Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15-76 Ordinance
ORDINANCE RECORD OF 95 COLUMBUS BLANK BOOK CO., COL., 0. ► Form No. 6233-A �i�vgMC�' No.— 0 ------------------- � I Passed ----------- - 04d,4_ ---- / to — ----------- 19-7-10-- AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A C Y EME IN ZONING OF CERTAIII R'J'AL ESTA'J1_'E TO .-ILAM11TED UNIT D EVE LO 1 ':21.11 T DISTRICT PTJD)o BE IT CRDAINEID by the Council of the Village of Dublin., State of. Ohio 3 of the elected memnbrn.,rs concurring WF,4,W,*J LJO MO ti�r!> 10 A 12&4Nc -ne, SECTION 1. That the following described real estate situated in the Village of Dublin State of Ohio shall be and it hereby is rezoned to a Planned Unit Development District PTJD and shall be subject to the regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance 2170, Village of Dublin Ohio Zoning Code of the Village of Dublin, Ohio as amended and shall be subject to the regulations and procedures as set forth in Ordinance 14-73 of the Village of Dublin, Ohio ai-iiending Ordinance 21-70, 1 L providing for Planned Unit Development District 1, and shall further be subject to the conditions set forth in the report and rec ori, endat ions of the Planning Commission a cop 11CL as 3 y of i4hich is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and is 'hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance: (See legal description Attached which is hereby made a part of this Ordinance) SECTION 2* That the plats entitled "Land Use Distribution". vrhich said plat are attached hereto and identified as "Exhibit "B". are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance. I SECJTION 3* That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law* Passed this /S"6day of 1971 President Pro Temnore re ,..Aayor- presiding Orricer At'tt S to Clerk- Treasurer VILLAGE OF DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ' x AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT For P & ZC Use Only OF THE VILLAGE OF DUBLIN { Application No.: ZONING DISTRICT MAP ZM j (Reclassification of Land) Date Filed: Fee Receipt No. 1 Received by: - - - -- Please type or print information - Use additional sheets as necessary - - - -- TO THE HONORABLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The Applicant, MUIRFIELD LTD. Being the owner (s), /lessee (s) of property located within the area proposed for reclassification of land /special use or development, requests that the following described land to be placed in the Planned Unit DevelopmentZoning District (s)/ Special District (s). A. DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE RECLASSIFIED 1. General Description of Land (describe by one of the following: ) a. Lot(s)/ Reserve (s) of a recorded plat, with an area of Acres/ Square feet. b. Beginning at a point along (street or other) and being feet in a N S E W (circle) direction from the (specify) of (street or other), and thence having a dimension of from the (specify) of (street or other), and having an area of c. The tract of land containing 89. 313 Acres and bounded by: Brand (specify) on the N ©E W (circle) Muirfield Ltd..land (specify) on the N SOW (circle) Muirfield Ltd. land (specify) on the ®S E W (circle) Oscar & Nellie Willing (specify) on the N (S) E W (circle) d. Attached legal description: YES XX NO Page 1 of 3 f Page 2 of ZM Map of proposed Zoning District boundaries: Two (2) copies of map accurately drawn to an appropriate scale (to fill a sheet of not less than 8- 1/2 x 11 inches and not more than 16 x 20 inches). The map shall be identified and submitted in addition to the General Description of Land. The map shall include all land in the proposed change and all land within five hundred (500) feet beyond the limits of the proposed change. To be shown on the map - all property lines, street right of way, easements and other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries and shall be fully dimensioned. The map shall show the existing and proposed Zoning District or Special District Boundaries. List all owners of property within and contiguous to and directly across the street from such area proposed to be rezoned. The addresses of the owners shall be those appearing on the County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurer's mailing list. NAME Muirfield Ltd. Oscar Willings Rhea 0. Kaplin $ Martin -&� David V. Kessler G.M.C. Headlee !t ADDRESS 3040 Riverside Drive, #104 Rt. #l, Dublin, Ohio 43017 762 E. 11th Avenue, Cols., Ohio 6205 Brand Road, Dublin_, Ohio 7340 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio ARGUMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE DESCRIBED LAND. 1. Proposed Use or Development of the Land: Low to medium density, commercial $ open space consistent with adjacent Mulyfleld land. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS and SPECIAL DISTRICTS submission of three (3) copies of a Development Plan and other documents and two (2) copies shall be retained as a permanent public record if approved. For other Zoning Districts, such plans or other exhibits would be helpful to the review of this application. Plans and Exhibits submitted: Plot Plan ; Building Plan Development Plan XX ; Sketch ; Photographs ; Other (specify) 2. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and probable future land use character of the - vicinity. The PUD planned is compatible to the East $ North presently being developed by Muirfield Ltd. The medium density and medium low density residential plan abuts undeveloped land to the West, commercial presently zoned R -I. Page 2 of 3 pages -4 Page 3 of ZM 3. Has an application for rezoning of the property been denied by the Village Council within the last two (2) years? YES NO. XX A If Yes, state the basis of reconsideration. N C. AFFIDAVIT Before completing this application and executing the following affidavit, it is recommended that this application be discussed with the Building. Inspector to insure completeness and accuracy. