Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-00 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES ~o. 93-00 Ordinance No ................................................................... Passed .................................................................., ....................... YE.1R AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR 1.523 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF (FUTURE) STONERIDGE LANE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF DUBLIN CENTER DRIVE, FROM: PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CASE NO. 00-0652 - SENIORHOUSING -WEST DUBLIN-GRANVILLE ROAD). NOW, TREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this ~ day of , 2000. - si mg icer A est: ~z-~~ ~- Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division 1 hereby certify that copies of this OrdinancefResolution were posted in Gty of Dublin in accordance witG Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Eoi l~~Y .tl of [ouncil, Dublin, Ohio -.1 jf R-2 SITE ~B ~ .~ Uld Dublin So , So°: :. ~B _ cB . ca R R-4 ~2 C8 .cB _ _..._ :i R CCC CCC ~~ ----~ I ~' I~ Pu `, ~~ oo-o6sz Puo' ~ Rezoning ~ ~;, ,,Ge Senior Housing .. ~~~, +~ .._~_ i l\ ~~ V U W O ~, QQ b S J tUt 7UUER RO / ~ ~. - ~o~p~ RUrt ~~ z qP J ~I ,$/'/~ O Z OME OR a~ Z Dublin Library LIBRARY v ~ : HIGFISG100L RO ~ 5 ~~ p ~ 8n RIm ~.$~ ~ ~~ Sclb MS. U~`o Q s ~ ~ P 11, 4 E '~;~~ o T _ d i ~ N z r "~\ ~~ ~ C RANDVIE~A/ oR P t ~ Wc,„... R _,:. A ~~ 3 ~'_ c ~' wa-w~R i ~ r 4 ,~ ~ PA P13, ~~ S. ~ CA : 1 INCH IkYRQ FIIO SITE. ~ V~.uRCr ~r--- .. , ~_J Z: I r ~. ~ ;~_l - _ .. ~ 4~ .II J~ 00-0652 '~ Rezoning ~~ _ Senior Housing ~o ~? EXHIBIT ;~. ~ _ ~ ~ t R~ZONIN`~: `.`'~'~ii~~ 1 r~ _ .~ . ~.~. ~ , EXPIRE CI'T`Y 01< DL'BLIY Ordinance No. ~ __ ~_ 5800 Shier Rings Road ~, Dublin, Ohio 43016 City Council 1st Reading PhonelT D D: 614/761-6550 Fax: 614/761-6566 City Council Public Hearing City Council Action ~.--~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amcunt Received: Application No: P&Z Dates}: P&Z Action: ~p~ Receipt No: MIS Fee No_ Date Received: Received By. /,~ r PLEASc SUt3?.11T TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLJCATIONS - PLE:aSE PRI`-I' - ANDTHIRTEEN (13) COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION and CIiE`~K 7HE TYPE OF APPLICATION ~~ Composite Plan(Code Secticn 153.653) [~, Preliminary Development Plan (Crde SacScn 153.G5o) Other (Descrbe) •n~r~.ni r uvrvn~vir~~.~~. - - -- I rax ;c Noi CISTRiCr PARCELNO: 273-009090 ~a~~ ~,~Ic~~.~ 1.523 ages ~`~"rt'~'`~`I"''~~ 00 W. Dublin Granville Road I ~`°~,``~' L~,:aeon: South of W. Dublin Granville Road Site cf Stmt: (N, S, E, W) SOUtI1 Nearc3stlnters©ction: StOneRld e Lane Brael'n Distance from Nearestlntersoction: 1/2 mile N, S, E, W fromN©arostlnt©rsectlon E~cie;img Land usdDeveiopment: Stone:Ridge PUD / Suburban office & i Prcpra.~ti1 L.md u~rvor~~r~~~~~~,r Senior Living Residences R~'.'^~~~n~J Apt;lir,.~6cn I',or I .~( t ,~f ~ 1 X00 - S P~~~(Dk~9~LIN ~~, ., EXHIBIT "B" ¢~.,,,, ,.~ ~,. ,. Current or Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: PUD No. of Acres to be Rezoned: PUD suburban office & Senior Living Residences 1.523 STATEMENT: State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity. See Attached. ~,)(,~1~~ g-- 1 STATEMENT: State briefly how the proposed zoning and develcpment relates to the Dublin Community Plan. See Attached. ~)C,}~'(Qj~'~ $' Z i i I i I I PREVIOUS APPLICATION? Has an application for rezcning the prcperty been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years? YES ^ NO IF YES, WHEN? State tha basis of reccnsideraticn: i I I i i i IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS COMPOSITE OR PRELJMINARY PLAN ATTACHED? YES ^ NO ^ IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? YES ^ NO ^ PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ^ 14 COPIES OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Legal description of the property to be rozoned consists of _~_ pago(s). ~~ x ~~ ! 'r3 PLAN REQUIREMENTS: ^ 14 SETS OF PLANS TO SCALE (NOT GREATER THAN 24' X 36') SHOWING: ~ ~ ~ ~ rr a. The sit© and all land 500 fcx~t boyond tho boundarias D U b. North arrow and bar scale "-" a Existing conditions (Roads, buildings, vagotallon,topography, Jurisdictional boundarios, utllitlos, olc.) d. Proposod Usejs (Rex3ional transportation system, donsitios, # of dwellings, building/unit typos, squa , parlclandJopexi s aco, ote.', e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries ~~ ~~^ Sz R~~zc;nin~~ Al;pliceticxi P ~ f ~j i'~gc 2 ~~f .5 STATEMENT # 1: ~ ~x,~ ,err .8--i The Dublin Community Plan was developed to help community leaders, planning staff, the public, and future land and business development interests to make planning decisions in the best interests of the Dublin community. ,y„s These development impacts and constraints include the following: • Managing traffic. • Maintaining the City's long-term fiscal health. • Protecting the appearance of the community. • Providing site specific land use guidance on development issues. The proposed seniors' housing project relates well to traffic management issues in the following ways: • Car ownership in this project is usually limited to less than 25% of the total building population of 48 people, which gives 12 cars as the probable total car ownership. This greatly reduces the total number of generated car trips per day, as compared to the 8:00/12:00/5:00 office trip generation numbers. • This use helps Dublin to reduce road maintenance expenditures and to control device costs (lights and signs). • This use helps to increase pedestrian and driver safety through reduced traffic flow. • And finally, the Dublin environment is spared the ecological damage caused by automobile emissions. The City's long-term fiscal health is promoted by the seniors' project through City taxes, through the use of local businesses to provide both building construction and maintenance issues, and through the residents' day-to-day expenditures for food, clothing, etc. The long-term, low infrastructure housing usage of seniors will also help the City's fiscal health by reducing maintenance costs to existing and future infrastructure. ~/Z FILE COPY '~ L~C~~O~IC~ JUN - 1 2000 SZ CITY OF DUBLIN C ~ Page 2 STATEMENT # 1: Protecting the appearance of the community is another goal of the Dublin Community Plan. • The proposed two-story height limit will relate well to the standard two- story house forms that dominate the City. • Materials which reflect both the Stoneridge buildings and other homes and structures in Dublin will be used on the exteriors of the buildings. These include wood, stone and siding materials (no vinyl or aluminum siding) which are currently and historically used in the area. • Care will also be taken to produce aesthetic elevations on all "four sides" of the building so views from all directions will be consistent in their architectural effect. Providing site specific land use guidance on development issues is another cornerstone of the Dublin Community plan. Since this site was zoned prior to the finalization of the 1997 Dublin Community Plan, the rezoning process will allow the staff, public and Planning Commission to evaluate a site specific usage. The staff and other reviewers can then engage the project with site and building design commitments which will enhance the project for the residents, neighbors and the City of Dublin. Z~L FILE COPY ~~~~ad~D JUN - 12000 0o-o65z CITY OF DUBLIN C ~X ~~ /$ lY ~'Z STATEMENT # 2: The existing land use character of the proposed NCR seniors' housing project is best described as vacant agricultural land, bounded by areas of suburban development which has occurred recently. ~,,, The project site is bounded on the west by agricultural land not yet developed into a typical suburban model and is currently zoned Dublin Suburban Office. The project to the north is a large one-story office building currently zoned as an Office PUD, as well as is the site to the west of the proposed senior housing project. The site to the south is a single family residential project currently zoned R-2. Additionally, an existing R-12 apartment project also abuts the R-2 subdivision. The proposed seniors' project will form a transitional use between the PUD/Office use and the single family R-2 project to the south. The existing tree line at the back of the property will be kept within the 50' rear setback shown on the preliminary site plan to continue to screen the R-2 site and to reinforce one of Dublin's existing and historical planting examples, planting the tree line/planting field boundary line. This seniors' project will consist of 48 seniors' residential units. The typical population of this building will be 47 seniors and one resident manager who will live on site. The typical building demographics are as follow: At occupancy - 40 women, 62 years or older, 7 men, 62 years or older, 1 resident manager. As population ages in place - 42 women, 76 years or older, 5 men, 76 years or older, 1 resident manager. In addition to relating as a transitional screening to the R-2 subdivision, the seniors' project will enhance the suburban office uses by decreasing demand on traffic, hard parking surface, infrastructure and noise. The project will also initiate the construction of the last portion of Stoneridge D vehicular link closer to completion. ~~ FILE COPV JUN ` 12000 65 Z- i CITY OF DUBLIN LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 1.523 ACRES exN~81 ~-83 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, Township of Perry, City of Dublin and being more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a found P.K. in the intersection of David Road and State Route 161; THENCE S. 86 degrees 13 minutes 40 seconds E. a distance of 224.60 feet to found P.K. nail in the centerline of State Route 161; THENCE S. 05 degrees 44 minutes 55 seconds W. a distance of 846.78 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE N. 86 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds W. a distance of 199.82 feet to a set iron pin, said point being the point of beginning. THENCE N. 86 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds W. a distance of 200.19 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE N. 05 degrees 44 minutes 25 seconds E. a distance of 340.13 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE S. 84 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds E. a distance of 49.00 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE with a curve to the right having a radius of 275.00 feet, delta of 30 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, and a chord bearing S. 69 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds E. a distance of 142.35 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE S. 54 degrees 15 minutes 35 seconds E. a distance of 26.65 feet to a set iron pin; THENCE S. 07 degrees 31 minutes 13 seconds W. a distance of 281.85 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.523 acres more or less, subject to all easements, restrictions, and right-of-way. Bearing were based on the centerline of State Route 161 as being S. 86 ,.r degrees 13 minutes 40 seconds E. as shown in Official Record 12956, Page C14. This description is based on an actual field survey by the Jerry A. Malott Surveying Co. in August, 1996. FILE COPY ~i1~1 31000 '~~~ b ~ - tabs ~ CITY OF DUBLIN -~, ,~; ~.,~ EXHIBIT "B" f. Size of the site in acres square feet; and -"-°--._..__~_ _~.._._.__. ___- g. All prcperty lines, street rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries. 14 SETS OF REDUCED DRAWING(S) (NOT GREATER THAN 11' X 17') 14 COPIES OF COUNTY OWNERSHIP MAP: (NOT LESS THAN 8'/z' X 11' AND NOT MORE THAN 16' X 20') Showing contiguous property owners within 500 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. III. