personal service uses, and with the new zoning there would no longer be size restrictions. Mr. Hardt said if transit stations are conditional in other districts they should be in this district as well because they have a potential for significant impacts on the properties that abut them and need to be located in the right spot. Mr. Hardt referred to the "Materials" section in the Building Types Code Section, and stated the provisions should be kept the same. He said other high quality materials could be considered, but are subject to the reviewing body. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the use of special materials should be an earned waiver and not codified as a right. Mr. Hardt said he would happy to approve a modification that gives relief to the dimensional requirements for below grade parking but would be inclined to keep them in place for parking above ground. He said it does not make sense to put something in Code that requires compliance, and if the intent is to say that the minimum dear heights as required in the Ohio Building Code is acceptable then the correct approach is to delete the paragraph altogether because they have to comply with that anyway. He said to modify the text so that the minimum clearances they had in the Code remain in effect but clarify that they only apply to above ground parking. Mr. Hardt said he is concerned that they are being asked to rezone a chunk of the City that is arguably the most critical and most precious piece of land in the City and the map they have drawn conveniently coincides with the ownership of one particular party. He said the proposed Zoning District boundaries should be in the best interest of the community, and not just a particular property owner. Ms. Ray pointed out that the potential developer of much of the land does not actually control all of the land proposed for rezoning to the BSD Riverside Neighborhood District. She asked for clarification how the Commission recommended that the boundary be drawn. Mr. Hardt said they should include the additional parcels to the east of Dale Drive, or they cut it off at Dale Drive. He said either would make sense to him from a planning standpoint and understood that there may be different opinions. Ms. Ray said they want to make sure whatever happens on both side of Dale Drive has a relationship to each other. Mr. Taylor said it would be more appropriate to have the Riverside Neighborhood District turn that comer than to have the corner itself be the intersection of two different districts. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 Ms. Salay commented that with respect to conference centers, Council had been informed that such facilities would be studied to determine where should be located in the city. She said in terms of the Code amendment and area rezoning, she wanted to make sure they are working for Dublin and not just the property owner, and that we are doing what is best for the Bridge Street District. She said that the conference center use should be moved back to a conditional use so that it can be determined if the location is appropriate. Ms. Salay said the Crawford Hoying project proposal had a lot of siding shown on some of the buildings. She said the materials provisions in the Code needed to involve less siding. Ms. Newell said her comments have been addressed by the other Commissioners and her biggest concern was related to spot zoning this particular area. She said she saw merit in creating a Neighborhood District along Riverside Drive but the district needs to follow along Dale Drive and /or include the properties leading up to it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agrees with the comments of the Commission. She said her biggest concern is the importance of getting the residential component right. She said the potential for a 7.5- story building was alarming because it allows residential uses. She said she knows that everyone wants to build residential development, because that is where the money is, but she would like to make sure great care is taken with the type of development that is approved and the mix of land uses. She said this is the crown jewel property in the entire Bridge Street District and it should be remain the crown jewel particularly given its prominence along the riverfront. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she dislikes the name "Park Avenue" and that it does not represent who they are as a city. She pointed out that the street is labeled as such on the drawings and to her knowledge the names of the streets have not been approved. She said she does not like the name "Riverside Neighborhood District" because they have a community called Riverside. Mr. Hardt and Ms. Kramb agreed. Ms. Amorose Groomes commented on the importance of balance in the Bridge Street District and agreed with the removal of the language specific to creating a "strong presence of residential." She said she was hopeful that in no district is the residential presence stronger than other uses; if so, then by nature they have defeated the mixed use component of the mixed use walkable urban district. She said whatever they are codifying they are codifying the encouragement of a balanced district with as many jobs created as there are residential units created because there has to be a relationship to balance the uses. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she appreciates the number of hours that the Commissioners have dedicated to review the Code. She thought the changes are good and would like to see this come back along with the other residential neighborhood districts with the problems fixed that were revealed through this review so that they are all three amended at the same time. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they would like to see the project details that have been presented to other the other reviewing bodies, because it would be more helpful for the Commission to become comfortable with the Code amendments. She reiterated that Waivers should not be perceived as a bad thing if the result is a better project. Ms. Ray requested that these applications be tabled. Motion and Vote Richard Taylor moved to table this amendment to the Zoning Code to allow staff to revise the proposed zoning regulations in accordance with the Commission's discussion. Mr. Hardt seconded. The vote was as Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 20 follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Newell, yes, Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) Motion and Vote Ms. Newell move to table this request for a Zoning Map Amendment. Mr. Hardt seconded. The vote was as fellows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) Communications Ms. Husak introduced four new planning assistants, Logan Stang, Jonathan Staker, Katie Ashbaugh, and Nicki Martin. Roundtable Mr. Taylor said the issue with ARB and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the review of the Bridge Street Corridor major projects that are occurring in the architectural review district which was part of a presentation to Council on Monday and there was some discussion and voted on that regard. He said he still thinks it is an issue that they should look at. He said he attended the last ARB meeting where they looked at the Bridge Park West project and it was an informal and the first time they had seen the project and it was the first time he had seen it. He said he saw that body address the issues that they typically address within the Historic District and do that very well, what he did not see them do was address issues that were extremely problematic and major. He said he doesn't want to say that this particular group or commission is more qualified than the people on the ARB to review projects, but he thought the Commissions intense involvement in the process from day one and their long history of reviewing projects of that scale and knowing what questions to ask does make the Commission more qualified and more appropriate to review projects like that to maintain a consistency between the reviews of the both sides of the river and wanted to have this discussion continued and bring it up again at a later date. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that their review of the Code tonight says to the difficulty of understanding this Code and how it interplays together in these districts and she knows that it was presented to Council that the Administrative Review Team was involved and familiar with the Code and all the issues, but she suspects that they were to have a conversation about this particular piece of legislation this evening that the ART comments would be far different than those of the Commission. She said she did not think it was a well representation to say that the ART is as well versed with the districts and Code and the implementation of such. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 10:33 p.m. As approved by Planning and Zoning Commission on July 17, 2014. r c o ityof Dublin lend Use mtd Lo" Range Pkan�lgg 59Da r W frogs Bland DOMGhW 43R16.32$6 W&-e E14.4POLMA0 W 41 r wh,du61 rrR a.t�irr ADMNIMATNE Ril EW TEAM RECORD VF DEieRNINAT2M MAY 29, 2014 The +4dhministratiwe Review Team made the fallowing deUwMnadon at this rnWing: Z. Area Rooninp — Bridge Std District — Riverside Nelghhodwad Mistrict 34 -0OZ Zoning Map Amendment plropmal: Aram rezoning of 20 parwh for the i koerside Neighborhood DlsM in the Bridge Street Olsakt. Request: Review and recommendation repctliig proposed zoning map amendments under dw Novuiam of Zoning Cade Sections 151.232 and 153.234, Applleant. Homha I. Grigsby, My Manager City of Dublin Phneing Cnntad: Radhel S. Ray, AICP, Mnner 11 Contact Infamnation: (514) 410.4656; rr&V@duWin.uh.us 06IERMINATION; Recommendation of approval to Me Punning and Zoning Cammisdbn far #his "uest for a zoning Map Amendment of 20 porge16 (approArnab* 57.75 ecres) to the BSD RimrskIle lid hbmrhgod and WC Public DMAd In the Bridge 4t. Distrkt R1 ULr. This appllcatlim was forww*d W the Planning and Zoning Cwmisslon with a reovmrnenda km of approal. SYAFF CERTIFICA71ON JA I Steal l.aygworthy, DIVo of Planni Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 29, 2014 Page 2 of 6 development envisioned for each of the neighborhood districts. She stated that since the circumstances have changed, the neighborhood district is now being prepared. Ms. Ray asked if the Administrative Review Team members had any further comments regarding this proposal [There were none.] She confirmed the ART's recommendation of approval of this application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14 -04OZ Zoning Map Amendment Rachel Ray said this is a request for an area rezoning of 20 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Ms. Ray said the overall area covers approximately 57.75 acres of land along the east side of the proposed relocation of Riverside Drive, including the existing Bridge Pointe shopping center, the former Wendy's restaurant site at the southeast comer of Riverside Drive/SR 161 intersection, properties along Dale Drive, the former driving range and "Digger and Finch" restaurant site, and land along the north side of John Shields Parkway. She explained the existing Acura car dealership at the northwest comer of Dale Drive/SR 161 will remain BSC Commercial District until the property owner chooses to redevelop the land, at which time it would be eligible for be rezoned to the BSD Riverside Neighborhood District. Ms. Ray stated the future riverfront park land is recommended to be zoned BSC Public District, which is an existing zoning district that applies to other public areas throughout the BSC, including the Dublin Schools properly, the cemetery, Sycamore Ridge Park, and the AEP substation on Banker Drive. Ms. Ray said a Proposed BSD Zoning Map and Existing BSD Zoning Map are found in the Planning Report for comparison. Ms. Ray asked if the Administrative Review Team members had any further comments regarding this proposal [There were none.] She confirmed the AM recommendation of approval of this application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. CASE REVIEWS 3. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin - Granville Road 14- 047BSC- SP /PP /FP Site Plan Review /Preliminary Plat /Final Plat Rachel Ray said this is a request for an 11,500- square -foot Loft building for State Bank with a retail banking facility, a drive - through kiosk and all associated site improvements. She said this proposal also includes the subdivision of one 2.8 -acre lot into two lots. She said this is a request for review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan Review under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. She said this is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary and final plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Ray stated that Gary Gunderman introduced this case last week. She said Gary was out of town but had provided a preliminary analysis of the proposal. Ms. Ray said a recommendation of approval to forward the case on to the PZC is anticipated at the June Th ART meeting. Ms. Ray inquired about the height dimensions of the parapet from the roof deck. Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 22, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Hahn suggested that the operations for food vendors should be managed more like a licensing process, as the City handles Solidtors /Peddlers. Mr. Hahn inquired about renewable energy equipment and who puts the controls on that. Ms. Ray answered that they were addressed through the Use Specific Standards and approved by the required reviewing body. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any further questions or comments on the proposed Zoning Code amendment at this time. [There were none.] He concluded the ART is expected to make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission at next week's ART meeting. 3. Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14 -04OZ Zoning Map Amendment Rachel Ray said this is a request for an area rezoning of 20 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Ms. Ray said the conversation for the Zoning Amendment application above applies here as well. INTRODUCTIONS 4. BSC Office District - State Bank West Dublin - Granville Road 14- 047BSC- SP /PP /FP Site Plan Review /Preliminary Plat /Final Plat Gary Gunderman said this is a request for an 11,500 - square -foot Loft building for State Bank with a retail banking facility, a drive -through kiosk and all associated site improvements. He said this proposal also includes the subdivision of one 2.8 -acre lot into two lots. He said this is a request for review and recommendation of approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Bridge Street District Site Plan Review under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. He said this is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary and final plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Gunderman reported that this proposal had been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission for their Basic Site Plan Review in February 2014. Mr. Gunderman provided an overview of the comments made by the Commission and how the applicant had addressed the comments. He pointed out that the applicant had relocated all of the previously ground - mounted HVAC units to the roof. He noted that the Commission had concerns with the mid -block pedestrianway and the pocket plaza, and suggested that they be added when the adjacent property was developed to ensure that they are appropriately designed for the two sites. Mr. Gunderman panted out that the Code requires developments to provide their required open space, and therefore the applicant has provided the pocket plaza open space at the southwest corner as originally presented, and explained that the applicant had provided a conceptual site plan showing how the plaza space could be expanded with conceptual future development. He said with the exception of a few site details, the Site Plan is very similar to the Basic Plan. Mr. Gunderman said the applicant will need ART's recommendation to proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a determination at their meeting on June 19. Ross Sanford, Lincoln Construction, added that the building had also been pushed farther back from the SR 161 right -of -way to allow for future development flexibility, which was another of the Commission's concerns. He explained that there are also easements in this area that they are trying to avoid with the building. He said that as a result, the proposed building is one foot behind the maximum Required Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 15, 2014 Page 5 of 7 4. Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14 -04OZ Zoning Map Amendment Rachel Ray said this is a request for an area rezoning of 20 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District. She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Ms. Ray said the conversation for the Zoning Amendment application above applies here as well. OTHER S. Informal Presentation — Bridge Park West — Crawford Hoying 94 & 100 North High Street Jennifer Rauch said this is a request for informal review and feedback for a mixed -use redevelopment project in the Historic District in preparation for upcoming application submissions. Steve Langworthy explained that the ART can make a recommendation of approval to be forwarded to the ARB and the ARB would be the final deciding body. Mr. Langworthy invited the applicant to present an introduction to the proposal. Nelson Yoder, Crawford Hoying Development Partners, said they are concentrating on the west side for development as part of this proposal, although they are also working on the project on the east side of the river. Mr. Yoder asked his architect, Gerry Bird, OHM Advisors, to present the project overview. Mr. Bird presented slides that had been previously shared with City Council at their work session on May 12"'. He explained that the project will be two or two and a half stories along High Street, but given the change in grade, several levels of parking will be below grade. He said that the parking structure would be wrapped by condominium units overlooking the river. He stated that the architectural character along High Street would be more traditional, but the character of the portion of the building overlooking the river would be more contemporary. Mr. Bird said the applicant's intent today was to confirm their direction and the submission materials with the ART so they can begin making arrangements to move forward with a formal submission. He focused on the building section showing the west side in relationship to the river. He noted on the west edge, the building is a two -story building with retail and office above that is notched through the hillside