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, I (WE) being duly sworn, depose and say that I am /we are the owner (s) /lessee (s) of land included in the application and that the foregoing statement herein con- tained and attached, and information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the best of my /our ability present the arguments in behalf of the appXication here- with submitted and that the statements and attached exhibits above referred to are in all respects true and correct to the b�'st q'r my /our knowledge and belief. / /7 4(ignature) . L ung versi de /Dri Are _ (mailing addre s s Phone: 486 -5371 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of April, 19 75 ' NobMVj1,kAAbP;0GGESS, t4otariMilblic FRANKLIN & DELAWARE COUNTIES, OHIO Person to be contacted for details, if other than abd%} R' aI( -01R111ES APRIL 26,197-9- James C. Braithwaite 3040 Riverside Drive 486 -5371 (name) ( address) (telephone) -------------------------------- DO -NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE----------- -- D, RECORD OF ACTION 1. Withdrawn Held to (date) (date) 2. P & ZC: Date of Hearing Approved: ; Disapproved Modified 3. Village Council: Date of Hearing Approved Disapproved Modified MU 111E /EC O L TD. D. B. 3349 PG. 584 153&. a58 eC. 5' E N 72� 2515 /" =200 / o N70 °48 "Z3 "IF OSCAR F AAC4 L 1E W14 [ IAIG 122.305 dC. OSC.4,9 F NEL L /E W/C C /-vG 109 478 ,4C. O M.S. N0. 2SQ5 NI - 94 �2 a' l „e 154', j �� 245¢ S • l AfU /RF /EL O L TD � � D.B. 3388 PG. 385 ' 9 ?0 I \ / I 1 89.3/3 ,4C 5.084 Ac, / 84. 229 A C. -P4tiQ � 1� X40 \I 1 PL Q T OF 99,313,4C Z 4CT REQUEST /�C/G PU. D. ZD�C/ /�C/G FO,P 1W 111E /EL D L TO. P� ,E- lodIPED BY BURGE.5S F .V /PC E, Z1" 17,_,c-,0 CO(/SUL TIA16 ZZV6 111/EE,PS COL UA-lBUS, 0// /0 ",4Rel, /9 75 � R c�B � Al 79 °2/ 00'W 10 2.09 , _. n h v 0 M61/RF 1E4 D L TD. D.B. 3349 PG. 584 1-'T36,. 458,4 C, Dd V/D L KESSC ER 2.5 AC. NOTE COA1 TOURS S, 1OW" AR," F,40M 4/.5 G.S. 1L14 P,S . 4c . J, Cxt PE'�Q K /i1%r P O R ?r�l1 �' PAFo POs F.P Zon/ /A,/G W,q NE C. 3-4 4� 406W Ap-rAotl dzL� 7 p ;t.'7 A tq • SPEAKiAvG '+4 ME A GA /N3'T I � t .. y s %/E PRO PasEp Z o A)1� AraeEss 5'I 0 �, f�, �/;& d Ga2os���o ell L wv, D -1 -, Counc-11 viberr, ell. Ja PIftrch t Eu" Iin buildirigr in J. d a 0 4. 'to fhe4 -re7,on.I.-,-1cY- of a t-1-11-1c b D gr -1 n -t. o M urf j. ✓..an bra a i rl rr if C". 1, Y 1 0 31 E o r), a t t,,--.) 4- V Cl. 'L ✓ k.it -.-) t intil -able to revi 3L. d to a -pub"I t erri e. n t i a.rouinnents etov t 11 o nr c )p Ik t + han t CI le.-Ioper, "-,vor 0 E rP n wk-i�--, 1 V 0 r c d + c h:--L n �re o n s -1 d r)� r Fi b i y hJ ts who attendod'. -urt' f-rom tt--,e diz-:ve1opputjj,).-I- r,y t.4 . " IL + C, A T I r wa, hat t e o V�I rr, 11 - , I t to c e C cr Q IT.L n e does occlir howeve-7- C-nnuc f rl a I-Lr why progre to be b- -e.d' ijT)0jj 1�11.. ic' -L A 11 most bigh. 0. e, i t Y Our T),r t y sed 'Ji Ap,_." -1 + 1, n a."tsr S 61, 0 the s 6(1 r o p e. r t y 114-a e rur'-ti L y S t I ri. 10 o,- 0-n- A- -i'L n in ri -tr(,FL wj 1'envulrinr-T t_ .r. u pl'is.sled Lr-rowti-I w0j,,.J(j 0C C u 11.% n' 11,0t r,)-,p;,)ot-;ed t o t h J- a develo-p-,:.--r wants to bu .1. Id 5 0 1 or j desllr(.-.,; to ocate here, .11 wouRli D tho), -t (.;. o ..k b C oil 11-3 1. di c) r t JL S, t c progress, progre s s 4i(; St, on q u�-) I ity Y-1 II 'D q U.. ni.ty. y - t WhIch is t i i V u rl e "C' c. _1 J. u,, s who 4, -ir orp. --ri Lin • ty 1"he c'I*,1..angjp-g of' -the, 90 r e If-T44-1i I-lot ,-I C ~r_ o t hr.--N, W.. b e is bro, by t 0; r 0 D r, It f _31 M D '1�1 _P e $ Irqaxinium m n n e t a r Ut 0-!!Y OZ., ..- ., + Y h e i ri v i:3 s _$ To place thr, p-).-o, Ip 0 111 7'Inni1n.,_. in IT, I V to e iacinrr, tot:'Layj d►l ..�. .1 , 'I I •ill P. this �ls**i.ceii�.-',-iir.t-,,,rl,-L YG-a"r,* M;any con- troversies exist, on one side is _.1 _tW fg big -p r e s z-,, I re. ind-i.viduals and on th.,e other side is the vac-A rij-, -Y 0-�' t� t-j --:j 1 r j ;i e.r an People represelntleclt by the • 1,a'_-or_`Ln�--,r a.nd self of 4- e?'-ployed, the t-A`Vo b!-t.;--k_'),or-e Uh I S naTA(-)-_r) and. • it passes on down thlroLigh th(,-.a st;i.t --ou--l-ty 18tnal e. e Y . I thel re'n'.1 People w.1 o Irl-ake Uu6lin I.-he COM'HUn-ity that i" j.. s .A. t 1-1 IS CoUrITIry I S to r e.; n a J r, IJ) 1 11 , (-,, --r + -t, 4 01, -f, n t and f'ree na �D� S 7 10 t '-or decisions fnu s t) i�- - r-'rl t 1, favor Reiiember tfie go-qernment ex--IFj- 's J'cjr pc a J_ n Many times, wher-I I,r:-.-:i.di.n,P,- axt . s- • rn J n r.,r iJI)e J)u.ol - ' • is S 0 1 I'l C-', 0 ou + h�--ving a drieani, n. �_4 IW-11# when 1,qe purcll ou-T ril-v in to Wild a rp i r e �p a •Jjcj IY be o h!-W- a %o ba o L n e i g-Tibor' s t I i e .9. h u 1 -11-41 z ri.rj tie S Y u -* d ,_Ireams, a I s 0 hz o f t h e ac-1, dref-Ims occu--�:,d i ri , Illy dreap,l consist,,..?( ox, t s- bu t, pri rn..% 11J. -ir 11 j, • A RV III CA rka-'al suu., rb an co;-pi-tunit • 0, _Z3 nd T c, f V I-I olm t C) J_ 0. C, 4 1%C70I.!IIiIIIUYI_A_tey but ur I . i o b _00eaMs v e n , T_ I r! Y s e J. Y T� ' Y a f�d.