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS List all neighboring property owners within 300 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. Such list to be in accordance with the County Auditor's current tax list. (Use additional sheets as necessary.) Labels formatted for Avery 5160 may be submitted as labels or on a computer disk. PROPERTY OWNER (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATElZIP CODE See Attached. ~~(~(~~7 .r L,~ i I i I i I I i f?~+zonmq AFplicatlon Z P~~ ~~ Page 1 ~~( $ '~~ontiguous Property Owners JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Variance report DATE MAY 26, 2000 273-008272 * Owner: ITALIA HOMES INC Address: 3895-905 STONERIDGE LN Mail To: T & R PROPERTIES RON SABATINO 1ST FL 6563 WORTHINGTON GALENA R WORTHINGTON OH 43085-2659 ~.^m73-008296 * Owner: PHELE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES Address: 4015-059 DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: PHELE INVESTMENT ~.:..,. PROPERTIES 4051 W DUBLIN GRANVILLE R DUBLIN OH 43017 273-008297 * Owner: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD Address: W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD 3473 MILDRED DR FALLS CHURCH VA 22042 273-008298 Owner: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD Address: 4091 W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD 3473 MILDRED DR FALLS CHURCH VA 22042 273-008299 * Owner: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD Address: W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD 3473 MILDRED DR FALLS CHURCH VA 22042 '3-008300 * Owner: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD Address: DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD 3473 MILDRED DR FALLS CHURCH VA 22042 273-008301 * Owner: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD Address: W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: TALL PINES HOLDINGS LTD 3473 MILDRED DR FALLS CHURCH VA 22042 273-008341 Owner: ADAMS WILMA F Address: 3165 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: ADAMS WILMA F 3165 LILLY MAR CT DUBLIN OH 43017 VAH29_MMPC16 Page 1/~ ExN~arr ~s-~ FILE ~C'rY JUN - 1 20IX1 00 - z CITY OF DUBLIN a~ `'~~ Contiguous Property Owners ~"" JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Variance report DATE MAY 26, 2000 273-008342 Owner: JONES ANDREW S & SHARON L CO-TRS Address: 3155 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: FIFTH THIRD CINCINNATI FARETS/BILL PROCESSING 8435 STEMMONS FRWY DALLAS TX 75247 ~?,73-008343 Owner: DOYLE THOMAS M & R DIANE Address: 3141 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: DOYLE THOMAS M & R DIANE 3141 LILLY MAR CT DUBLIN OH 43017 273-008344 Owner: HAMOUDI ALA B & AYSER C Address: _3125 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: HAMOUDI ALA B & AYSER C 3125 LILLY MAR CT DUBLIN OH 43017 273-008345 Owner: SCHUSTER ANDREAS W & DARA P Address: 3100 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: ABN AMRO MORTGAGE CAROL PITZER TAX DEPT MAIL CODE C50 200 NORRIDGE IL 60634 273-008346 Owner: SHARP SUSAN Address: 3140 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: FLEET FUNDING CORP/G TYNR 2210 ENTERPRISE DR PO BOX 100563 FLORENCE SC 29501-0563 3-008347 Owner: MARTIN PATSY R Address: 3154 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: NATIONAL CITY MTG CO TRANS/RENAISSANCE TOWER 1201 ELM ST STE 400 DALLAS TX 75270 VAH29_MMPC16 Page 2 /y FILE G~?V JUN = 12000 Sz CITY Of DUBLIN ,. Contiguous Property Owners`""` JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Variance report DATE MAY 26, 2000 273-008348 Owner: PEARSON JOSEPH J & JOAN L Address: 3168 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: ABN AMRO MORTGAGE CAROL PITZER TAX DEPT MAIL CODE C50 200 NORRIDGE IL 60634 x.73-008349 Owner: MCCRAY HAROLD W SR Address: 3186 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: MCCRAY HAROLD W SR 3186 LILLY MAR CT DUBLIN OH 43017 273-008350 Owner: WEESE ELBON H & MARTHA A CO-TRS Address: 3200 LILLY MAR CT Mail To: WEESE ELBON H & MARTHA A CO-TRS 3200 LILLY MAR CT DUBLIN OH 43017 273-009090 * Owner: PHELE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES Address: DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: PHELE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 4051 W DUBLIN GRANVILLE R DUBLIN OH 43017 273-009146 * Owner: DEPT OF MEDICINE FOUNDATION INC Address: 3900 STONERIDGE LN Mail To: DMF OF OHIO 3900 STONE RIDGE LN DUBLIN OH 43017 <' 3-009147 * Owner: AARON RENTS INC Address: DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: AARON RENTS INC 309 E PACES FERRY RD NE ATLANTA GA 30305 VAH29_MMPC16 Page 3/ FILE C~^Y rl~ ~ ~ 0 ~! ~(~} uu JUN - 1 2000 ~~ U- b5L CITY OF DUBLIN Contiguous Property Owners ``~` JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR Variance report DATE : MAY 26, 2000 273-009148 * Owner: B FOUR PROPERTIES Address: 3995 W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: B FOUR PROPERTIES PO BOX 1025 POWELL OH 43065 273-009149 * Owner: JALL INVESTMENTS ~~=^~~ Address: W DUBLIN GRANVILLE RD Mail To: MATAN EUGENE 261 S FRONT ST ~~ COLUMBUS OH 43215-5003 273-009323 * Owner: PHELE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES Address: GRANVILLE RD Mail To: PHELE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 4051 W DUBLIN GRANVILLE R DUBLIN OH 43017 CONDOMINIUM: BRAELINN GREEN CONDO 1STAMD range: 273-009470 to 273-009509 Check property record sources for names and addresses 273-009721 * Owner: CITY OF DUBLIN Address: MARTIN RD Mail To: DUBLIN CITY OF 5200 EMERALD PKWY DUBLIN OH 43017-1066 VAH29_MMPC16 Page 4/ FILE Co?V -~~~o~~~ JUN - 1 2000 - 0 52 CIlY 0~ DUBLIN _, ,. '~ EXHIBIT "B" r.~r~nee nTr~~r Name of Current Property Owner(s): Phele Investment Properties. MairngAddress: 4051 (Street, Cih/, State, Zip Code) W. Dublin Granville Rd. , Dublin, OH 43017 Daytime Telephcne: Fax: Name of Contact Person', (ex. Attorney, Architect, etc): 'Please complete the Agent Authorization, Section VII, below. Randall Woodings Mai':ng Address' ;strc~a.Clty,State,upccde) 400 S. 5th Street, Suite 400, Columbus, OH 43215 ~Daytlma Telephcne: Fax: V'Jhich of the above is the primary contact person? ~ Randall Woodin;;s _____ V. AUTHCRtZ ^:TIOi`J TO VISIT THE PROPERTY S~tc ~ns~ts to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application. The Owner,'Applicant hereby authorizes Cih~ ret:ms~en'a'ivfs to ~~isit, photograph and post a notice en the propery/ described in this application. VI. UTILITY GISCLAI'1ER The CfiJ cf Dublin will ma4;e very effort to provide essential services to the prcperfy as needed. Havener, the rapid grovth cf the City cf Cublin and northwest ~„..q Fr.rn'nk;n Ccur;ty has stretched lha City's capacity to prcti~de these services to the limit. As such, the City cf Cublin may be unabl© to make all or part of said f.+.c:::Les av,~ia[:Ic~ to the applicant until soma future date. The Applic:3nUCwner heresy acknewtedges that apprc~al of this request for rezoning by the Dublin F'I,u~c.cy and Zoning Comrnissicn and;'cr Dublin City Ccuneil does not ccnstitut©a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to ~,~;, pry-„~. _.s~>ntial s~r~.ir. ~s such as water and sewer facilitiFav when needed by said Applicant. VII. OPJ`!ER AUTHORIZATION FCR REPRESENTATIVE l ti~ I, Ted Leakas ,the owner and applicant, hereby authorise to act as my represantativa and age t in all matters pertitining to the processing and appresal of this application including modifying the project, and I agree to be t:cund by all reprosentaticns and agreements made by the designated agent. Slgnatura o} Curt Property//Ow-~n~er,~:~ ~(, ~, ' . ~ilt~'~l, /''T~~2 ~I (~~C 'C:I%~k~" Data: 6 -1- 2 000 SlgnaWra cf Current Property Owner. I Date: VI11. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT P.~+trnrm) ~pplir,;ltiGn t~:,,:~ -~ ,~.f s FILE CG?Y JUN - 1 2000 LA-,~ Datc~~`1V~(o5~ C{TY ~F ~~~~.i~ • r ~-,~, ~ ,,~. EXHIBIT B STATE OF OY11.0 COUNTY OF Franklin I, Randa 1 1 Wnr~c3 i n ~~ ,the applicant or the applicant representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached e~ibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. S;gnature of Applicant or ' A,. >> ~, ~ • Date• Authorized Representative: ~~/f~ 6 - 1 - 2 ~~~ 1 ,~,"'.,abscribed and sworn to before me this (~ day of Notary Public .:LGe7r:G~.~ / ter- ~~ FILE C~9Y ~~~~o~~~ ~~~ JUN - 1 ZOQO DO - O6SZ ;1 c) 5:,, a Pt~1.1G9 ~~:Et'99 PUD SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. Allowable Uses A. Those allowed per existing Stoneridge PUD and 48 units seniors building only. tl. Yard Requirements s~ • A. Front yard set back: 1. Structure - 50' 2. Parking and drives - 10" B. Side yard set backs, adjacent to Suburban Office uses: 1. Structures - 15' 2. Parking and drives - 10' C. Rear yard set back adjacent to Residential uses: 1. Structures - 50' 2. Parking and drives - 50' III. Parking Standards A. Off street parking shall conform to requirements listed in Section 153.212 and as shown on site plan. IV. Lighting Standards A. All lighting in the area shall be cut-off type fixtures (down lighting). Maximum height of fixtures will not exceed 12'. B. All external outdoor lighting fixtures to be used within this development shall be from the same family, or similar manufacturer's type, to insure aesthetic compatibility. All light poles and standards shall be of wood or metal painted black, brown, or bronze. V. Signage and Graphics Standards A. All signage shall be of ground type (no pole signs) and shall be of a standard shape and frame. All sign frames shall be of natural wood, stone or metal painted black, brown, or bronze. ~ ,~~'~ ~~ t? ~~ ~ ;~a `` ` ` JUN 8 2000 ~ ,, ,,., n ~~~yg ~; j s ;, ~ .. ~ ,,., ~~:. Page Two PUD SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VI. Additional Development Standards A. Dumpster Enclosures -All dumpsters shall be enclosed within a four sided enclosure of wood, stone, brick or stucco. All enclosures will be of the same architectural materials as the main structure and will conform to all building setback requirements. VII. Architectural Standards A. In keeping with the residential framework of the area, all architecture will be of a residential character and constructed of natural materials, being stone, wood, stucco, or cementious siding. All buildings will be of the same finished quality on all four sides. Stone accent will be integrated into the building. n r t , ~ i~ ,~ C~ ~ ~~ [~ r ~~ ~~: ~., C t ~' ~F i JUN 8 2000 ~ ,' 4 F C! f e ~ ,. 9 :~.,. :f: c1~~i ~-r r11 r11.1 Division of Planning * 5800 Shier-Rings Raad blin, Ohio 43016-1236 1'11Elie/F00: 614-761-6550 Fax: 614-161-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 6, 2000 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Location: 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Phele Investments plan). Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A 48-unit senior housing facility. Applicant: Phele Investment Properties, 4051 West Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Kontogiannis and Associates, c/o Randall Woodings, 400 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this revised preliminary development plan because the building is of a residential character and fits in with the surrounding area, the use provides lower impacts, especially lower peak-hour traffic, than an office use, and provides an appropriate land use ""` transition and buffering between residential and retail, and the site is appropriate for specialized housing, with eleven conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; Page 1 of 2 AS SUBMRTEO ~ COUNCq. a " FOR MEEflNG ON ~` ,~- _ ~ v. 3 ? ~ ~, ~,t ~ y ~ ~.:~ Y DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 6, 2000 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane (Continued) 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits; 7) That the text be revised to require a minimum of 50 percent stone on the building's exterior; 8) That a pedestrian path be constructed, subject to staff approval; 9) That the site comply with the Dublin Stormwater Regulations; 10) That the text and plans eliminate the white trim on the building and select a more subdued color, subject to staff approval; and 11) That appropriate parking be demonstrated at the final development plan stage. NOTE: The staff would be happy to host a meeting between the developer and the neighboring residents to address the architectural, layout, and operational issues. * Randall Woodings agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0 RESULT: This application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Chad Gibson Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 21 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Location:. 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Phele Investments plan). Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A 48-unit senior housing facility. Applicant: Phele Investment Properties, 4051 West Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Kontogiannis and Associates, c/o Randall Woodings, 400 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Chad Gibson, Planner. BACKGROUND: This is a rezoning application to construct a 48-unit senior housing facility on an undeveloped portion of the Stoneridge office complex site. This is a revised preliminary development plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, a public hearing and vote will be scheduled at City Council. Atwo-thirds vote is required to overturn a negative recommendation from the Commission (a majority vote is required otherwise). If approved, the rezoning becomes effective 30 days after passage. Prior to construction, a final development plan must also be approved by the Commisssion. CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: • The site is 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. The site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District for office as part of the Phele Investments plan. The existing text permits office and institutional uses and daycare facilities. The site is fairly flat and has a combination of dense scrub vegetation and trees along the south and west property lines. The site is approximately 300 feet deep and 200 feet wide. Stoneridge Lane currently terminates to the east of the site. • To the north across future Stoneridge Lane is the Stoneridge medical complex, zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the south is the Sunnydale Estates subdivision, zoned R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District. To the west is undeveloped property, zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. To the east is a parking lot for the medical complex. • There is an existing neighborhood (Sunnydale Estates) directly south of the site. The closest home is approximately 100 feet from the site's south property line. As proposed, the building is two stories and will be 50 feet from this property line. Community Plan Issues: • The future land use map in the Community Plan designates this site as office. There is no specific designation for senior housing in the adopted Community Plan. However, diversity of housing types is specifically noted in the Policy Element of the Plan. Senior housing is an area in which Dublin could benefit from broader options. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 22 • The Community Plan "tested" land uses based on expected impacts: water and sewer consumption, net revenues, and most importantly, traffic. Office is probably the biggest contributor to peak hour ("rush hour") traffic. Staff supports this deviation from the Community Plan because the use proposed will have a (minor) positive impact on peak hour traffic. Additionally, this site is not a prime office location, being situated on the far . side of a service road with no arterial exposure. • Housing for seniors is a difficult use to locate. It needs to be convenient to services and transportation, and also located in a more protected residential environment. This site is located exactly midway between a robust commercial area and a secluded neighborhood. From this standpoint, it would be difficult to find many better sites. • As proposed, the density of the site is 31 units per acre. It must be noted that these are very small units, mostly single-occupant dwellings, as proposed. The impact per unit is quite low. Site Layout: • The proposed plan indicates atwo-story, U-shaped building with parking for 48 vehicles along Stoneridge Lane. The front entrance has a covered walkway and is located at the center of the north building elevation. There is a small courtyard in the open end of the "LJ" (at the rear of the building), and there is a small area of greenspace located between the parking lot and (future) Stoneridge Lane. Most of the site's green space is located at the rear of the lot, in the 50-foot building setback area. It is important to maintain this existing tree row since it acts as a buffer, and it will need to be protected during all phases of construction. • The site has two full service access points from (future) Stoneridge Lane that are about 135 feet apart. A 22-foot drive aisle is proposed in the parking lot with 48 parking spaces (9' x 18'). The depth of the proposed parking spaces are one foot less than Code requires. • The proposed building is two stories and will be about 32 feet tall to the top of the roofline (25.5 feet to the midpoint of the roofline). As proposed, the building will be about 150 feet from the closest house. The proposed building is 170 feet wide and 165 feet deep. The text commits to four-sided architecture that is residential in character. There are no height restrictions in the text. Building height, massing, orientation, and architectural treatment to break up the facade all need to be considered at the final development plan. With a small neighborhood immediately to the south, the onus will be on the design team to show sensitivity and flexibility. Access Considerations/Traffic Management: • Stoneridge Lane currently terminates east of the site. The developer is obligated under the existing PUD to construct this 340-foot segment of Stoneridge Lane through the Phele Investments site. Road construction must meet City standards, and should be complete prior to issuance of occupancy permits. • A portion of the existing medical complex parking lot (and its landscaping) will be affected by the road extension. Any modifications to the approved landscape plan are subject to staff approval. The Landscape Code requires screening of all parking areas. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 21 Tom Herlihy, National Church Homes, said they have 200 properties throughout the US, and 150 of them are for the elderly. His experience is that parking utilization has been close to half car per residential unit. He said visitations are low except at Christmas and Thanksgiving. Ms. Boring asked if public transportation was planned for this area. Mr. Woodings said usually a van is provided by National Church Homes for its residents if needed. Mr. Herlihy said National Church Homes is non-denominational. Mr. Woodings said there is a common area for residents, but no common area for meals to be served. He said there is a community room, library, and laundry room provided. Mr. Sprague asked if the applicant could accept a condition that staff would monitor parking, and if it appeared inadequate, that parking will be added. Mr. Woodings said that once the site plan is set, it will be hard to add spaces. Ms. Boring would not support a condition regarding future additional parking. She wanted the greenspace. Mr. Sprague asked if the resident manager was also a social organizer. Mr. Woodings said that usually the resident manager handles maintenance and his/her spouse is the social coordinator. Ms. Boring asked how would a resident walk to Meijers because there is no path. Mr. Gibson said there will be a path along SR 161, but they would have to walk through the parking lot. Mr. Herlihysaid unless the shopping is within 100 feet, the residents do not walk. He said they will coordinate transportation for the residents to go to preset shopping areas. Mr. Eastep wanted a pedestrian path from this development to the proposed City park, without removing any trees. Mr. Woodings said they will provide access to any point on their property. Mr. Eastep suggested a condition made that the applicant install a pedestrian way, subject to staff approval, to the City park. Ms. Clarke said staff will look at the best place to do that and will check on other possible owner cooperation. She said there was a path system through the Braelin Green PUD, but not through the Stoneridge PUD. Mr. Woodings agreed to use full-depth parking spaces in exchange for reduced numbers. He said the sign would be externally illuminated, and they will meet the Stormwater Regulations. Mr. Fishman asked for stone half way up on the three rear elevations. Mr. Woodings agreed to put stone (at least 50 percent) on those elevations so that it looks aesthetically pleasing.. Mr. Fishman liked the project and wanted the colors, materials and roof to match the Stoneridge Medical Center. Mr. Eastep could support some diversity. Mr. Woodings said the senior buildings may be lighter. The roof slopes and massing are all hips, which match Stoneridge. He cannot match Stoneridge's asphalt shingles exactly due to aging. Mr. Fishman said they did not have to be exact. Ms. Salay said the architecture and materials should blend in with Stoneridge. Deno Duros, an owner of Stoneridge Medical Center, said they will keep similar type rooflines, and pitch, using a lot of stone and cedar. He said the color is different, but it will blend in well with the trees. He said it will look good, and he had no problem with the materials, colors, or architecture on this residential building. ~. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 22 ,'~'` Ms. Salay agreed with the lighter color being used, but the white trim seemed stark. She suggested using off-white. Mr. Woodings agreed to use something tan or off-white. Mr. Sprague and Mr. Lecklider had no problem with the colors selected. Mr. Woodings said the transition between Hardi-plank and stone would be a trim board. Mr: Fishman said he was happy with the parking reduction because he wants as much greenspace as possible. The other Commissioners agreed. Ms. Boring made a motion to approve this application because the building is of a residential character and fits in with the area; the use provides lower impacts, especially to peak-hour traffic; and it provides an appropriate land use transition and buffering, with 11 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits; 7) That the text be revised to require a minimum of 50 percent stone on the building's exterior; 8) That a pedestrian path be constructed, subject to staff approval; 9) That the site comply with the Dublin Stormwater Regulations; 10) That the text and plans eliminate the white trim on the building and select a more subdued color, subject to staff approval; and 11) That the adequacy of the parking be demonstrated at the final development plan stage. ~,R, Mr. Woodings agreed with the above conditions. Ms. Salay seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; and Ms. Boring, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. klider m a motion t djour s. S seconde The vote as unani us in f~cor. e meeting as adjourn at 1:10 .m. Respectfully submitted, Libby rley Administrative Secretary c..ra Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 23 Development Standards/Land Use/Parking: • The text outlines yard requirements as follows: front and rear building setbacks are 50 feet, and the side building setbacks are 15 feet. Pavement setbacks are ten feet in the front and on the sides, and 50 feet in the rear. Code requires pavement setbacks along all public streets to be an absolute minimum of 18 feet. In this case, the front pavement setback should be increased to 30 feet. • ~ The text limits the use of the site to those listed in the Stoneridge PUD (office and daycare) and a 48-unit senior housing facility. There are no specific age limitations in the text for tenants. The applicant has stated there will be a maximum of three employees on the site at any one time. This includes a project manager that lives on site in one of the ~'~ 48 units. Staff recommends that the site be limited to senior housing only (with the exception of a single project manager). • Parking in the text refers to Code. Senior housing requires one parking space per unit of elderly housing, or 48 for the site as proposed. The applicant has stated that fewer than 48 spaces are needed, based on data from past developments. Landscaping/Tree Preservation: • The existing tree survey shows vegetation primarily along the south and west property lines. The survey shows around 35 trees that are six inches in caliper or greater. Approximately 47 inches are to be removed. Code requires inch-for-inch replacement under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The tree survey is lacking information regarding the critical root zone, condition of the trees, and the total inches to be removed. A tree preservation plan and tree replacement plan will have to be submitted. • The landscape plan submitted shows a small courtyard area at the back of the building, and a mounded area at the front of the building. The plan also indicates that the south property line and accompanying tree row will be cleared of debris and then maintained as a natural fence line. Tree protection fencing along this buffer should be installed and maintained during all stages of construction. • The park dedication requirement for this site is minimal. In this case, a monetary fee will °~~ be used in lieu of dedicating the required 0.38-acre. In this case $14,250 is required, based on $37,500 per acre. This fee should be paid to the City prior to issuance of W..-~ occupancy permits. • The proposed landscape plan will have to be revised at the final development plan stage to comply with Code. Interior landscaping is slightly deficient by area and number of trees. Additional site landscaping will be needed to meet the requirement (one inch for every 300 square feet of building area, or twenty-six 2%Z-inch trees). The street tree species for Stoneridge Lane is Autumn Purple White Ash to be spaced 45-50 feet on center and located between the sidewalk/bikepath and the curb. The parking lot screening is also deficient. Depending on the final grading plan, the proposed mounding along Stoneridge Lane may be insufficient to screen the parking lot. An evergreen hedge may be a better solution. Utilities/Storm Water: • Stormwater calculations have not been prepared as yet. No on-site detention/retention facilities are shown. Stormwater is shown as being collected at four catch basins, two in Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 24 the parking lot, and two at the rear of the building. The site must meet the City's Stormwater Regulations, which include standards for storm water quality. Water is available to the site from an eight-inch line adjacent to Stoneridge Lane immediately to the east. Sanitary sewer services are available to the site from aten-inch line 500 feet to the north, along SR 161. Utilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Architecture: • The proposed building is two stories in height and is required to have a residential character per the text. The building is shown at 32 feet in height to the top of the roofline and 25.5 feet to the midpoint of the roofline. A maximum height should be specified in the text. The primary building materials proposed are cultured stone (Buckeye Limestone) and light-colored cementous siding (Apricot Frieze SW-2442). The building will have hunter green vinyl shutters and white wood trim. The roof is a hip design and will utilize asphalt shingles. No colors or specifications have been submitted. The windows will have white aluminum framing. No glass specifications were given. Signage/Lighting/Waste Management: • A single dumpster is proposed at the northeast corner of the building. The text states all dumpsters shall be enclosed within afour-sided structure utilizing the same materials as the main structure. The text requires cut-off type light fixtures, and the maximum fixture height is 12 feet. Lighting must be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties and meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines. The text states that Signage shall be ground-type (no pole signs) with wood, stone, or metal framing painted black, brown, or bronze. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is a growing community need for specialized housing. This site provides an ideal location, '"•`~' and the plan provides adequate transition from residential uses to the SR 161 commercial corridor. Staff supports this deviation from the Community Plan because the proposed use is less intense than office, especially regarding peak-hour traffic. The use is a compatible one, however, the scale of the building will require extreme sensitivity to site appropriately at the final development plan. Staff recommends approval with six conditions: Conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 25 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; and 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Bases: 1) The building is of a residential character and fits in with the surrounding area. 2) The use provides lower impacts, especially lower peak-hour traffic, than an office use. 3) The use provides an appropriate land use transition and buffering between residential and retail. 4) The site is appropriate for specialized housing. Note: The staff would be happy to host a meeting between the developer and the neighboring residents to address the architectural, layout, and operational issues. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission D~ A Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 18 5. Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Chad Gibson said this is a rezoning application to construct a 48-unit senior housing facility in an undeveloped portion of the Stoneridge office complex. He showed several slides. The site is 1.5 acres and zoned PUD generally for offices. The current zoning does not permit residential use. Ms: Boring recalled a previous proposal for senior housing in this area. Ms. Clarke said there were several. One was on the current Braelin Green site on Martin Road. The land was zoned 11N~" PUD for seniors' housing, but it was not developed and was later rezoned. Another application was defeated for a large senior building on the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Martin `~"' Road. There was another very close to this site, and it may have been heard on an informal basis by the Commission. Mr. Gibson said the developer is responsible for extending Stoneridge Lane to the western property line with or without this development. Tree rows run along the south and west property lines. The site is undeveloped, and the southern tree line will remain. Mr. Gibson said a 48-unit two-story, U-shaped, two story building is proposed. The closest house is 100 feet from the south property line. He said a 50-foot building setback is proposed along the south side (150 feet from the closest house to the building). Per Code, 48 parking spaces are proposed, but that may be too high for this type of development. Reducing the parking would permit more greenspace and an increased setback. Mr. Lecklider wanted the opacity of the southern tree row to remain. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Lecklider said that this application was on the consent agenda, and the applicant must have agreed to meet the parking Code. Mr. Gibson said access was provided by two curbcuts on Stoneridge Lane with a green area in the center. The building materials proposed are stucco stone, Hardi-plank, green shutters, white trim, and a shingled hip roof. The height to the top of the building is 32 feet. While this is part of the Stoneridge development, it will have its own development standards in the revised text. He said the Community Plan designates the preferred use for this site as office. The Community Plan has no specific designation for senior housing, but diversity of housing is emphasized. The proposed density is quite high, 31 units per acre, but the impact of senior housing is very low, especially with regard to peak hour traffic. Mr. Sprague said the staff report was well written. Mr. Gibson said the concept plan stage was skipped. He said staff recommends approval of this rezoning application with six conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 19 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; and 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Mr. Sprague said there is a definite need for senior housing, and he realizes it is hard to situate. He asked how to legally limit it to housing for seniors. Mr. Eastep said senior housing can be designated without violating the ADA, but you cannot build housing to exclude seniors. Mr. Eastep and Ms. Boring said the minimum age is 55 years. Mr. Gibson said the reference to senior housing is included in the conditions because it directly impacts intensity. Ms. Clarke said lot coverage could not exceed 70 percent. Ms. Boring said it looked like a lot of lot coverage on 1 %2 acres. She wanted the building materials to match the existing Stoneridge Medical complex. Mr. Gibson said the text requires that the building be of residential character and it will be similar. Mr. Gibson said there were 47 unassisted units and one manager unit. He said no technical stormwater data had been submitted. Ms. Boring- said she was not satisfied with the materials proposed, stormwater management, or lot coverage, etc. She wanted those issues addressed. Mr. Gibson recommended that if the Commission wants the text changed, it should be done now. Mr. Lecklider asked about the depth of the parking spaces proposed. Mr. Gibson said they were one foot short of the Code requirement, but the overhang can mitigate that. He preferred that the parking code be met if possible. Ms. Boring noted that without a cafeteria, workout room, or assisted living arrangements, this is actually 48 individual apartments on 1 %2 acres. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Lecklider wanted four-sided architecture. Mr. Gibson said the text referenced four-sided architecture. Mr. Lecklider said the text needed revision to at a minimum, provide for a guarantee that the architecture will be at least as shown. Mr. Sprague said unassisted living should meet the parking Code. The residents realistically will not walk everywhere. Transportation is needed. Parking is needed for visitors. Ms. Clarke said with a minimum move-in age of 55 years, often residents are in their 80s. Mr. Eastep asked if a centralized gathering area could be provided since there is no park. Mr. Gibson said the courtyard and an open end of the "U" will be that space. Mr. Eastep thought this was inadequate. Mr. Gibson said the park requirement under the Code is 25 percent of the site, or 0.38 acre, which is too small to effectively maintain. The monetary value is $14,000. To provide park on this site will probably reduce the parking or possibly several units. Mr. Eastep said the intent was to provide park close to the residents, and this particular site was far removed from any park. Ms. Boring noted there is a park just west of Braelin Green. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 ~ ~ ~ T Page 20 Randall Woodings of Kontogiannis and Associates represented National Church Homes, the future owner. He said their goal in the site plan was to keep car, parking lot, and building lights away from the residential area. These projects have very low auto intensity. Typically, the move-in age is late 60s or early 70s. He provided parking data from other senior projects. Their intent is to preserve as many trees and bushes as possible. He said the utilities and stormwater management would be in the parking lot and the front. The architecture is designed to respond to the existing buildings. He said their initial submission shows a beige building, but they would use the exact colors of the offices if the Commission desired. Mr. Woodings said by reducing 12 parking spaces (0.67 space per unit), the building can be moved 18 feet forward. This will permit additional landscaping. Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Gibson had seen this new site plan. Mr. Gibson said no. Mr. Woodings said the distance between the curbcuts is 135 feet. Mr. Gibson said 200 feet is preferred wherever possible. Mr. Woodings said they could eliminate one curbcut, but ~it is easier to use with two curbcuts. Ms. Salay was concerned about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Lecklider said a completely revised site plan is being presented, and no one has had the opportunity to study it, including the staff. Mr. Lecklider wanted assurance the site could be redesigned properly to meet the increased setback in Condition 5 as well as the parking requirement. Ms. Clarke said there were several design options to achieve this. The revised site plan is one example of how Condition 5 can be met. As a staff person looking at it, she was very pleased in the difference it made, however, the staff still will need to verify compliance with the Code. She noted this hearing is not meant to resolve the design issues such as curbcuts, parking spaces, and setbacks. The question before the Commission is a land use question. She said the Commission has discretion over those issues at the final development plan under the PUD regulations. If there are major changes expected, however, the applicant should be informed now. ,,,~„ Ms. Boring liked the use but was concerned with the building mass being so close to the beautiful neighborhood. Mr. Woodings said each one-bedroom unit was 540 square feet. There is an elevator. The building has stone on all four elevations. Ms. Boring said there was a lot of siding on the rear elevations. Mr. Woodings said the rear elevation was almost 50 percent stone. Mr. Lecklider asked under "Architectural Standards" in the text, that the reference to stucco be eliminated. Mr. Woodings agreed. Mr. Eastep asked if the stone areas could be traded. Mr. Woodings said yes. He said there will be a patio where the stone wall is located. He agreed to make half of the inside wall stone. Mr. Eastep asked if the two interior walls would remain wood. Mr. Woodings said he would rearrange that entire elevation. Mr. Woodings said the City of Columbus required 0.75 parking spaces per unit for senior housing, but this may not be enough parking. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 6, 2000 C1Tl~ (1N' I)1~F31,1\ ~"1°" Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 phone/1D0:6l4-161-6550 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Siie: www.dublin-ah.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Location: 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of"Dublin Center Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Phele Investments plan). Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A 48-unit senior housing facility. Applicant: Phele Investment Properties, 4051 West Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Kontogiannis and Associates, c/o Randall Woodings, 400 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this revised preliminary development plan because the building is of a residential character and fits in with the surrounding area, the use provides lower impacts, especially lower peak-hour traffic, than an office use, and provides an appropriate land use transition and buffering between residential and retail, and the site is appropriate for specialized housing, with eleven conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; Page 1 of 2 /1S 8UBMRTED 70 OOUNgL FOR MEEnNO ON DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 6, 2000 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane (Continued) 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits; 7) That the text be revised to require a minimum of 50 percent stone on the building's exterior; 8) That a pedestrian path be constructed, subject to staff approval; 9) That the site comply with the Dublin Stormwater Regulations; 10) That the text and plans eliminate the white trim on the building and select a more subdued color, subject to staff approval; and 11) That appropriate parking be demonstrated at the final development plan stage. NOTE: The staff would be happy to host a meeting between the developer and the neighboring residents to address the architectural, layout, and operational issues. * Randall Woodings agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0 RESULT: This application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~ Chad Gibson Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 21 5. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Location: 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Phele Investments plan). Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. ~• Proposed Use: A 48-unit senior housing facility. Applicant: Phele Investment Properties, 4051 West Dublin-Granville Road, Dublin, +~ Ohio 43017; represented by Kontogiannis and Associates, c/o Randall Woodings, 400 South Fifth Street, Suite 400, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Chad Gibson, Planner. BACKGROUND: This is a rezoning application to construct a 48-unit senior housing facility on an undeveloped portion of the Stoneridge office complex site. This is a revised preliminary development plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, a public hearing and vote will be scheduled at City Council. Atwo-thirds vote is required to overturn a negative recommendation from the Commission (a majority vote is required otherwise). If approved, the rezoning becomes effective 30 days after passage. Prior to construction, a final development plan must also be approved by the Commission. CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: • The site is 1.523 acres located on the south side of (future) Stoneridge Lane, approximately 800 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. The site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District for office as part of the Phele Investments plan. The existing text permits office and institutional uses and daycare facilities. The site is fairly flat and has a combination of dense scrub vegetation and trees along the south and west property lines. The site is approximately 300 feet deep and 200 feet wide. Stoneridge Lane currently terminates to the east of the site. • To the north across future Stoneridge Lane is the Stoneridge medical complex, zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the south is the Sunnydale Estates subdivision, zoned R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District. To the west is undeveloped property, zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. To the east is a parking lot for the medical complex. • There is an existing neighborhood (Sunnydale Estates) directly south of the site. The closest home is approximately 100 feet from the site's south property line. As proposed, the building is two stories and will be 50 feet from this property line. Community Plan Issues: • The future land use map in the Community Plan designates this site as office. There is no specific designation for senior housing in the adopted Community Plan. However, diversity of housing types is specifically noted in the Policy Element of the Plan. Senior housing is an area in which Dublin could benefit from broader options. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 22 • The Community Plan "tested" land uses based on expected impacts: water and sewer consumption, net revenues, and most importantly, traffic. Office is probably the biggest contributor to peak hour ("rush hour") traffic. Staff supports this deviation from the Community Plan because the use proposed will have a (minor) positive impact on peak hour traffic. Additionally, this site is not a prime office location, being situated on the far side of a service road with no arterial exposure. • Housing for seniors is a difficult use to locate. It needs to be convenient to services and transportation, and also located in a more protected residential environment. This site is located exactly midway between a robust commercial area and a secluded neighborhood. From this standpoint, it would be difficult to find many better sites. • As proposed, the density of the site is 31 units per acre. It must be noted that these are very small units, mostly single-occupant dwellings, as proposed. The impact per unit is quite low. Site Layout: • The proposed plan indicates atwo-story, U-shaped building with parking for 48 vehicles along Stoneridge Lane. The front entrance has a covered walkway and is located at the center of the north building elevation. There is a small courtyard in the open end of the "LJ" (at the rear of the building), and there is a small area of greenspace located between the parking lot and (future) Stoneridge Lane. Most of the site's green space is located at the rear of the lot, in the 50-foot building setback area. It is important to maintain this existing tree row since it acts as a buffer, and it will need to be protected during all phases of construction. • The site has two full service access points from (future) Stoneridge Lane that are about 135 feet apart. A 22-foot drive aisle is proposed in the parking lot with 48 parking spaces (9' x 18'). The depth of the proposed parking spaces are one foot less than Code requires. • The proposed building is two stories and will be about 32 feet tall to the top of the roofline (25.5 feet to the midpoint of the roofline). As proposed, the building will be about 150 feet from the closest house. The proposed building is 170 feet wide and 165 feet deep. The text commits to four-sided architecture that is residential in character. There are no height restrictions in the text. Building height, massing, orientation, and architectural treatment to break up the facade all need to be considered at the final development plan. With a small neighborhood immediately to the south, the onus will be on the design team to show sensitivity and flexibility. Access Considerations/Traffic Management: • Stoneridge Lane currently terminates east of the site. The developer is obligated under the existing PUD to construct this 340-foot segment of Stoneridge Lane through the Phele Investments site. Road construction must meet City standards, and should be complete prior to issuance of occupancy permits. • A portion of the existing medical complex parking lot (and its landscaping) will be affected by the road extension. Any modifications to the approved landscape plan are subject to staff approval. The Landscape Code requires screening of all parking areas. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 23 Development Standards/Land Use/Parking: The text outlines yard requirements as follows: front and rear building setbacks are 50 feet, and the side building setbacks are 15 feet. Pavement setbacks are ten feet in the front and on the sides, and 50 feet in the rear. Code requires pavement setbacks along all public streets to be an absolute minimum of 18 feet. In this case, the front pavement setback should be increased to 30 feet. The text limits the use of the site to those listed in the Stoneridge PUD (office and daycare) and a 48-unit senior housing facility. There are no specific age limitations in the text for tenants. The applicant has stated there will be a maximum of three employees on the site at any one time. This includes a project manager that lives on site in one of the 48 units. Staff recommends that the site be limited to senior housing only (with the exception of a single project manager). Parking in the text refers to Code. Senior housing requires one parking space per unit of elderly housing, or 48 for the site as proposed. The applicant has stated that fewer than 48 spaces are needed, based on data from past developments. Landscaping/Tree Preservation: The existing tree survey shows vegetation primarily along the south and west property lines. The survey shows around 35 trees that are six inches in caliper or greater. Approximately 47 inches are to be removed. Code requires inch-for-inch replacement under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The tree survey is lacking information regarding the critical root zone, condition of the trees, and the total inches to be removed. A tree preservation plan and tree replacement plan will have to be submitted. • The landscape plan submitted shows a small courtyard area at the back of the building, and a mounded area at the front of the building. The plan also indicates that the south property line and accompanying tree row will be cleared of debris and then maintained as a natural fence line. Tree protection fencing along this buffer should be installed and maintained during all stages of construction. • The park dedication requirement for this site is minimal. In this case, a monetary fee will be used in lieu of dedicating the required 0.38-acre. In this case $14,250 is required, based on $37,500 per acre. This fee should be paid to the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits. • The proposed landscape plan will have to be revised at the final development plan stage to comply with Code. Interior landscaping is slightly deficient by area and number of trees. Additional site landscaping will be needed to meet the requirement (one inch for every 300 square feet of building area, or twenty-six 2%-inch trees). The street tree species for Stoneridge Lane is Autumn Purple White Ash to be spaced 45-50 feet on center and located between the sidewalk/bikepath and the curb. The parking lot screening is also deficient. Depending on the final grading plan, the proposed mounding along Stoneridge Lane may be insufficient to screen the parking lot. An evergreen hedge may be a better solution. Utilities/Storm Water: • Stormwater calculations have not been prepared as yet. No on-site detention/retention facilities are shown. Stormwater is shown as being collected at four catch basins, two in Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 24 w the parking lot, and two at the rear of the building. The site must meet the City's Stormwater Regulations, which include standards for storm water quality. • Water is available to the site from an eight-inch line adjacent to Stoneridge Lane immediately to the east. Sanitary sewer services are available to the site from aten-inch line 500 feet to the north, along SR 161. Utilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Architecture: • The proposed building is two stories in height and is required to have a residential character per the text. The building is shown at 32 feet in height to the top of the roofline and 25.5 feet to the midpoint of the roofline. A maximum height should be specified in the text. • The primary building materials proposed are cultured stone (Buckeye Limestone) and light-colored cementous siding (Apricot Frieze SW-2442). The building will have hunter green vinyl shutters and white wood trim. The roof is a hip design and will utilize asphalt shingles. No colors or specifications have been submitted. The windows will have white aluminum framing. No glass specifications were given. Signage/Lighting/Waste Management: • A single dumpster is proposed at the northeast corner of the building. The text states all dumpsters shall be enclosed within afour-sided structure utilizing the same materials as the main structure. • The text requires cut-off type light fixtures, and the maximum fixture height is 12 feet. Lighting must be sensitive to the adjacent residential properties and meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines. • The text states that Signage shall be ground-type (no pole signs) with wood, stone, or metal framing painted black, brown, or bronze. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is a growing community need for specialized housing. This site provides an ideal location, and the plan provides adequate transition from residential uses to the SR 161 commercial corridor. Staff supports this deviation from the Community Plan because the proposed use is less intense than office, especially regarding peak-hour traffic. The use is a compatible one, however, the scale of the building will require extreme sensitivity to site appropriately at the final development plan. Staff recommends approval with six conditions: Conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; r--, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -July 6, 2000 Page 25 Bases: 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; and 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 1) The building is of a residential character and fits in with the surrounding area. 2) The use provides lower impacts, especially lower peak-hour traffic, than an office use. 3) The use provides an appropriate land use transition and buffering between residential and retail. 4) The site is appropriate for specialized housing. Note: The staff would be happy to host a meeting between the developer and the neighboring residents to address the architectural, layout, and operational issues. L,~, dv~ :-_P5 0 ~t~ t~w~v ~ , . L~ - i Z ~ c ~ ~~ _ e m c$' ,a U W BKUNCSXE ~J ~ ~ Fire Department m ~ TUIIER RD R RO ~ ~~~ ~ _ '' y ~~e ~~ ~ P ~i Y '~ D~~ ~ SNGUff RUN ~`. Y..,/ ~~ ~~ s O Dublin Library ~ GuE oR OST LIBRARY F4'°un iFFICE p ~fZ NIGH SCHOOL RO O S~ N~*2 q ~ WI P ~ a I 'an Run E.S`~ ~ N ~1 Sells M.S. ~. W ~z y~~LL ~_ ~ ° ~ SEIl E p M C7R"GrtJIA C 'Pe ; !Ptt 5 P'° SITE JOHN P CLOVER ~ GNtUr G~ $ , y ~ LaLYJdAfr Ci _ uP 5~ O m ~ ~ a WN C< OR ~ :Q18 SNGRt ~ O GLEN ~ Q i~ ~f LCNGVIEyy y - ]a _FR/' ~ 3 rc 0 N o GRANOVIEIV rxt ~ O 7~ U 7 ¢ tJt t~ - O n W C ~l O C Y ~ ~ p~ ~ TULLER ~ \` ., ~, r ~ ~ 00-0652 Preliminary Development Plan o ,~ ~ Senior Housing "''Y""'~R 4105 Stoneridge Lane S --,..~ ~ S A ,--,~ ~ ~~ ~2 ~ oe~.dW- l-'I/ ~ l ` ~ ~ _ 1. ~ l!. l/ ~/l l~~l~ j~ - ~ -~llf l-~ so ~ i /~~ ~ ~ i iii I i f cif `i % /! / i i %~ /! / ~ ~. ,~j~ ~f / f~ -~ - - ~ ~. R-2 i C-- ~\ SITE ': ~ti cB ~Id Dublin ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~~ Sa %~~ Soy: : f~ ~: cB ; 1 `: _ c6 : ca R R-4 2 ~~ CS .CB R ~ '. ..~ cec ccc ~~ ` ~~ - ~ ~i -` ;. ;I P<1 ~~ ~E 00-0652 Puo ~ ! Preliminary Development Plan ~ ~~ G8 Senior Housing ~' „ , 4105 Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission D~ ~ E Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 18 5. Preliminary Development Plan 00-0652 -Senior Housing - 4105 Stoneridge Lane Chad Gibson said this is a rezoning application to construct a 48-unit senior housing facility in an undeveloped portion of the Stoneridge office complex. He showed several slides. The site is 1.5 acres and zoned PUD generally for offices. The current zoning does not permit residential use. Ms. Boring recalled a previous proposal for senior housing in this area. Ms. Clarke said there were several. One was on the current Braelin Green site on Martin Road. The land was zoned PUD for seniors' housing, but it was not developed and was later rezoned. Another application was defeated for a large senior building on the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Martin Road. There was another very close to this site, and it may have been heard on an informal basis by the Commission. Mr. Gibson said the developer is responsible for extending Stoneridge Lane to the western property line with or without this development. Tree rows run along the south and west property lines. The site is undeveloped, and the southern tree line will remain. Mr. Gibson said a 48-unit two-story, U-shaped, two story building is proposed. The closest house is 100 feet from the south property line. He said a 50-foot building setback is proposed along the south side (150 feet from the closest house to the building). Per Code, 48 parking spaces are proposed, but that may be too high for this type of development. Reducing the parking would permit more greenspace and an increased setback. Mr. Lecklider wanted the opacity of the southern tree row to remain. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Lecklider said that this application was on the consent agenda, and the applicant must have agreed to meet the parking Code. Mr. Gibson said access was provided by two curbcuts on Stoneridge Lane with a green area in the center. The building materials proposed are stucco stone, Hardi-plank, green shutters, white trim, and a shingled hip roof. The height to the top of the building is 32 feet. While this is part of the Stoneridge development, it will have its own development standards in the revised text. He said the Community Plan designates the preferred use for this site as office. The Community Plan has no specific designation for senior housing, but diversity of housing is emphasized. The proposed density is quite high, 31 units per acre, but the impact of senior housing is very low, especially with regard to peak hour traffic. Mr. Sprague said the staff report was well written. Mr. Gibson said the concept plan stage was skipped. He said staff recommends approval of this rezoning application with six conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 ~~ Page 19 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; and 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits. ,.,~, Mr. Sprague said there is a definite need for senior housing, and he realizes it is hard to situate. He asked how to legally limit it to housing for seniors. Mr. Eastep said senior housing can be ,~, designated without violating the ADA, but you cannot build housing to exclude seniors. Mr. Eastep and Ms. Boring said the minimum age is 55 years. Mr. Gibson said the reference to senior housing is included in the conditions because it directly impacts intensity. Ms. Clarke said lot coverage could not exceed 70 percent. Ms. Boring said it looked like a lot of lot coverage on 1 % acres. She wanted the building materials to match the existing Stoneridge Medical complex. Mr. Gibson said the text requires that the building be of residential character and it will be similar. Mr. Gibson said there were 47 unassisted units and one manager unit. He said no technical stormwater data had been submitted. Ms. Boring said she was not satisfied with the materials proposed, stormwater management, or lot coverage, etc. She wanted those issues addressed. Mr. Gibson recommended that if the Commission wants the text changed, it should be done now. Mr. Lecklider asked about the depth of the parking spaces proposed. Mr. Gibson said they were one foot short of the Code requirement, but the overhang can mitigate that. He preferred that the parking code be met if possible. Ms. Boring noted that without a cafeteria, workout room, or assisted living arrangements, this is actually 48 individual apartments on 1 % acres. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Lecklider wanted four-sided architecture. Mr. Gibson said the text referenced four-sided architecture. Mr. Lecklider said the text needed revision to at a minimum, provide for a guarantee that the architecture will be at least as shown. Mr. Sprague said unassisted living should meet the parking Code. The residents realistically will not walk everywhere. Transportation is needed. Parking is needed for visitors. Ms. Clarke said with a minimum move-in age of 55 years, often residents are in their 80s. Mr. Eastep asked if a centralized gathering area could be provided since there is no park. Mr. Gibson said the courtyard and an open end of the "U" will be that space. Mr. Eastep thought this was inadequate. Mr. Gibson said the park requirement under the Code is 25 percent of the site, or 0.38 acre, which is too small to effectively maintain. The monetary value is $14,000. To provide park on this site will probably reduce the parking or possibly several units. Mr. Eastep said the intent was to provide park close to the residents, and this particular site was far removed from any park. Ms. Boring noted there is a park just west of Braelin Green. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ® ~~~ ~~ Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 20 Randall Woodings of Kontogiannis and Associates represented National Church Homes, the future owner. He said their goal in the site plan was to keep car, parking lot, and building lights away from the residential area. These projects have very low auto intensity. Typically, the move-in age is late 60s or early 70s. He provided parking data from other senior projects. Their intent is to preserve as many trees and bushes as possible. He said the utilities and stormwater management would be in the parking lot and the front. The architecture is designed to respond to the existing buildings. He said their initial submission shows a beige building, but they would use the exact colors of the offices if the Commission desired. Mr. Woodings said by reducing 12 parking spaces (0.67 space per unit), the building can be moved 18 feet forward. This will permit additional landscaping. Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Gibson had seen this new site plan. Mr. Gibson said no. Mr. Woodings said the distance between the curbcuts is 135 feet. Mr. Gibson said 200 feet is preferred wherever possible. Mr. Woodings said they could eliminate one curbcut, but it is easier to use with two curbcuts. Ms. Salay was concerned about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Lecklider said a completely revised site plan is being presented, and no one has had the opportunity to study it, including the staff. Mr. Lecklider wanted assurance the site could be redesigned properly to meet the increased setback in Condition 5 as well as the parking requirement. Ms. Clarke said there were several design options to achieve this. The revised site plan is one example of how Condition 5 can be met. As a staff person looking at it, she was very pleased in the difference it made, however, the staff still will need to verify compliance with the Code. She noted this hearing is not meant to resolve the design issues such as curbcuts, parking spaces, and setbacks. The question before the Commission is a land use question. She said the Commission has discretion over those issues at the final development plan under the PUD regulations. If there are major changes expected, however, the applicant should be informed now. Ms. Boring liked the use but was concerned with the building mass being so close to the beautiful neighborhood. Mr. Woodings said each one-bedroom unit was 540 square feet. There is an elevator. The building has stone on all four elevations. Ms. Boring said there was a lot of siding on the rear elevations. Mr. Woodings said the rear elevation was almost 50 percent stone. Mr. Lecklider asked under "Architectural Standards" in the text, that the reference to stucco be eliminated. Mr. Woodings agreed. Mr. Eastep asked if the stone areas could be traded. Mr. Woodings said yes. He said there will be a patio where the stone wall is located. He agreed to make half of the inside wall stone. Mr. Eastep asked if the two interior walls would remain wood. Mr. Woodings said he would rearrange that entire elevation. Mr. Woodings said the City of Columbus required 0.75 parking spaces per unit for senior housing, but this may not be enough parking. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 ~~ ~~ Page 21 Tom Herlihy, National Church Homes, said they have 200 properties throughout the US, and 150 of them are for the elderly. His experience is that parking utilization has been close to half car per residential unit. He said visitations are low except at Christmas and Thanksgiving. Ms. Boring asked if public transportation was planned for this area. Mr. Woodings said usually a van is provided by National Church Homes for its residents if needed. Mr. Herlihy said National Church Homes is non-denominational. Mr. Woodings said there is a common area for residents, but no common area for meals to be served. He said there is a community room, library, and laundry room provided. Mr. Sprague asked if the applicant could accept a condition that staff would monitor parking, and if it appeared inadequate, that parking will be added. Mr. Woodings said that once the site plan is set, it will be hard to add spaces. Ms. Boring would not support a condition regarding future additional parking. She wanted the greenspace. Mr. Sprague asked if the resident manager was also a social organizer. Mr. Woodings said that usually the resident manager handles maintenance and his/her spouse is the social coordinator. Ms. Boring asked how would a resident walk to Meijers because there is no path. Mr. Gibson said there will be a path along SR 161, but they would have to walk through the parking lot. Mr. Herlihysaid unless the shopping is within 100 feet, the residents do not walk. He said they will coordinate transportation for the residents to go to preset shopping areas. Mr. Eastep wanted a pedestrian path from this development to the proposed City park, without removing any trees. Mr. Woodings said they will provide access to any point on their property. Mr. Eastep suggested a condition made that the applicant install a pedestrian way, subject to staff approval, to the City park. Ms. Clarke said staff will look at the best place to do that and will check on other possible owner cooperation. She said there was a path system through the Braelin Green PUD, but not through the Stoneridge PUD. Mr. Woodings agreed to use full-depth parking spaces in exchange for reduced numbers. He said the sign would be externally illuminated, and they will meet the Stormwater Regulations. Mr. Fishman asked for stone half way up on the three rear elevations. Mr. Woodings agreed to put stone (at least 50 percent) on those elevations so that it looks aesthetically pleasing.. Mr. Fishman liked the project and wanted the colors, materials and roof to match the Stoneridge Medical Center. Mr. Eastep could support some diversity. Mr. Woodings said the senior buildings may be lighter. The roof slopes and massing are all hips, which match Stoneridge. He cannot match Stoneridge's asphalt shingles exactly due to aging. Mr. Fishman said they did not have to be exact. Ms. Salay said the architecture and materials should blend in with Stoneridge. Deno Duros, an owner of Stoneridge Medical Center, said they will keep similar type rooflines, and pitch, using a lot of stone and cedar. He said the color is different, but it will blend in well with the trees. He said it will look good, and he had no problem with the materials, colors, or architecture on this residential building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 6, 2000 Page 22 Ms. Salay agreed with the lighter color being used, but the white trim seemed stark. She suggested using off-white. Mr. Woodings agreed to use something tan or off-white. Mr. Sprague and Mr. Lecklider had no problem with the colors selected. Mr. Woodings said the transition between Hardi-plank and stone would be a trim board. Mr. Fishman said he was happy with the parking reduction because he wants as much greenspace as possible. The other Commissioners agreed. Ms. Boring made a motion to approve this application because the building is of a residential character and fits in with the area; the use provides lower impacts, especially to peak-hour traffic; and it provides an appropriate land use transition and buffering, with 11 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to tighten up the definition of senior housing, provide a maximum height, and restrict the permitted use of the site to senior housing; 2) That the building be designed, oriented, and sited to mitigate its impact on the existing neighborhood; 3) That the existing tree row along the south property line be protected, preserved, and enhanced, and that this buffer be maintained between the site and the residences to the south, subject to staff approval; 4) That the developer construct the required segment of Stoneridge Lane through the entire Phele Investments site before occupancy permits are issued, and that the construction meet City Engineering standards; 5) That the text and plan be revised to include a larger pavement setback from Stoneridge Lane; 6) That the park fee be paid prior to issuance of building permits; 7) That the text be revised to require a minimum of 50 percent stone on the building's exterior; 8) That a pedestrian path be constructed, subject to staff approval; 9) That. the site comply with the Dublin Stormwater Regulations; 10) That the text and plans eliminate the white trim on the building and select a more subdued color, subject to staff approval; and 11) That the adequacy of the parking be demonstrated at the final development plan stage. Mr. Woodings agreed with the above conditions. Ms. Salay seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; and Ms. Boring, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. lider m a motion t dj our s. S seconde The vote as unani us in f r. e meeting as adjourn at 1:10 .m. Respectfully submitted, Libby rley Administrative Secretary .' PUD SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. Allowable Uses A. Those allowed per existing Stoneridge PUD and 48 units seniors building only. II. Yard Requirements A. Front yard set back: 1. Structure - 50' 2. Parking and drives - 20' and as shown on PUD site plan. B. Side yard set backs, adjacent to Suburban Office uses: 1. Structures - 15' 2. Parking and drives - 10' C. Rear yard set back adjacent to Residential uses: 1. Structures - 68' 2. Parking and drives -There will be no parking or drives at rear of building. III. Parking Standards A. Off street parking shall be at 67% of total number of resident units in building. IV. Lighting Standards A. All lighting in the area shall be cut-off type fixtures (down lighting). Maximum height of fixtures will not exceed 12'. B. All external outdoor lighting fixtures to be used within this development shall be from the same family, or similar manufacturer's type, to insure aesthetic compatibility. All light poles and standards shall be of wood or metal painted black, brown, or bronze. V. Signage and Graphics Standards A. All signage shall be of ground type (no pole signs) an a of a standard shape and frame. All sign frames shall be o r}a u(~al ~o~i, stone or metal painted black, brown, or bronze. U -- VI. Additional Development Standards JUL 2 6 2000 C~(7 ~ ~ ~ .