Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 007-20RECORD OF ORDINANCES BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Ordinance1'Vo. 07-20 Passed Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan of +/- 24 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subareas D1, E and F) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subarea F) for the future development of up to 56 single-family homes and 7.9 acres of open space. The site is north of McKitrick Road and east of Hyland -Croy Road (Case 19-084Z/PDP) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, (o of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description, 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. The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance there within. Section This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this 6Z7 — day of Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: Cl r of Council Q., 2020. Form 6220S City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 9 Fax: 614-410-4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: February 4, 2020 Initiated Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Interim Planning Director By: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I Re: Ordinance 07-20 Summary Memo Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan of +/- 24 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subareas Dl, E and F) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subarea F) for the future development of up to 56 single-family homes and 7.9 acres of open space. The site is north of McKitrick Road and east of Hyland -Croy Road (Case 19-084Z/PDP) This Ordinance is a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan of a 24 -acre site within the Tartan Ridge PUD to allow for the future construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. Background The approximately site was annexed into the City of Dublin in 2002 (Ord. 71-02) and originally rezoned in 2007 (Ord. 16-07) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Tartan Ridge. The proposed site contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E, and F of the larger Tartan Ridge PUD. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided non-binding feedback on a concept plan for this site in July, 2019. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on December 12, 2019 and made a recommendation of approval to City Council. Description The site is undeveloped, except for a stormwater management pond that was installed as part of a previous phase of the Tartan Ridge development. There are trees and an abandoned silo located in the southwest portion of the site. A stream runs west to east in the northern portion of the site. The site has frontage on Hyland -Croy Road to the west (±1,365 Feet) and McKitrick Road to the south (±975 Feet). A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site with runs north off McKitrick Road. To the north is the Glacier Ridge Elementary school, zoned R, Rural District. To the east and south are single-family homes within the Tartan Ridge development and to the west is the Glacier Ridge Metro Park in unincorporated Jerome Township. Memo re. Ord. 07-20 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Proposal This is a proposal for a residential development for a maximum of 56 single-family homes, new public streets with sidewalks, and open spaces. The proposal includes approximately 7.9 acres of open space including shared -use path connections, a gazebo and amenity space, and the expansion of a pond for use by the neighborhood. The site is currently zoned PUD — Tartan Ridge and includes Subareas Dl, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single- family homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal requires a rezoning, and will result in a single subarea with a consistent development pattern through the entire site. Community Plan/Future Land Use The Future Land Use Map classifies all parcels within the Dublin planning area with a recommended land use. The map is supported by a detailed description explaining the general character of each land use type, including typical ranges for residential and non-residential densities. The Future Land Uses for this site are Mixed Residential Low Density and Mixed Use Neighborhood Centeras they were part of the Tartan Ridge zoning when the Community Plan was most recently updated. Mixed Residential Low Density designates a typical density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre and are intended to provide a mix of housing options. Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers are intended to provide daily retail uses and personal services for the convenience of neighborhoods for which they are located. Such sites include a target of 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area for non-residential uses. At 2.33 dwelling units per acre, the proposal is for a less dense and less intense development than the Community Plan recommends. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the change in use is supported by nearby residents. Proposal Details Layout The proposal depicts the extension of Brenham Way to the south to connect to McKitrick Road, as well as the extension of Enfield Trace to the west to connect to Brenham Way. Emmet Row Lane is also to be extended on the north end of the site and will curve to the south connecting to a new stubbed public street. Three additional public streets are proposed to provide access to the center and southern portions of the site. The new street names have been updated since the Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval by the Commission. Open space with associated landscaping is shown along Hyland -Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Brenham Way. The existing stormwater management ponds in the northwest and the southeast portions of the site are proposed to be altered and