- 1 •4,1Q in,j..Jly y it to -rr-r ur 1111 nc). V i. n t. , I%hl' t you i d t 0 0 - ca e jr, Nill,y ice* even oli, of t + ti I e 4 Li .I IJ IA 1. y c I e )r t cm A. t Yl call t Dubn A th-1 ufnen "..1 J Jr i� 0 r! -.mtJ oneid, li "!i i.nve men -1 1 D V I c I na-N :,11 Is 0 h V e - t to the colyli.,riunit- Iy not t h cin n u t V,- t I)J id �.tny other r e,�".', . e n--,l I Car tl fra V 0 • n 'do'li dr_-,\n.c-_J.ty de SilacereiNr Yours 80.50 Av-r-.ry Dublint 011ic u t z Dr. aud. -s Jo 1, 1 P Shultz :very R Ro a d Dublin, C 'a i o � lar;.a Y)76 Dull)lin Villa- -.c Council Dubliti.., Ohio Dear 'Council '.N',embnrs, The John Shultz family of 131040 Avery Road would again like to go on record as opposed to the density of the zonia,: char that is proposed for C-) and. Wet-novn4 the N.fuirffield property directly 12e'alad and adjacent to our 1.:�i -I- ,-ton to DubliL-), to cel from, such dnnsityL sae away from Upper Arli-1&6 %. Li k- I stron--ily feel. ghat Mluirfield should coinstruct any and all apartment uL-1" is and 0 L the lklulrEleld - ra -,ect so that it v-111 ;aot COLI�'O-,dniurns In ticic center o.L affect those property owners alrcady established in L'.-ej area. We have great deal invested here, aad certainly would like to stay in the Dublitl,., c o Ln,,ru n i t y Y,4e 1,1.ave never been 0 -Uveri an adequate answer to the proposed road that keeps appearin- on maps concerning future planning that would run between our land acid "asbarrols property. Everyone says that"someone else"put the road on the map! tae know It is not dcfinitc, but with high dens lity behind us,, u- not-her access road to Avery would ',-)c needed some - where! Needicss to S 11 k we do not, Want all. 050 ft. road beside ust. 7 a 9 4e hope you -,�ill take our posiLl'orn in this matter into consideratioi ThLaak you 7o-u very mu,. , � o ti r.-: T rU 4J 1 12.9 A c OM. 9.8A LIMB 9$*bv 16.0 A LMD 144 Wi. R 1 5o A'S 1\d S -b. �, 12.7 A Mo I I b -,v . 24.0 A cOM. 2.a A 13.OA coM . 8.0 A cOM. 26.0 A LMD i N 1 • �t \\ AAL • • \ o - -� POSED AS IF \ -� \► 4 • LMO • \ _ \ \ \ \`•� \C. \ \\ TEMPPRARY PUMP STA. • EXISTING TREES AS�944 Np R ■ ■ ■ ■ ia to 4 LMD >t du 1$ 1 � L �-T I I 1'' (� 920 18.0 A e ` MLD 144 DU Q4� 5.0 A LD 09 Du 1 F F-P. WOO 0", 0-0 M i 12.9 A COM -v4a" Y 1 12.7 A MD 190 DU k N. \I ** &W 0 2.0 A AALD 11R nil ■ .l t OQ` LAND USE DISTRIBUTION RESIDENTIAL Low Density Low Medium Density Medium Density Total Residential NON-RESIDENTIAL Commercial :Common Open - Spam f--- 1 Existing Street R.O.W. Total Non-Residential TOTALS Gross Density 5.8 DU /AC ry 'It f DU/AC DU ACRES % 517 47.5 53.E 12.9 1 14. 23,8 12 6.* D5.1 I 5.7 41.8 46.8 89.3 100.0 M FIELD VILLAGE UIR DUBLIN, OHIO DEVELOPED BY MUIRFIELD LTD. OF COLUMBUS, OHIO Prepared By James H. Bassett, Inc. Landscape Architects- Planners March, 1975 t 517 47.5 53.E 12.9 1 14. 23,8 12 6.* D5.1 I 5.7 41.8 46.8 89.3 100.0 M FIELD VILLAGE UIR DUBLIN, OHIO DEVELOPED BY MUIRFIELD LTD. OF COLUMBUS, OHIO Prepared By James H. Bassett, Inc. Landscape Architects- Planners March, 1975 Muirf field Ltd. March 15, 1976 TO THE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF DUBLIN, OHIO: You are to consider this evening the adoption of an ordinance which would accept the recommendation of the Village's Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of the Preliminary Development Plan which we have submitted with respect to a tract of approximately 90 acres situated adjacent to and North of Brand Road. If you accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission Plan for this tract of land, we hereby agree that we shall, by appropriate conveyances, impose restrictive covenants which shall run with the land and which will establish a 40 -foot wide common open space between the western boundary of the tract and that part thereof approximating 9.8 acres which is designated on the Preliminary Development Plan to be Low Medium Density. In addition, the restrictive covenants will restrict the use of that part of the tract of land approximating 18 acres which is designated as Low Medium Density on the Preliminary Development Plan to a density which would conform with a Low Density zoning classification (i.e. a maximum of four units per acre) . The conveyances establishing the restrictive covenants in conformity with the above provisions of this letter will be executed, delivered and recorded prior to the time of our sub- mission for approval of a Final Development Plan which would include any portion of the parts of the tract of land of approx- imately 90 acres to be affected by the restrictive covenants. Very truly yours, MUIRFIELD LTD. By r JAMES L. UNG General anager 10460 Dublin Road • Dublin, Ohio 43017 • 614 - 889 -9488 po ' 4-Y I � 4, r -6' x December 102 1975 1.. .icharu Termeer, Clerk ��i >lu diilane council aJUJ i.11l, Ullio 43017 UiCK: c planning and i uaing Coiuulissiou at its regular meeting held iuecemuer 2, 1975, took the Following action: 1. Voted to reconunend to Gouuc l approval of the preliminary plat 01. L�� U1 a tll 11� �'•lUd 1V LS lOil , 1 Ol "iaer ly known as Shawnee [fills ytiUcliV1s10i1, witf, a requisite that the plat show the approximate area of loci; in square feet as well as acres. L. Voted to reconmiend to k,ouncil approval of the preliminary plat of North Lake Develop,ient and North Lake Dam, subject Lo rllodi.iicat:i.ons in t:ne sewer 1incs, renaming of streets. The Cmunission also voted to delete the sidewalk requirements. 