for parking for the condominiums. He said the part of the building that faces the river is approximately six to seven stories high but matches the height of surrounding buildings where it meets High Stmt. He pointed out the four parking levels and relative heights. He said with respect to the proposed parking structure, the building's design would downplay the garage entries to appear more like carriage doors. He said the buildings would be constructed with stone and there would be "slots" between the buildings with lots of windows to break down the scale. Mr. Bird explained that the slides were meant to emphasize scale more than the proposed materials. He emphasized the use of four- stories with lots of glass used on the upper stories to reflect the sky. Fred Hahn asked if parking would be located behind the residential units. Mr. Bird said the parking is entirely internal, wrapped by residential units so the garage is not visible. He said there would be private garages for the condominiums and public open space for retail. Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 8, 2014 Page 4 of 5 CASE REVIEWS 3. Zoning Code Amendment — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14- 039ADMC Zoning Code Amendment Claudia Husak said this is a request for an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish a new Bridge Street District zoning district and related Code amendments for the Riverside Neighborhood District. She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed Zoning Code amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Steve Langworthy said a determination was contemplated to take the Riverside Park out of the neighborhood and put it in the Public designation. Ms. Husak said City Council is hearing about the proposed amendments at their work session on Monday and the Planning and Zoning Commission is invited. Barb Cox asked if a time extension was possible and Ms. Husak replied yes but said it depends on how the meeting goes on Monday night. Ms. Husak said this is scheduled to go to PZC on June 5 so the ART needs to make a recommendation prior. Ray Harpham concluded that these amendments need to be resolved before Crawford Hoying can move forward. Ms. Husak inquired about the application submittal timing. Mr. Harpham asked if the west side of Riverside Drive still had FEMA issues. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Ms. Cox said the new roadway configuration has not been completely resolved. She inquired about a 3- dimensional model. Mr. Hahn said it will be produced. Mr. Langworthy encouraged the ART to read through the text and submit comments to Ms. Ray. Mr. Hahn inquired about the proceedings for Monday night's meeting. Mr. Langworthy said City Council will be introduced to the process, provided reasons for the Riverside Neighborhood District, and then Crawford Hoying will give a presentation. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any further questions or comments. [There were none.] He concluded that a determination on this application would be anticipated for the upcoming ART meeting agenda. 4. Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14 -0402 Zoning Map Amendment Claudia Husak said this is a request for an area rezoning of 19 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District. She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Ms. Husak said the conversation for the Zoning Amendment application above applies here as well. Administrative Review Team Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 1, 2014 Page 8 of 8 Jeff Tyler asked what the downside might be to the proposed Zoning Code amendment and area rezoning. Ms. Ray said the change in text is pretty straightforward; they plan to clarify the drive - through uses as it is currently prohibited except for banks. Mr. Yoder said he was fine with the conditional use. He said they hope to add a coffee shop -type of restaurant with a drive -through that would not be visible from the shopping corridor. He said the drive - through would have alley access and not be accessible or have frontage from the main roadway. Ms. Ray said with the City as the applicant, an eating/drinking drive -through use would need to be added to the Code. Ms. Ray said she had discussed the types of building materials with Crawford Hoying as part of the potential Zoning Code amendment. She said at this point, only minimal modifications were recommended to the Building Types. She said any Code modifications to other parts of the Code other than the neighborhood district will apply across the board. Mr. Langworthy asked if the riverside park was included in the rezoning or if it was going to be placed in the Public District. Fred Hahn inquired about the standards and permitted uses. Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any further questions or comments. Colleen Gilger said she would approve of a drive- through for an eating /drinking use. Mr. Langworthy explained these cannot sprout up anywhere as they need to keep the pedestrian- oriented character of this neighborhood and Ms. Ray reiterated that the drive - throughs will need to be placed on the back side of the buildings, where any are located. Mr. Hahn inquired about block size, parks, and connectivity. Mr. Langworthy said parks could be in the Public zoning district. Ms. Ray asked if there were any further comments. [There were none.] Mr. Langworthy reiterated that Ms. Ray's report will highlight all the differences being proposed. 6. Area Rezoning — Bridge Street District — Riverside Neighborhood District 14 -04OZ Zoning Map Amendment Rachel Ray said this is a request for an area rezoning of 19 parcels for the Riverside Neighborhood District in the Bridge Street District. She said this is a request for review and recommendation regarding proposed land use map amendments under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232 and 153.234. Ms. Ray said the conversation for the Zoning Amendment application above would apply here as well. She presented a map showing the proposed change in zoning districts. Ms. Ray asked if there were any further comments. [There were none.] ADMINISTRATIVE Mr. Langworthy asked if there were any administrative issues or other items for discussion. [There were none.] The meeting was adjoumed at 3:19 pm.