expanded. Sidewalks are shown throughout the development and a shared -use path is proposed along the Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road frontages, as well. Zoning The site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge) and contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single-family Memo re. Ord. 07-20 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 6 homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal would create a new subarea with a uniform development pattern for single-family homes. Access This proposal will eliminate a previously approved access point off Hyland -Croy Road to the east to the existing stub at Baronet Boulevard. This access was intended to serve the commercial development and will no longer be needed. This will also eliminate any previously required improvements to Hyland -Croy Road. Primary access to the proposed lots will be from McKitrick Road via Brenham Way. Brenham Way currently ends at Baronet Boulevard; however, the street will be extended from its terminus at Baronet Boulevard to McKitrick Road to allow for access to the site. Enfield Trace currently ends in a hammerhead east of the existing basin at the southeast portion of the site. The proposal includes extending this road to the west and connecting to the extension of Brenham Way. On the north end of the site, Emmet Row Lane will be extended to provide access to the new homes. Emmet Row Lane is proposed to terminate in a north -south orientation into Overlook Point. Overlook Point is proposed to curve to the south, turning into Claymore Drive. Claymore Drive will then terminate into the new extension of Brenham Way. Highland Pass (east -west), located in the center of the site, will serve as a connection between Brenham Way, Overlook Point and Claymore Drive. Overlook Point is terminated west of Brenham Way. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of the site, including along all frontages and leading to a proposed overlook in Reserve A (northwest portion of the site). An eight -foot wide shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along the entire length of Hyland -Croy Road. As part of the Preliminary Plat, which will be presented as a Resolution at the Second Reading/Public Hearing of this Ordinance, a condition required the right-of-way width of Hyland -Croy Road to be increased by ten feet to meet the Thoroughfare Plan and to accommodate the future planned roundabout at the McKitrick Road intersection. This increase in the right-of-way required the setback of lots from Hyland -Croy Road to decrease to 90 feet, which the text addresses. Stormwater Management/Utilities The existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site will be altered as part of this proposal. The existing pond in Tartan Ridge (southeast portion of the site, east of Brenham Way) will be also modified to accommodate the proposed development. Public utilities will be provided through public easements and/or rights-of-way as shown on the preliminary plat, which will accompany the rezoning ordinance at the public hearing/second reading. Memo re. Ord. 07-20 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Development Text The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for the development including uses, lot requirements, and architecture and materials. The applicant has provided a development text that largely lays out similar to the existing zoning regulations for the West Innovation District as part of the Zoning Code. Development Standards The proposal includes 56 single-family lots generally separated into two different sizes. Courtyard lots are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Twenty-two courtyard lots are proposed located on the perimeter of the site. Patio lots are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line and require a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 34 lots are patio lots and are primarily located in the interior of the site. The smallest lots are 6,500 square feet and the largest lot is 10,764 square feet in size. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent. For courtyard homes, the front yard setback is a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. However, front loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. Rear yard setbacks for both lot types are 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is six feet. At -grade patios on both the patio lots and courtyard lots may be permitted to encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided that no walls greater than 36 inches in height are incorporated into the patio design. Window wells may encroach into the side yards a maximum of three and one-half feet, provided that there is a minimum of eight feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one-half feet. All residential structures are limited to a maximum height of 25 feet, as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Landscaping The applicant is proposing a number of landscape improvements with this plan. The most notable landscape improvement proposed is to the exterior of the site, along Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. The applicant is proposing a naturalized mix of deciduous, ornamental and evergreen trees within Reserve A. This is consistent with other developments along the corridor and provides screening and privacy for the new homes. The Commission required additional screening along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage, which the applicant will be required to address with the Final Development Plan. Along the northwest portion of the site, the applicant is proposing a less dense cluster of trees and no mounding so that a vista of the existing pond is possible from the west. Proposed for the southeast portion of the site is an entry feature surrounded by low and mid - height plantings with taller evergreens behind. The pond overlook