3. After a very l.en-thy discussion and serious consideration concerning densi.ti.es, voted to recomwend to Council approval Of i•ui.rfield Liiaited's aj)plicatiou for rezoning of the 139.3 acre tract on Brand iwad to PUD zoning, subject to amending the platted section of 9.8 acres from 12 units per acre to b units and the section of 12.7 acres to 15 units per acre. oi,m: jr IJ itespec tfully, Orville J. Moffitt chairman 1t z Cy LAND USE DISTRIBUTION RESIDENTIAL Low Density Low Medium Density Density 0000 12.7A Total Residential IVI D 190 Du NON—RESIDENTIAL Commercial X71- Common Open Space Existing Street R.O,W. 18.0 A Jr4 Total Non - Residential ML D "I 144 DU TOTALS % pop 01k 'v IY6 D 5.0 A 11 � " 1: 4N L .. I ZI 20 Du 2.0 A N1 L D 16 DU Gross Density 5.8 DU/AC DU/AC DU ACRES 4 20 5.0 T 8 160 20.0 22.4 15 12.9 A 22.5 25.2 Com 517 47.5 9.8 A a MD 6 147 EXISTMG TREES V LAND USE DISTRIBUTION RESIDENTIAL Low Density Low Medium Density Density 0000 12.7A Total Residential IVI D 190 Du NON—RESIDENTIAL Commercial X71- Common Open Space Existing Street R.O,W. 18.0 A Jr4 Total Non - Residential ML D "I 144 DU TOTALS % pop 01k 'v IY6 D 5.0 A 11 � " 1: 4N L .. I ZI 20 Du 2.0 A N1 L D 16 DU Gross Density 5.8 DU/AC DU/AC DU ACRES 4 20 5.0 T 8 160 20.0 22.4 15 337 22.5 25.2 517 47.5 53.2 12.9 114.4 1 23.8 _2§t 5.1 4 5.7 41.8 46.8 89.3 100.0 M fl 171m Law DUBLIN, OHIO DEVELOPED BY MUIRFIELD LTD. OF COLUMBUS, OHIO Prepared BY Jamos H. Bassett, Inc. Landscape ArLhl tact s - Planners Match, 1975 NO SCA Z E March 11, 1975 Description of an 89.313 Acre Tract For P.U.D. Zoning Situate in the State of Ohio, the County of Franklin and being part of Virginia Military Lands Survey No. 2544 and No. 5162 and also being part of that 130.42 acre tract conveyed to R. 0. Kaplan and M. Ornstein, as shown of record in Deed Book 2725, Pages 17 and 18 in the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a railroad spike in the easterly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract, at its intersection with the centerline of Brand Road, said point being N. 79 °21'00" W. a distance of 1030.00 feet, more or less, as measured along the centerline of Brand Road from the centerline of Ashbaugh Road, said point also being a common corner of a 405.121 acre tract standing in the name of Muirfield, Ltd. and a 7,5 acre tract standing in the name of David V. Kessler; thence from said point of beginning N. 79 °21'00" W. and along the centerline of Brand Road a distance of 102.09 feet to a railroad spike at an angle point in said road; thence N. 68 °46'07" W. and continuing along the _ centerline of Brand Road a distance of 1628.40 feet to a railroad spike in the westerly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract, said point being a common corner of a 1.982 acre tract standing in the name of G.M. and C. Headlee and a 109.478 acre tract standing in the name of Oscar and Nellie Willing; thence N. 02 °59'58" W. and along the westerly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract and along the easterly line of said 1.982 acre tract and along the easterly line of a tract standing in the name of Oscar and Nellie Willing, a distance of 2020.93 feet to an iron pin, said iron pin being a common corner of said Oscar and Nellie Willing's tract and a 405.121 acre tract standing in the name of Muirfield, Ltd.; thence N. 70 °48'23" E. and along the southerly line of said 405.121 acre tract a distance of 104.62 feet to a metal post; thence N. 13 °56'48" W. a distance of 103.19 feet to a stone gt a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence N. 72 °25'55" E. a distance Qf .1028.65 ft. to an iron pin at a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence S. 14 °15'07" E. and along the easterly line of Virginia Military Lands Survey No. 5162, a distance of 817.81 feet to a P.K. nail in the top of a post, said point being a common corner of Virginia Military Lands Survey Nos. 2544 and 2545 and 5162; thence N. 72 °41'54" E. and along the southerly line of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545, a distance of 356.55 ft. to an iron pin at a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence S. 03 °03'44" E. a distance of 2388.57 feet to the place of begin- ning, containing 89.313 acres and subject to all easements and /o; restrictions shown of record; also subject to all legal right -of -way. (The above being an 89.313 acre tract described in deed recorded in Deed Book 3388, Page 385). Burgess & Niple, Limited ]��gistered Surveyor No. Ohio BU&C3Ess & NIPLE wnTCnwonK• .ENO ecwcw�ac LIMITED •ouNOCO .�. Nlo Nwnr cNOlN CCwINa CONSULTING ENGINEERS euwoee• r N1n�c IN Iru IN OU.TnI...� w eTC. wATS. n........ D.VCLO.NCNT 2015 WEST FIFTH AVENUE AncA COOC 014 NTI�ITY V�LVwT10N COLUMBUS, OHIO A06 -0766 43212 June 2, 1975 Mr. Sherman Sheldon Village Administrator 129 South High Street Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear Sherm: In accordance with your recent request, we are pleased to offer the following comments regarding a request by Muirfield, Limited for PUD zoning on an 89.313 acre tract on the north side of Brand Road. Our comments will generally follow the review order in the Zoning Ordinance. We have mentioned repeatedly, with little witted for PUD should be appropriately labeled. ing letter describes what is proposed, the plan PLAN for future record keeping in the village. 450.07 BASIS OF PLAN APPROVAL results, that each plan sub - Even though the accompany- c►,cz�,t should be labeled PRELIMINARY (1) The purpose of the PUD regulations as stipulated in 450.02 are satisfied by this request both by itself and as an addi- tion to the existing approved PUD. (2) Appropriate comprehensive planning for the area has been limited thus far to the approved PUD plan for the adjacent original tract and the draft land use plan currently in progress. The proposals contained in this request are con- sistent with both of these items. (3) The proposed development can be expected to advance the general welfare of the village because the PUD process will give the village greater control over the development than it would otherwise have. Also, this request is an addition to the total Muirfield Village tract which will.enlarge the comprehensiveness of the project. (4) We believe the standards of concept, design and construction exhibited by Muirfield Village thus far are sufficiently high to justify deviation from the standard residential de- velopment requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. i ConuAve - Heep Your CountAy - Hetp YowtW 6 Mr. Sherman Sheldon -2- June 2, 1975 (5) In addition to corner of this ., are