~lLofQ~ _ ~lt~ ---G~TY ~`~ ~.,~a_~N Page Two PUD SENIOR LIVING RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VI. Additional Development Standards A. Dumpster Enclosures -All dumpsters shall be enclosed within a four sided enclosure of wood, stone or brick. All enclosures will be of the same architectural materials as the main structure and will conform to all building setback requirements. VII. Architectural Standards A. Senior housing shall be defined as housing for residents of the age of 62 and over. B. Maximum height to midpoint of main roof structure shall not exceed 40'-0". C. In keeping with the residential framework of the area, all architecture will be of a residential character and constructed of natural materials, being stone, wood, or cementious siding. All buildings will be of the same finished quality on al! four sides. Stone accent will be integrated into the building. D. Exterior finish to be minimum 50% stone. E. All exterior colors of seniors' building will match, as closely as possible, the exterior colors of the existing Stoneridge development. ,y , GRANDE JEFFERSON 8410WA - 8432BP - 8432R3 - 8432R5 1343718 - 84386P - 8438R3 - 8438R5 is ~3 ~ 'y~~- ,~ ~_,{ hJ ' ~.-. yy~' F _ yNi .. t~ ~; • I esca ~ p SITE • ROADWAY ~ AREA LIGHTING ,~ -. ' _ _, ... ~ i~- ~. - ..11 .. ~,_t~..~ 84326 P H. 34" W. 143/a.. FInER-3"1.D. Finish shown-Silver (Dl ie t - - i ~' _ i ;- _ --~.~„_x .. ~ ,~~,~ ~ .- ~ _ ~ _. ~+ - ~ ', _ - -_ __ ..~ - . ,. _ ~ ~ ,,,,, ~' ' r `r ~ , ,, „ ,, =9 ~ _ - F .r -- - -- ~ _- - :_ -- _h - --- -~ _ .. ~~ ,_ Models ~ _ _ rr s available 8432BP 84386P 8432R3 8438R3 8432R5 8438R5 843716 8410WA l_-11 Hanover Lantern. inc. GRANDE JEFFERSON 8410WA - 8432BP - 8432R3 - 8432R5 8437IB - 84386P - 8438R3 - 8438R5 ~~ SITE . Rnenwev eQFe I IC~uT1A1!': •EI~n T L:n - iA S:. ~. -'. ~ ~VRE I~ti i , .. r :. ~. 9038R3 ° 11 _ - 11 ~ 11 ~ _ _. ~~-` ._-._ ate- -... . __. r~ 8432BP 84388P 8432R3 d438R3 8432R5 8438R5 843718 8410WA Viax- :`i! ~0 Ib5 ~`~ ~ ducrom nev JI t;pe dl ~-~ as-on ,enactor svstHrr t j e. _ .d51 LIiIIVAIUIII Iuual ;ap 6 ~`ffck .•, ; ,kA nA nAn ~dW n~ru7eo ~xn 'W easy ,anonxy ~ _ ~~bnlonldNy Uu7unle0 type ill cul~Utl oplral assenwly wuh port. nXxpA Ease Okv socket ` ~rwunl¢d al root. tl8rnp rw1 suppkea.t i - •. ..,51 .aununum l*utcJett ,.aye. _'.••n1 .KN1K. ;:age Parlels slwv+n iullrer; ~ ~.u~4~ L'-4r!1cif:1.!dS:10t17 t~HS seCUrad .. ':lqe :VOh : Iles s zcrew~ i :+ . ~ 'rnsle(1 yiess' clvnvrey d twrr~ttzc/ . -.. - ,acgtuxcrl Grass tunmey Gdtler. `,.;i electnfieU 7 _ _. Sdndsl 3 t::xr.Wnenl Ir:ut:; „, ,melt I'I I':;/de _ pc :aSI ;LUn,uttun ,~gL'Itrt9 .x,.cil GdNasl I;OU3Ak)':nlh :elru`~aUle icCe55 :1COr .3 :;lice-UUI t~Y35i Iraq :S111Xnletl '.Vjt[1--~ WAGE _:1(SC:.'iUN'CIS `rrr ~,asv riyrH v4! ~ I ` .sl .nrunxnnn rh:el ,:tier -aps .,vet 1 .,., .- ua ;;osl ~u tcvvn I ' i .I,vmI IJSlbnen: u.. (an:leSS `;IECi , :B'.:rA ..,µiUlIK7 Asymmetric Distribution Fixture d432R3 Optics hype III Cut01f Lamp' 150w H P 3. Mounting Helyht. 12' Lamp Lumens: td.p00 Panels. Clear polycarbonate ,o 0 50 iinEET SLOE .;r - JO HUU5E .nIUF 16 ' ' so _ 1 ~ 7 .;e - - 0 1 2 3 4 5 :.tr,nnony na,gm m,nhr,ner •o ,o ,a ze ) ,a is ,t) r snl,,. HOUSE IGE STREET 310E '.1ty Hr Ili i 10' i l' 12' 13' 10' AAiIU = Jlslance .Lon[] raonnbnq nwgbl ~orrecbon factor I.J 1.2 1.0 86 73 to ensure prompt and efficient processing of your order, - Please follow the sequence listed in the example below. '~ SOUgCE: ~ ~ VyATTAGE: MV ~;.;-; MV-,. r:ercurv vapor S- „- , .- )0- 1 j(i~ 4?5D S-nrth pressure sounu' _! MH- `- .: I?5-'1.50 MH-',:ut,ll ,nrtc -~ V_O_LTA_G_ E: _; MODEL NO.: _ _.,. - 08v-;,10; -)--, 8432BP 8432R5 84388P 8432R5 -- REFRACTORS: .~ru n~rretr 8432R3 843718 81•J- ~pas_c ':. . 8438R3 8410WA 82 --• ila_+:, ':i-~~ -,Ii ~; FINISH: 83-•t llas~ ~~:pa r ;~; _: PANELS: PHOTO CONTROL. vd:,~,eelr CP ,..._. ..r.. .i,. It ii OA- ,,.d ........ OP I ,II :., r,:.:ur,..~~. d,; PP ~ .~.,D. ,..,Ir -ru~:r.~.u,: - - S 8432BP A CP 100 120 83 10 t~ t• ~_ ~_ _ = LANTERN. inc. __ -- 170 HIGH STREET • HANOVER, PA t 7337 USA _ PH. '1 7 113 2-6060 FA%: 717 632~5U39 -- E-rta,l'. nanavnrt,,nlernrisun-link-~nm L-12 SOURCES; •:n:<n~y un6illyd. vrimrrrd,+nJ rr>trlfl. INC. c_,:.:.lescenp _'SU -:valt max MV ~ ....,~. ;,,apur;9i:~~5-tC0-1:5~';i0::att S I: . , sura 5calumi 35~b0-;0-100-t50-'?50 :vau MH,.,~. •r.a ~ dudel ~p-t00~t75-25U'.van FINS HE >i!'-;u lr:~u :_,,ntem rnllsheS dvatlable. aaa page ru ~ele,;llor PA L CP-:;lear u;r~Aic CP `.,lear uolycarconate. JV >[abllrzecl. OA-,ipal :tcryfic OP Jpal polycarbonate, uV etatrliized PP-~!ISn'.aUC UUlyr:arhonata, JV ;IabniZaU. VOLTAGES: '0~_(iH-.:'Jir~.'r'' .iUAG nantai t titi hu~1r rnr a;•ndnbrhhrr REFRACTORS; 'Jo 81-n` bore;mc~Ie .Mass :ypa > ustnbuGOn ^l0 82-ti' :xxc:516Cate 01ass. !ype ill clislntruhon. Vc 83-:i" :;Gfti5i6Cale 'JIa55. !Ype 'd ,nS(nbUllOn `do. 84-d' ;;crostlicate Jlass. 'YPe II ILStnbuticn. PHOTO CONTROL::11 trl n1rU :actory mstaileU Nu 10~'~30n)Il.nuv Nc 11-?OB to .-'-' ~.on a .~-+ U O Q N ._ t0 .~ COI L C 0 .,-. U N U Q ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Z a ~ m ~j QI ~ ~ . ~ W D ~" ~- ~_ ~ U L=_~ ~J ~d ~ 'I ~ ~ ~~~ . ~, ~-- ~ '~ ~. U ~! C~ ; ~;R '~~'S .. ,. 0 N •C C !~ G1 r.+ C O Y N r.+ V d .C L .~ E d cc M h et N N f ~D K M O N N N ~' T C Q ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ • v N c c c~ . ~ 0 +. c j o Y N AL v d ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ u C~ ~ ~ Y z i~W F . 11 ~ ~ ~ m~ /~~ `v tre.w . - U O Q N ._ co . , ~. O 0 ••~ ~ e M ti /~ ~,N N d' T '~ w M ao 0 N ct N N et T ~ O Q N •N..I ilk U O Q N ._ C ~ O C .~ a~ 0 ~) W >r U >` Z ~- VI ~4 a a~F ~S ~~~ i II ~~ 3 ~ o~ IIn Z ~~ = ~ ~~~~ t ~~~ $3~ ~~ ~' ~~c ,~~~g w ~~m~ ~ ~ ~ s+d ~ Q ~~~ rm~~A ~.~~ ~ ~~ ~ 7~ ~~ `~~~~N ~ z7~F yd~ ~ ~6~?~'p~3 F 0.~ 8~ ~~ ~ ~~,~~~ ~~d~ ~ ~d~~ ~ age ~~ ~ ~~ +^.J F S ~ ~~x =ri11 F~ phis ~F~ O ., ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . ~: ~~ __ ~ a 3 ~ ~-p1 F s JI ~ N H N In tit ~ ~ ll N ~ --'N N @ ~ ~ ~ ,~~-mss _ 1 ~' t ~~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~~~_ ~~~~~~~~ ~T~ ZZOC zz_ o ~ ~ 3 ~~. ~ ~~~~,~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~.~~F z lll ~~ } ~ ~ ~ ~1q n '~ I ul z 't ° ~ Y ~I gL ~j S o~L ~ 111 ~ ~ S1 dpI ?~~ ~A ~ q ~ ~ ~~4 5~ 51 ~ ~ ~ ~5~~ a~~ ~I~ s~ ~ ~~' ~S ~ ~~~5 SFq 4 ~~ ~~_ Y ~ ~ _v ~~~~ ~x ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ao~ .~ v d•i• ~' o ~ <o..o ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ 9 gB Y~~~q ~ ,+ Y ;~ s . ofh~ss~ d ~ o 5~~1-gF~F~ ~ ~~IU W~~adZ-`~cc 6 ~~ ~~ J ~~ >~ r8 a 6~ ~~ y~ a~ ~~ r~ru~ ~_~~ Y~ f~7 ~ 3 ~~ r~~ ~~ ~~~~pa N~`z° i`~ a ~~ z S ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~\~ /~ ~~~ ~I ~ ~0 ~I ~ ~l Z~ 5g ,~ u ~_ Q O N c C W Q *. C Y N V L E d ~O M h d' N N et T M O N N N et r .. C O L a C (~ ~N 0 Q~ '~"~ U O N Q ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ U ~ ~ ^~ ,~, .~ ~ U Q ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, m ~ -~ o ~ ° ~ ~, cv ~-~ r --- ~"' U 0 v~ ~c c cv .~ 0 C O, Y nl V d ++ t V L .~ E d ca c~ ti ~t N N et r (~ K M O N N N 'fit T Q~ C .r Q os ~• ~ ~i aerw+ c~ U O Q N .~ O f+ 0 ~Y t L v/ a~ 0 ~~~{{ ~V 0 L U N U L ~ ~~; v z v ~~ N -~ cn N _ ~~ ~~ V g lL o = . ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ Y ~ \~ ~~ f!1 ~Ii ~ , ~ V ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ++ 3z~3 ~ ~ i l ~ ._ V ~ ~~~~ I;! ~ E . ;` ~ ' ji ~ f v ~ ~ \ ~ ` ri_ ~ ~ O® ~ ._ ® 0 -~ ~ ® o® E -''C . LLi ~ fi L J l a /~ ~~ s ~7 ~. ~4 ~~ Z 7 5 ~ M d ti ~ ~ ~~ ~{ ~ ~ 3~ N n i N ~~~~' ~~~~ 3 n ~ r~ 0 N N N r ~D C .C a ...a..,..„...~.,. ~~ _ ... . c- O I ~ c~ ^U O Q C 0 =~i •V ~ ;o N r•• V d ~~ V • a i., ~ a ~ `~ ~ -~ ~, ~~ '' o,., ~~' ~ °~ ~ ~~ ~ ~! i ~ ao ' T~1 '~ ,r': ~ r s ss ~lga n ~ _ ~~ ~ r ~ Q~ ~.N ~' -i N ~I~ : '1 Oi ~~,, : `~~~ ~~~;: ~~ a. 0 0 III O ®± - - -~ -- N U N V <t g[ ~ ~~ s ~~ ~ r o~~ ~. ~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ $~ ~~~ ,~ .~ ~ ~' S a V N G G .~ O C O Y M ~r N N ~r ~o c~ ao N '~' N N r C O .C Q ~. _. _ ~. ~ - ^ ~~/w,~ Y W .~] ~~l- • ~ u { ' I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ i ~ I I H ~ ss A '~'K ~ ~ ~ ~ 3j` ~ d ,,,i d ~,f $ ~ ~8 t Z 1 ~ ,til 1 { 1 illU~~ 1~~j II a y5 ?D t~ IAt~ `I J il{+~ ~ I yy mA 1 7qq7 i~~ ' 1 2 2jj ]Ij~ ~ : yqq ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 9 ~ ~ d a i 313 i~ ? L ~ yx ~~ ~ ~ vv .~v LC ,1 ~ ~~jj ~$~~ p ~~~~77iijj}} .a a ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~~ J ~ ~ ~(~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 ,~ 3 .~3~ ~ ~$c~~ ~ 9 R 45 8 0ba''~ 6'- rb'O "~9 ~~ eJ S '. r''~' - dm t .a e ~ oyd~ ~ ~r o ~ ~. O V .~ C w .- ~F+ O ~~ - ~ ~ • ! ~ ~ ~,,y -- ~ ,`_~ Z "~ ~F ~ ~ (~ r}~~ a ~~~~ ~ I ~ .. .~ +r .U Q W S. 0 ~ ~~ Y" ,,~ ~+ ~.. iw:-,,.:.,..~ ~D M ti d' f,N N \~ ~~ .. y.. t'~ O N ~' N N d' T C 0 Q e _ __ .. _ _ _~ ~.~ •~~ :=J ^l g"~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ ° t~ ~ C ~ ~ ~'~~ ~~~~~ g ~ n~~ ~sI~6 ~ ~~ ~~~ add gv..o ~~ `~ o `~ ? ~ ,~ / j~ , ,u, ~. ~~~ ~~k ~t~ ~_ 7?uZ r~~a ~ }~4~~~11 ~~T~d9~+ Q ~ ~__ to ~~°,~ ~ ~. ° S ~ '. o ; .;.~ Sly .c F .zvcs~~ S Sa ^. ~ ~av~R hhh6 1_ - ti Il ~ ~i Y ~ ^~ W a~~--{{~ ~V U O Q Yr ~~ t~ .~ 0 7 ~ l.. ~ ~ m ~ /-.- w . ~. ~ ~ a _ s ~ d t~ Jsl z - a ~~ ~ ~~ I n 0" ~ ~ ~, ~. _.\.. ~ ~ i/, ~~ O ~ u~ I~ I I ~{ ~~ ~~ / ~ ,i ~ ~ . - ~ a a- >p '.~. ~ ..• i a ~_ ~ n ; ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~ Q ~_ 8 ~~t, _ 8 ~, ~ W L ~1~+ U -~-+ .~ U Q s~ ~ ~ ~' l11 W In P i 61 .} 5 ' ~ _ N ~ ~ _ N Q 2 ~ \~ ~ \N ~N \N N _ ~{I In N 1n N to ~ ~ ~ N N N ~--'N N ~ ~ w~L ~olg3 7s 7 ` L ~~-_ ~1 Z~1 ~~~ ~~~~~~;q~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ F~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ul a~ ~" 5 ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~. -~ 2II-~ ~~ ~ g~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ bp~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 dui ~aN~ ~ ~ ~~~ N ~~~ ~~d1 5~t ~ ~~ ~ s ~n~1~~5 f~~ ~~~i1 5~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~5 50. s~T°' ,. a,k~ ~. ~ p ~~ J1E11L~ J ~~ s fl ~, ~~ w ~ ~ J Z ~ d F~ EA ` ; ~ . ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ r _ ~ a - -- o r ~_ J ~ 5 .. ... 0 ~, i 1 ~ ~~,~~ ~_ :s J ~ J i '~ :• ~d ~~~~ ~ -~ .. :~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~`~ ~-~ ~ - .~_ .~ ~ ~- ~- + ~- ~ ~~r, ~ ~~~ \~ ~~ r w .~ s ~-~ ~o S ,~ ~ _ 0 ~~~ . ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ 6' Q _~~~ ~_. • -... ~ ~-- i ~t ~ ~ ~~~ 1iL ~ 5 J ~~xx~ ~ ~1 `~, \~ ll1 / ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~I 8 I ~' ~, W ti N N d' f co t~ aMo N ~' N et T C 0 Q n~ ~ O ~~ ^~ 0 ~' Q'~~ .~ 0 V N C C t~ O +~ C O N a ~ Q +.• ~ ... o = ~ ~. r. V ,,````'_ L • .. p ~ ~ ~LLJ .• / ~ _ ~. ~ ^ ^ ~~ 1 .... d a~ U N U L ~ .,.;~ M ~' N N ~' T ao 0 N 'd' N N T • Q ~ ~`-_~] C ~_! __ ti_. - Z V I `_- ~ m N .~ ~I ..~ __ d ,~.•, ~~ ~ C ~ g a~ ~~ .~ ~..~ •~, ~ ~ ~ o ~. C~ 0 ~~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ N ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ o . ~ ~~~~ `~ ~ F, - ,.. .. ~o® ~ _ ®a ~ ~ ® E ,~ ,r ~, 1~ r~ ~ ,. ~ . ~ ~ VJ •~ U !O VJ ^~ .... ~~•+ Q . ~. ^^. L.i~. O W L ~~ U -~--+ U L Q s a Q } ~ ~~ 1 ~+ J ~~ 9 ~' ~ S L 1 l 3 F J 1 5 a r 1 - ;,~,. , ~ ,- i"_"1L! C7r_~ - ~ ~ - _ _ ~ 5 ,. u L•-,_,- _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 7 V ~ rE-1~ f'~_'1 ~ ~/ o ~~ ~ ~ N _~ _: ~~~ ~ $ a N ~° ~ $ d ~ ^^ $ (~ d .. r--R -J ( C7L7 '- ~ ' _ -- crc~ _ I i~C.~ i i _ _ -..J ~~-- :~lr _ ~ "~-"r r ~ _ ~~' ,i ® ~ 1~~ I ~ u~ ~a _ ~ _ ~, ?;~ ~ ~ _; t_ _~ y'. o~ N et N N d' r G O t tL r