and shelter in the northwest Memo re. Ord. 07-20 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 5 of 6 portion of the site will also include low and mid -height plantings as well as some ornamental trees. This proposal also requires a hedgerow in front of all residential units in the development to be consistent with the overall Tartan Ridge development. Architecture The Tartan Ridge development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements, which prohibit overlapping forms, particularly for roofs and require symmetry in design and window placement. In addition, diversity of architecture is strictly enforced. Subarea F will incorporate many of the same elements found in Tartan Ridge. The applicant has indicated that the character of Subarea F will be identified by European Country and Midwestern Vernacular architectural styles. Key massing principles outlined in the development text include a prominent street presence, appropriate proportions, clean intersections and purity of form. These principles intend to provide the same high-quality architecture as is found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. Permitted exterior materials include stone, manufactured stone, stucco, wood or cementitious fiberboard. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home are required to be represented on all elevations, similar to what already exists in Tartan Ridge. A masonry water table, a minimum of 30 inches high or to the height of the window sill is required on all elevations. No walls are permitted more than two cladding materials unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has identified 17 lots that are especially visible throughout the development. These homes are primarily on corner lots or along Brenham Way, where side elevations are highly visible. For these homes, additional cladding requirements exists as to ensure a high- quality aesthetic throughout the neighborhood. These homes must be rendered with a constant cladding material on all sides exposed to view. This requirement will also ensure consistency throughout the entirety of Tartan Ridge. Permitted garage configurations include street loaded/front oriented and street loaded/ courtyard oriented. Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three or more bays are permitted. However, garages shall comprise no more than 45 percent of the total linear width of the front elevation. Driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers. As part of this proposal, the applicant has indicated that the HOA declarant shall form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review all architecture to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in the development text. Entry Sign The proposal includes one ground monument sign identifying the neighborhood at Brenham Way and McKitrick Road. The applicant has indicated that this sign will be similar in character to the existing Tartan Ridge sign located at Brock Road and Wilton Chase Street. The ground sign will have a rectangular profile, a masonry base, and will be a maximum of 6 feet in height. Memo re. Ord. 07-20 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan to City Council on December 12, 2019 with the conditions listed below. The applicant has addressed Conditions 1 and 2 on the plans submitted to Council. The dry basin has been removed from the proposal and green space has been added, landscape materials will be detailed at the Final Development Plan stage. Condition 5 will be addressed at the FDP as well. The development text has been updated, after consultations with Staff and the Tartan Ridge HOA leadership, to indicate that The Overlook at Tartan Ridge will join the Master Home Owners Association for Tartan Ridge while also creating a subsidiary HOA that will be responsible for on -lot maintenance (including the hedges) and the open space amenities related to The Overlook. All other conditions will be addressed at the final development plan stage. 1) That the preliminary development plan Subarea map be revised to include the existing storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with Staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin, add green space in the area and landscape material in the area, subject to Staff approval; 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping on the mound along Hyland Croy Road Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of this Ordinance at the second reading/public hearing on February 24, 2020. �1. nn Sq sNd a Tie Ct�e E SITE Planning 12019 City of Case # lublin OHIO. USA PANNING APPLICATION This is the general application farm for all City of Dublin Boards and Commissions. In addition, applicants should submit a checklist with the requirements for the application type indicated below. Attach additional sheers as necessary. ❑ Administrative Appeal ❑ Administrative Departure ❑ Amended Final Development Plan (PUD) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan - Sign (PUD) ❑ Architectural Review Board ❑ Building Code Appeal ❑ Community Plan Amendment ❑ Concept Plan (BSD or PUD) ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Development Plan Review (WID) ❑ Demolition ❑ Final Development Plan (BSD or PUD) ❑ Final Plat ❑ Informal Review ❑ Master Sign Plan ❑ Minor Project Cl Minor Subdivision ❑ Non -Use (Area) Variance ❑ Preliminary Development Plan (BSD) ❑ Preliminary Plat X Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan (PUD) ❑ Site Plan Review (WID) ❑ Special Permit ❑ Standard District Rezoning ❑ Use Variance ❑ Waiver Review ❑ Wireless Communications Facility ❑ Zoning Code Amendment Property Address(es): McKitrick and Jerome Road Tax ID/Parcel Numter(s) Parcel Size(s) in Acres (List Alp: 3900140580020; (List Each Separately): 3900140580000; 40000140580020; 13.77; 5.21; 2.64; 2.93 40000140581010 Existing Land Use/Development: Existing Zoning District: Mixed Residential Low Density & Mixed