proposed. commercial land proposed in the northeast tract, three levels of residential density The commercial area proposed would lie west of the Village Center commercial area on the approved plan. As such it can be expected to contain supporting commercial activities much the same as the commercial area south of the Village Center although it is twice the size of the southern area. We believe this proposal is sound as it lies along the principal east -west collector street through Muirfield Village. Two areas of 9.8 acres and 13.2 acres respectively are shown on the plan at densities of 15 dwelling units per acre. This would result in 337 units on these two parcels. While this density may seem high, several areas equal to or higher in density are already part of the approved plan for the north - west part of Muirfield Village. Also, the location of these tracts, immediately adjacent to a commercial area near the Village Center and at the intersection of two collector streets, makes establishment of residential areas at significantly lower densities extremely unlikely. The other two density levels involve three areas, two of which are proposed for eight dwelling units per acre; the other is proposed for four dwelling units per acre. The latter area lies between the North Fork of Indian Run and Brand Road. One of the areas proposed for eight dwelling units per acre would be an addition to an area in the original tract. The other would lie between the North Fork of Indian Run and the proposed street bisecting the tract from north to southeast. Each of these areas lies at least partially along Muirfield Drive and in relatively close proximity to commercial areas. Thus, the density is not excessive and would provide a buffer for the com- mercial areas. The open space proposed in this plan amounts to slightly more than one- fourth of the total area, a fairly high ratio consider- ing the total acreage. (6) Not applicable at this time. (7) The only part of a traffic circulation system which bears com- ment in this proposal. is the street bisecting the tract from north to southeast. It would serve as a collector for the four adjacent residential areas, an alternate route for northbound traffic to the Village Center and adjacent commercial uses thereby relieving traffic on Muirfield Drive and it serves as a separator of uses along the collector street leading west from the Village Center. - x Mr. Sherman Sheldon -3- June 2, 1975 (8) Not applicable at this time. k- (9) Discussed in item (5). (10) This proposal adds 12.9 acres of commercial land use to the previously approved total and is not considered excessive. Because of building area /parking area ratios, probably no more than one -half of this area would be under building at a maximum. (11) Not applicable as this proposal amounts to a logical addition to Muirfield Village's total area. (12) Not applicable at this time. (13) Not applicable at this time although we believe the bisecting street should be developed as a collector street. (14) Not applicable at this time. (15) Not applicable at this time. (16) The applicant's estimates of development staging seem logical and reasonable. (17) The applicant's estimates seem reasonable. In review of the provisions of 450.062, we notice that no-space has been provided for Council Ordinance Number approving the Preliminary Plan. This should be provided. Based on our review of the proposal and appropriate reservations as noted, we recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this proposal as a Preliminary Development Plan for a PliD. If you have any questions about our comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, BURGESS & NIPLE, LIMITED John K. Alston JKA:ls April S. 1975 Mr. Shervan Sheldoa Village Administrator 119 S. High TDublin, Ohio 43417 Dear mr. Sheldon: Attached is our rep u --st for the zoning of app3roximptely 39.1-13 acres from the agricultural residence to piles'. This application for zoning change should he consPer*0 both a conCopt and preliminary plan.. The following inforration is attached: Exhibit I show3 pro 3osed location, size of area, proposed. residential areas i:�cludfni dwelling unit totals. an:' nii% or of ewell in;, units pro - posed on the development plan, mien s eces snA c =u orcixl area. Exhibit It shows the XISting Yeketati*n, tree masses, topography, varie -Us slo-e classifications. drainaSe and potential flooding aross. Sxhibit III sitows presort muirf.ield Master Plan, PUD area and indicates hov this 94 acres woulJ- be lrtearated into tine overell existing plan of 4iUrfield ViilaLe. Kx%R-it TV indicates traffic circulation psttern5. %e ado not ar1ticip at: aay row irapace in tha -sren. IDWIVer. we i _' icste the pro poseJ s trsot g rt latiann - s1:ip of the existing, streets, to,o,!7ra-�%Y and traF tic circulation of area. Exhibit li indicates the proposed schedule of s�:A development. J Rage Two Exhibit VI is the legal description of the land. 1 Saliere this information proytdes all necctssary require - moats of both concepst and preliminary PUP potential. Also attachod is a check for $ 750 to cover t %t foe for 'both t:ie concc -it alnd preliairary plan fees schedule per the PL;A requirenent.s. If thore aro any qu stir -s, or additional Infor- mation required, please ao not hw- 3itate to cull rya. Sincete1Y. JAZ*St C. Bralt%, Waita Jci l rj Cc Joan Moffitt !ieyors aanAld Richardson 3Qsenh R. Dixon John Alston P. S. Also enclosed is a copy of the utility plan, Exhibit VII. Exhibit X Muirfield Ltd. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The road, Muirfield Drive, which cuts through a portion of the 90 acres, would be the first property tot- ally developed as part of this is already under construc- tion. 2. During the summer of 1975 that area which abuts Brand Road and runs down to the low density area would be improved as indicated open space for the entry to Muirfield Village. 3. The medium low density area indicated on the East of Muirfield Drive would probably be developed within the next two years. 4. The remaining land use would be developed consistent with the overall development of Muirfield Village some time within the next 6 - 12 years depending upon the economy, market demand and other factors determining the overall growth of Muirfield Village. Exhibit .V1 Description of an 89.313 Acre Tract For P.U.D. Zoning March 11, 1975 Situate in the State of Ohio, the County of Franklin and being part of Virginia Military Lands Survey No. 2544 and No. 5162 and also being part of that 130.42 acre tract conveyed to R. 0. Kaplan and M. Ornstein, as shown of record in Deed Book 2725, Pages 17 and 18 in the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a railroad spike in.the easterly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract, at its intersection with the centerline of Brand Road, said point being N. 79 °21'00" W. a distance of 1030.00 feet, more or less, as measured along the centerline of Brand Road from the centerline of Ashbaugh Road, said point also being a common corner of a 405.121 acre tract standing in the name of Muirfield, Ltd. and a 2.5 acre tract standing in the name of David V. Kessler; thence from said point of beginning N. 79 °21'00" W. and along the centerline of Brand Road a distance of 102.09 feet to a railroad spike at an angle point in said road; thence N. 68 °46'07" W. and continuing along the _ centerline of Brand Road a distance of 1628.40 feet to a railroad spike in the westerly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract, said point being a common corner of a 1.982 acre tract standing in the name of G.M. and C. Headlee and a 109.478 acre tract standing in the name of Oscar and Nellie Willing; thence N. 02 °59'58" W. and along the westerly line of the above mentioned 130.42 acre tract and along the easterly line of said 1.982 acre tract and along the easterly line of a tract standing in the name of Oscar and Nellie Willing, a distance of 2020.93 feet to an iron pin, said iron pin being a common corner of said Oscar and Nellie Willing's tract and a 405.121 acre tract standing in the name of Muirfield, Ltd.; thence N. 70 °48'23" E. and along the southerly line of said 405.121 acre tract a distance of 104.62 feet to a metal post; thence N. 13 °56'48" W. a distance of 103.19 feet to a stone at a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence N. 72 °2555" E. a distance of 1028.65 ft. to an iron pin at a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence S. 14 °15'07" E. and along the easterly line of Virginia Military Lands Survey No. 5162, a distance of 817.81 feet to a P.K. nail in the top of a post, said point being a common corner of Virginia Military Lands Survey Nos. 2544 and 2545 and 5162; thence N. 72 °41'54" E. and along the southerly line of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545, a distance of 356.55 ft. to an iron pin at a corner of said 405.121 acre tract; thence S. 03 °03144" E. a distance of 2388.57 feet to the place of begin- ning, containing 89.313 acres and subject to all easements and /o; restrictions shown of record; also subject to all legal right -of -way. (The above being an 89.313 acre tract described in deed recorded in Deed Book 3388, Page 385). Burgess & Niple, Limited gistere urveyor No. yrc s _ Ohio S�zom E4e' desk of ... JIM BRAITHWAITE June 2, 1975 T0: All Members of Planning E Zoning Commission This Exhibit IV should have been included in the original package. It shows Dublin right of ways and easements. Jim Muirfield Ltd. May 29, 1975 Mr. Don Richardson Richardson b Kawaleck 220 W. Bridge Dublin, Ohio 43017 Re: Application for rezoning by Muirfield Ltd. on 89+ acres North of and adjacent to Brand Road to the PUD classification Dear Mr. Richardson: In response to the questions you raised concerning.our sub- mittal for a PUD; 1 believe the following answer the questions you have raised in this regard: 1. CONCEPT PLANNING A. The site is located on Brand Road North of existing Muirfield Drive as depicted on the plats and legal des - cription submitted to you. B. The estimated maximum population of the development would be 1602, which assumes an average unit would have 3.1 persons, the current average population per Franklin County 1970 census. C. The lands to be dedicated to the public would be those areas shown and the roads, water, sanitary and drainage utilities depicted on the plats. D. Existing easements and right of ways are depicted on the Exhibit #IV, copy of which is attached. E. Regional transportation for the area will be tied into that system already contemplated for Muirfield. Primary access to the property is from Muirfield Drive leading onto Brand and leads into Avery Road. This would connect with 270 to provide an access to the Greater Columbus region. 3040 Riverside Drive • Columbus, Ohio 43221 • 614 - 486 -5371 Muirf ield Ltd. Mr. Don Richardson May 29, 1975 Page Two 2. Questions concerning preliminary development plan items are as follows. A. Different types of dwelling units.would most likely occur in the areas below: Land Use Medium Density Low Medium Density Low Density Acres Dwellina Tvoe 22.5 Apartments 20.0 Condominiums/ Townhouses 5.0 Single Family B. Use of non-residential property falls in the following two categories: 1. Open space would be owned and operated by the Muirfield Association. 2. Commercial property would be developed as community commercial property primarily in the area of neighborhood shopping centers including barber shops, cleaners, super- markets, etc. and /or suburban -type office facilities. The ownership of these facilities would be transferred to a private developer, user or investor. 