Use Tartan Ridge PUD Neighborhood Center Proposed Land Use/Development- Proposed Zoning District Mixed Residential Low Tartan Ridge PUD Density Name (Individual or Organization): DVC 6700 Associates, LLC & The Shoppers at Tartan Mailing Address (Street, City, state, ZIP): The Shoppes at Tartan Ridge 6689 Dublin Center Drive Dublin Ohio 43017 Email/Phone Number: kevin®stavroff.com 614-764-9981 nor questions or more information, please contact Planning at 614.410.4600 1 www oublinoumuSA.gov IV. APPLICANT(S): Complete this section ifthe person/organization representing the applicant/ property owner is differert from the applicant. Not Applicable Name (Individual or Organization): Gary Smith / G2 Planning & Design Mailing Address (Street nty, State, ZIP): 720 E Broad Street, Suite 200 Columbus Ohio 43215 Phone Number: 614-390-6149 Enni gsmith6g2planning.com ❑ Not Applicable ligpIll Phone Number: VI. PROPERTY OWNER'S AUTHO listed In Section III must authorize the A: Owner's behalf with respect to this applic Gary Smith / G2 Planning & Design 720 E Broad Street, Suite 200 Columbus Ohio 43215 614-390-6149 gemith@g2planning.com I Kevin McCauley, Authorized Agent , the property owner, hereby authorize Gary Smith/G2 Planning & Design To ad as my representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modification to the application. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative (hated in Sections III and/or IV), Original Signature of Property Owner (listed In Section 11): ll I Date: 8/21119 1 Subud a d swam before me thi da of 20 L •` - `�`•"" �' " ` state of�a y NOTARY PUBLIC Couniy of �. Notary Public --.,.s,.y. • i FOR THE -— STATE OF OHIO 3'` ' i�`' p; My Comri Expires .t, ovl VIL AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: application. The Property Owner/ Applicant/ Authorized Representative (listed in Section 11), hereby initializes City representatives to enter, photograph, and post a notice on the property described in this application. This is orshoscal, but strongly recomripinded. I Kevin McCauley, Authorized Agent , the property owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to enter, photograph and post a notice on the property described In the application. Original signature of Property Owner or Authoni Representative: Date: 8/21/19 For questions or more Information, please contact Planning at 614.410.4600 1 www.duNirohioUSA.gov VIII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This section must b^_ completed with an original signature and noYarizetl. Original Document Attached I Kevin McCauley Authorized Agent , the property owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and cored to best of my knowledge and belief. Original Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative: Subscn d T before me this 1 ` State of O Countyof r k(\ Notary FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: FORTHE STATE OF QHIO My Commission Expires November26,2021 Case Title: Case Number: Date Received: Amount Received: Next Decision Due Date (if Applicable): Receipt Number: Reviewing Badly (Ci¢le One): ART ARB BZA CC PZC Final Date of Determination: Map Zone: Determination or Action: Related Cases: Ordinance Number (If Applicable): For questions or more information, please contact Planning at 614.410,1600 1 wwwAublinohioUSA.gov BRD OF EDUCATION DUBLIN CITY CITY OF DUBLIN BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS 7030 COFFMAN RD 5200 EMERALD PKWY 1069 W MAIN ST DUBLIN, OH 43017-1068 DUBLIN, OH 43017-1068 WESTERVILLE, OH 43081-1181 OBRIEN LINDA L SHOPPES AT TARTAN RIDGE LLC PUN, TALENT VARLUE PHO, 9635 HYLAND CROY ROAD 6689 DUBLIN CENTER DRIVE MING HONG 6786 BARONET BLVD PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 WILLIAMS, NANCY GILLISPIE, GERARD MOORE, JALA LOUISE AND 6794 BARONET BLVD 6802 BARONET BLVD ADRIAN CARL 6810 BARONET BLVD DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 GEOFFRION, ALICE LUTZ, KEVIN W AND RESTREPO, MAURICIO 9171 BRENHAM WAY JENNIFER M 9187 BRENHAM WAY 9179 BRENHAM WAY DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 FORTE, VICTOR RAM, MURLI AND JAYASHREE CHANDRA, PURNAMA 9195 BRENHAM WAY MURLIDAR 9211 BRENHAM WAY 9203 BRENHAM WAY DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 PETERSON, CHRISTOPHER C BREITMAYER, GEORGE PAYNTER, JENNI LYNN AND 7165 EMMET ROW LN 7180 EMMET ROW LN TREVOR 7172 EMMET ROW LN DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43016 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 Proposed Development Text The Overlook at Tartan Ridge Subarea F of the Tartan Ridge Development A. Description: The Overlook of Tartan Ridge is located of the southwestern portion of the Tartan Ridge Development, northeast of and adjacent fo the intersection of McKifrick Road and Hyland -Croy Road. This development shall consist of approximately 24 acres and shall re -zone all of the existing Tartan Ridge Subarea E and Subarea F, and a portion of the existing Subarea Dl, info this new development. The rezoning would eliminate the fownhome residential in the existing Subarea E and the neighborhood retail in Subarea F, and would allow for the development of up fo 56 single-family patio homes. The areas of the site being re -zoned in this application are as identified in the attached legal descriptions and Preliminary Plan Exhibifs. B. Introduction: The development of an upscale empty -nester detached cluster home community in the Tartan Ridge Development will help fo satisfy the need for housing catering fo the growing demand for maintenance -free, first floor master living. The high -qualify architecture in this subarea will compliment the rest of the Tartan Ridge development, while serving fo create its own unique sense of place within the broader Tartan Ridge community. This new section will incorporate all the landscape / sfreefscape standards from the larger Tartan Ridge development and will be designed fo meet the lifestyle needs