3. At this time, we cannot provide designation of parking area as specific lay outs of the areas have not been done. Since parking must be shown in the Final Development plans, I believe this can be provided at a later date. 4. Relationship of the development to existing and future land uses indicated on the Master Development Plan as shown in Exhibit 111, which shows how this site relates to the'---. existing development. The use of the land directly to the West:is undetermined at this time as it is presently farm land: The land to the immediate South of Brand Road is also farm land and there is no known change in this immediate use. U Muirfield Ltd. Mr. Don Richardson May 28, 1975 Page Three 5. Space for the appropriate Council Ordinance number will be provided on the mylar, which is not yet prepared, but will be prepared and submitted for final signature of the plan. Sincerely, James C. Braithwaite J CB /gJ cc Members of Planning E Zoning Commission Jack Alston BuxGEss & NIPLE WATERWOR- AND SEWERAGE LIMZTEn FOUNDEOA NI NwAr EN6IN E o ERIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS suROESS 4 NIPLESIN iGiz G TRIAL w aTes WATER (RESOURCES DEVKLOPNENT 2015 WEST FIFTH AVENUE AREA CODE 614 UTILITY VALUATION 486 -0765 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43212 June 2, 1975 Mr. Sherman Sheldon Village Administrator 129 South High Street Dublin, Ohio 43017 Re: 90 Acre PUD Zoning Dear Mr. Sheldon: I offer the following comments in reference to the PUD zoning request. Sewer service is not presently available to this tract of land, and therefore, development should not take place until it is available. The concept of temporary pumping has not been approved to date and any approval of the concept plan or preliminary plan should not be construed to mean that the concept of sewer service is approved. There is not enough detail in the information presented to determine the location of utilities. A preliminary utility plan should be submitted prior to preparation of detailed utility plans, once the actual layout of the site is determined. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, BURGESS & NIPLE, LIMITED William H. Myers, P.E. Village Engineer WHM /ls cc: Mr. John Moffitt 0 Comewe - Hetp your CourttAy - Hetp youAhett B, of Education 889 -1232 Indian Run Elementary 889 -8338 Dublin Middle School 889 -8772 144 West Bridge Street Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin High School 6780 Coffman Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 889 -2548 Jerome Elementary School Route One Dublin, Ohio 43017 889 -8883 9 ao4ing #nn 1[oral 1�r4nol Uthi#rid June 17, 1975 Mr. James C. Braithwaite 3040 Riverside Drive Columbus, Ohio 43221 Dear Mr. Braithwaite: We appreciate your reviewing with the Board of Education the progress of Muirfield Village. The Board did following your review, decide that an additional school site would not be necessary in the ninety acre area on Brand Road being added to your total acreage. We again express our appreciation to you for your time and valuable information. cc: Board File Sincerely, Willard Grizzell Superintendent 1!/I irfield Ltd. July 8, 1975 Mr. John Moffitt Chairman, P & Z Commission 126 Franklin Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear John: As we have discussed, the Village is interested in assuring that a site be made available for a potential fire station to serve the Northern portion of Dublin in the foreseeable future. At the present time, the fire board has informed me that they are not available to specifically designate a site pending the development pace of Muirfield, the future road system of Dublin and the possibility of change in the fire board service arpa�_ C Therefore, to satisfy al parties, we propose to offer to the fire board an option on two acres of any property owned by Muirfield Ltd. to be selected by the fire board at any time within the next three year period and to be mutually agreeable to Dublin Planning $ Zoning Commission, Muirfield Ltd., and the fire board. This agreement would not be unreasonably withheld by any of the parties. The price of the lot would be based on Muirfield's cost to acquire the land plus the cost of any improvements that directly affect the specific acreage and interest at 8% a year from the time of acquisition. If you have any questions or comments concerning this, I would be happy to discuss it with you. Si erely, James ,,. Braithwaite cc Memb� rs of Planning $ Zoning Commission on d Richardson Ja Alston Washington /Perry Township Fire Board 3040 Riverside Drive • Columbus, Ohio 43221 • 614 - 486 -5371 � le � 1 41 e 4)11 -r. INCORPORATED Dublin. Ohio 43017 May 6, 1975 Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Village of Dublin Re: Application for rezoning by Muirfield Ltd. on 89+ acres North of and adjacent to Brand Road to the P.U.D. classification. Gentlemen: I have reviewed the various plans, etc., submitted to me in accord- ance with the Village of Dublin's Zoning Code regarding the captioned premises and would offer the following comments: I. The submittal does not comply with the requirements for a "concept plan" in accordance with Section 450.061 of said Zoning Code because it does not include: A. The location of the site in the Village; and B. The estimated population of the development; and C. A designation of and location of lands (if any) to be dedicated to any public agency; and D. An indication of existing easements and rights-of- way; and E. A statement regarding a "Regional Transportation System ". 