of empty nester adults within an upscale, walkable development. A pond overlook and shelfer will provide residents offhe community with a scenic place fo gather, picnic, or host small community events. Inferior sidewalks and pathways will connect residents fo the Tartan Ridge pedestrian / greenspace network, while the multi -use pathway along Hyland -Croy Road and McKifrick Road will serve fo connect the development with the broader Dublin Community and will complete an important section of the pedestrian network in that region. Generous setbacks and mounding and landscaping along Hyland -Croy Road and McKifrick Road serve fo add privacy fo the development and preserve a more setback from the exterior roadways. C. Applicability: The development text, and preliminary plan exhibits, submitted herein are intended fo replace the standards established within Section XI (Subarea E) and Section XII (Subarea F) of the existing Tartan Ridge zoning. D. Permitted Uses: Only single-family homes shall be permitted in The Overlook of Tartan Ridge. E. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in The Overlook of Tartan Fields shall be fifty-six (56). Of this total, a minimum of twenty-two (22) shall be Courtyard Lots as described below. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 F. Development Standards: The following Standards shall govern the Overlook of Tartan Ridge and include with permission all of the applicable requirements from Section V of the approved Tartan Ridge Development Text. 1. Residential Lot Types: To compliment the residential lof types outlined within the Tartan Ridge Zoning text, the following lof types shall be permitted within The Overlook of Tartan Ridge. a. Courtyard Lots: Courtyard lofs are generally located on the western, and southern perimeter of the development, or on corner lofs within the development, and feature an extended side - loaded garage designed fo create a small aufo- courf in the front of the house (fig D(1)(a)). Courtyard lofs shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width of the building line, but shall be permitted of a variety of lof widths exceeding this minimum, and shall allow for 2 and 3 car garage configurations. Courtyard lofs shall have a minimum setback line of 15 feet, and a maximum setback line of 25 feet from the right-of-way of the street or as otherwise shown on the Preliminary Plaf. b. Patio lofs: Patio lofs are generally located fo the inferior of the site and are intended fo allow for the development of high-end patio homes with front oriented garages (fig D(1)(b)). Patio lofs shall be a minimum of 52 feet in width of the building setback line, and feature homes with rear facing patios. 2 -car street loaded / front oriented garages with single bay and double bay doors are permitted on Patio Lots within the development. Face of garages shall be placed at the maximum 25 -foot setback from the right of way, or as otherwise shown on the Preliminary Plat, while non -garage portions of the front facade will be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15' setback line. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 2 Fig D(1)(a)-Courtyard Lot Fig 1)(1)(b)- Patio Lot As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 2. Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted residential lot type in The Overlook at Tartan Fields: a. Courtyard Lots: Courtyard Lots are subject to the following standards: i. Lot Width: Minimum of sixty (60) feet at the building line ii. Lot depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet iii. Front yard setback: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet from the right-of-way or as otherwise shown on the Preliminary Plat iv. Rear yard setback: Minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the rear property line. At -grade patios may be permitted to encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided no walls greater than 36 inches in height are incorporated into the patio design. v. Side yard setback: Minimum of six (6) feet vi. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be sixty percent (60%) including structure and driveway vii. Permitted Garages (See section F(8) below) aa. Street Loaded / Court Oriented b. Patio Lots: Patio Lots are subject to the following standards: Lot Width: Minimum of fifty-two (52) feet at the building line Lot depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet iii. Front yard setback: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, and maximum of twenty-five (25) feet from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the Preliminary Plat. Front loaded garages must located at the maximum setback of twenty-five (25) feet while non -garage portions of the front facade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum fifteen (15) foot setback. iv. Rear yard setback: Minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from the rear property line. At -grade patios may be permitted to encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided no walls greater than 36 inches in height are incorporated into the patio design. v. Side yard setback: Minimum of six (6) feet vi. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be sixty percent (60%) including structure and driveway The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 3 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 vii. Permitted Garages (See section D(3) above) aa. Street Loaded / Front Oriented 3. Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Setbacks: A minimum of ninety (90) feet shall be provided between any street or lot line within the development and the rights-of- way of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road: 4. Encroachments: a. Encroachments: Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth in this text. Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one-half (3'/1) feet, provided there shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one half (2'/1) feet. 5. Building Heights: The maximum height of any residential structure throughout the development shall be twenty-five (25) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. 6. Architectural Standards a. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards as they exist on the date that the preliminary development plan approval becomes effective. b. Architectural Review: The HOA established declarant shall form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review all architecture to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in this development text. Prior to filing for a building permit with the City of Dublin for the construction of, or any addition or major alteration to, each primary or accessory residential structure in this development, the owner or builder shall be required to subject the exterior architectural elevations and the site plan to a review by the ARC established by the declarant. The ARC shall undertake a review of these elevations and plans for compliance with the commitments made in this development text such as (but not limited to) setbacks, building heights, architectural style, diversity, types of materials, configuration of materials on individual building facades, consistency of materials on all elevations of the structure, and colors. The ARC shall approve only those structures that comply with or exceed the requirements set forth in this development text. The City of Dublin shall not be required to issue a building permit for any affected residential structure The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 4 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 in this development without written evidence of approval of such structure from the ARC. c. Architectural Character: The architecture within this development shall be traditional in nature. Its vocabulary shall employ Midwestern Vernacular and European Country styles. Continuity of element and scale and the commonality of building materials between the referenced styles will reinforce an architectural cohesiveness while promoting architectural diversity within the site. European Country - Inspired primarily by provincial country homes in France, American examples of the European Country style first appeared in the 1920s. Characterized by the use of stone and stucco as cladding materials, the European Country style also employs deep recesses and reveals for doors and windows as well as steeper roof pitches and flared eaves. Forms tend to be simple and rectangular and tall, well-proportioned windows are common, resulting in a simple, elegant residence. The single -story adaptation of European Country style provided in the Overlook at Tartan Ridge is designed to accommodate the desire for first -floor master living while complementing the architecture of the overall Tartan Ridge development. ii. Midwestern Vernacular - The character of Midwestern Vernacular architecture evolved throughout the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries and makes reference to a broad range of styles. Greek revival references incorporate simplicity and permanence of form while retaining versatility, while "farmhouse vernacular" is characterized by Gothic influences and verticality of proportion common to Early Victorian examples. The Midwestern Vernacular style reiterates local forms, strong examples of which are indigenous to Dublin and may also be found in Bexley and Upper Arlington. 7. Architectural Diversity: The Overlook at Tartan Ridge shall be subject to the following diversity standards: The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 5 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 a. Area of Influence: With respect to a home on any particular lot, the same or similar front elevations and/or color treatment shall not be repeated for any home located within one lot on either side, directly across the street from, or within one home on either side of the home directly across the street from, the subject home (the "Area of Influence"). Except for corner lots, these requirements apply only to the street on which the home is located; that is, they do not extend to homes on intersecting streets if fewer than two homes are located between the subject home and the end of the street. For corner lots the requirement shall apply to both streets on which the home is situated. b. Administration of Standard: It will be the responsibility of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) established by the declarant to evaluate each house plan in the development for compliance with the diversity standard. Compliance with the diversity requirement shall be required for the approval of the construction of each new dwelling within the Overlook at Tartan Ridge. c. Themed Communities: The Overlook at Tartan Ridge may be developed as a themed or architecturally -coordinated community featuring a specific architectural style. If developed as a themed community the Overlook at Tartan Ridge would not be subject to the diversity schedule outlined above. In the event that such a community is proposed, the developer shall file a single final development plan for the community with illustrations of representative building elevations and anticipated product mix for review by the Planning Commission. Minor variations to the elevations of homes within the themed community may be approved administratively by City of Dublin staff. 