2. Since we are also asked to treat this submittal as a Preliminary Development Plan in accordance with Section 450.062, I find that the submittal, also, fails to comply with this section in that it omits: A. 450.062 (2) - Dwelling unit types (i.e. apartments? Twin single? Condominiums`? Single family? etc.) ; and B. 450.062 (3) - Use of nonresidential portions (i.e. type of commercial and /or type of open space) and suggested ownership; and C. 450.062 (5) - Designation and location of parking areas; and Chairman and Members of the Planning and Zoning Corunission, Village of Dublin Page Two. D. 450.062 (7) - Relationship of the development to existing and future land use in the surrounding area; and E. 450.062 (b) - A space for appropriate Council Ordinance Nwnber. When these items have been supplied, or their oirunission explained, the submittal will, then, be ready for your review. Very truly yours, Donald ARichardg6n Village Solicitor DA inj r JAMES J. HUC' iES. JR. CITY ATTORNEY D. EDGAR BARKELOO CHIEF COUNSEL ROBERT A. BELL FIRST ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY BARRY E. EVERLY CHIEF REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY _NIEL W. JOHNSON CITY PROSECUTOR YILLIAM H. BROOKS JOHN L. FRANCIS r JTCHEY HOLLENBAUGH JAMES R. KIRK PATRICK M. McGRATH CHARLES L. PRICE DONALD H. RATHBUN EARL J. SILBERMAN C. "VAN" SWEARINGEN, JR. SENIOR ASSISTANTS SS °�Om� sS� -Y�i o CITY 13F EELUMEUS ®HI® ZIP CODE: 43215 DEPARTMENT OF LAW November 19, 1975 Donald A. Richardson Attorney at Law 2000 West Henderson Road Columbus, Ohio 43220 Dear Mr. Richardson: DAVID F. BECK DONNA J. BOWMAN WAYNE A. BROWN THOMAS J. CONATY EARL G. COX JAMES J. FATS RICHARD H. FERRELL ROBERT H. FOSTER LAWRENCE A. GARLINGER EDWIN L. KIRBY, JR. MICHAEL C. MATUSKA WILLIAM G. MAYHEW DENNIS R. MORGAN MICHAEL J. MORRISSEY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS FREDERICK L. BERKEMER MICHAEL H. IGOE JOHN A. MCCOY, JR. ANDREW J. ROCKER EUGENIA L. RYAN MARSHA L. WOLOWIC LEGAL INTERNS Re: Dublin - Columbus Sewer Agreement Your letter to Mr. Hughes concerning the application of paragraph 6 of the Dublin - Columbus sewer agreement to the additional ninety (90) acres acquired by Muirfield, Ltd. has been referred to me. After discussing the problem with Robert Parkinson, it would appear that his interpretation of the agreement, as set forth in a letter directed to Mayor Dixon and dated September 26, 1975, expresses the intent of the parties at the time the agreement was written. Mr. Parkinson's letter does not change the contract, but interprets an ambiguous provision in light of the intent of the parties. Thus, it appears the intent of paragraph 6 is to apply only to the common areas originally set forth in Areas B and C and not additions thereto. As Mr. Parkinson's letter does not change the contract but interprets it, such action is within his authority as Service Director. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, Very truly yours, Donna Bowman Assistant City Attorney Dli: j:, cc: Robert C. Parkinson Service Director ,wlllnu,.� T�TI '�J,r R TOM MOODY C I T Y O F C O L U M H U 5 JAMES DEPUTY DIRECTOR DS MAYOR RICHARD D. JACKSON, P.E. ROBERT C. PARKINSON DIRECTOR 0 H I 0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ZIP CoDE: 43215 September 26, 1975 Mayor Joseph R. Dixon Village of Dublin, Ohio Re: Sewer Agreement Dear Mayor Dixon: I have recently been contacted by officials of Muirfield concerning an interpretation of Paragraph G, of the Sewerage Agreement between the City of Columbus, Ohio and the Village of Dublin. It would appear that it is possible to interpret the second paragraph of that Section two different ways. In order to assure that my interpretation coincided with the original intent of the limitation being imposed by the City of Columbus, I contacted Mr. Warren J. Cremean, who at the time of the signing was the Service Director for the City of Columbus, and actually imposed this limitation. This paragraph states that the premises in Area C, being a premises in Delaware County, can be developed only along with premises in Area B, as a single planned community under common contract and ownership, and only then after said common premises shall have been so zoned as to provide for a maximum gross density of twelve persons per acre. It is my understanding that this single planned community was originally proposed and zoned in accordance with the terms of the contract some years ago at the beginning of the development of Muirfield Village. Since that time I understand that Muirfield has obtained an additional approximately 90 Acres, and the above sections of the contract have been interpreted to include this in with the original planned community, thus limiting it to twelve persons per acre. My initial interpretation of the contract was that this additional 90 acres need not be included in the original planned community and therefore, was not subject to the 12 persons per acre density requirement. In discussing this with Mr. Cremean, he has stated that the original intent of the requirement also would not have included additional property beyond that in the original planned community. Interpreting this paragraph to require any additional development owned by the same property owner as the original planned community, would impose a limitation based on ownership only, and not on development since the same property could have been purchased by another developer and developed without this limitation. Village of, Dubi,in, Ohio Page 2 I hope that the above clarifies the position of the City of Columbus concerning this particular agreement requirement. If you have any questions, I would be very happy to discuss it with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE Robert C. Parkinson, P.E., Director of Public Service RCP:wb cc: Sherman Sheldon City Administrator Howard Adams Muirfield Ltd. File