8. Architectural Massing: The following standards from the Tartan Ridge Development, as adapted to accommodate this housing type, shall apply to the Overlook at Tartan Ridge. a. Key Massing Principles i. Street Presence ii. Proportions and Purity of Form iii. Clean Intersections b. Permitted Massing Gable: Gable Spanning the short dimension of the main house block enhances the street presence The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 6 1i;o Hipped As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 ii. Hipped: Reduces roof massing; ideal for floor plans with more of a square proportion. c. Prohibited Massing i. Gable: Gabled roofs spanning the long dimension of the main block of the house results in awkward proportions. Nye ii. Gable: When utilized with a square floor plan, the gabled roof results in awkward proportions. iii. Continuous Walls: Long continuous walls, devoid of fenestration, shall not be permitted. Long walls along the side of the patio homes shall be broken up using windows, doors, a change in materials, or a combination thereof. 9. Exterior Materials: a. Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures, including foundations, shall be constructed of stone, manufactured stone, stucco, wood, or cementitious fiberboard. b. Configuration of Materials: i. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. All building elevations shall be articulated with a consistency of detailing. ii. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home shall be represented on all elevations. Secondary and complementary cladding materials found on the front elevation of the structure shall be utilized on all other elevations of the residence provided that the aesthetic integrity of the entire dwelling is maintained. iii. Material transitions at exterior corners are permitted with an 8°-12° material return and trim detail. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 7 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 iv. A masonry water table, a minimum of 30° high or to the height of the window sill, is required on all elevations. v. If the main house block is rendered in masonry, hyphens/ connectors, dependencies, garages, etc., may utilize a secondary cladding material. vi. Changes in cladding material should occur in logical locations, where one building mass meets another. vii. Walls shall show no more than two (2) cladding materials (excluding trim) above the water table unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. viii. For residences on feature lots the main house block shall be rendered with a constant cladding material on all sides exposed to view. Feature lots include lots 1, 8, 13, 17, 18, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, 44, 45, 50, 51, and 56 as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. ix. Materials Application Examples aa. Recommended Material Transition - Narrow Building Massing • For residences that are narrow / deep in plan a definable main elevation that presents a strong front to the street is preferred. • The residence has a consistent water table, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • Material transitions may also occur along a consistent horizontal course, with the heavier (or primary) material occurring below the line. bb. Recommended Material Transition - Court Oriented Building • For residences with court -loaded garages, a garage massing rendered in the primary material applied to the main house block is preferred. • The residence has a consistent water table, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • Material transitions may also occur along a consistent horizontal course, with the heavier (or primary) material occurring below the line. c. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, foam backed vinyl, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, fiber cement products, or any combination thereof. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge g As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 d. Shutters: Shutters, when used, shall be consistently used on all elevations and be sized to fully cover the adjacent window. Shutters must be painted, shall be louvered, raised or flat paneled, or board and batten, and shall be made of painted wood, vinyl, painted synthetic, PVC, or cementitious fiberboard. Shutters may be considered as "trim" within this development. i. Shutter Requirements aa. Sized to cover the adjacent window bb. Shutters that are operable, or appear as such, shall utilize approved hardware (s -clips and hinges) cc. While shutters are to be used consistently on all elevations, they should be used judiciously and not on every window. ii. Approve Shutter Types aa. Flat Panel — European County bb. Board and Batten — European Country e. Roofs i. Materials: All homes shall utilize an architectural grade dimensional asphalt shingle, wood shake or wood shingle, or natural or synthetic slate. Metal standing seam materials shall be permitted on porches, hyphens, and dependencies. ii. Principal Roofs: Principal roofs, where sloped, shall be a symmetrical gable or hip, or gambrel. Sloped principal roofs shall have a minimum slope of 7:12 rise over run. Roof penetrations, including, without limitation, vent stacks, shall not be located on the front roof slope and shall be painted to match the color of the roof. iii. Eaves: Eaves shall be continuous. Eaves which overhang less than one (1) foot shall have closed soffit. iv. Dormers: Dormers shall have gabled, hipped, arched, or shed roofs. Dormer windows shall either match the standard window size of the house or be smaller. Dormers may be no larger than necessary to hold their windows and framing unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 9 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 v. Gutters and Downspouts: Traditional half -round gutters and/or ogee gutters with downspouts shall be used and shall be made of aluminum materials that are painted to match or compliment the color of the home's trim. Gutters and downspouts shall be placed at the corner of the building that is least visible from nearby streets or shall be symmetrically arranged as an integral part of the facade composition. Gutters shall be profiled at closed soffits and half -round at exposed eaves. f. Exterior Paint Colors: Exterior paint colors shall be selected from an historic color palette, i.e. Sherwin-Williams "Heritage Colors" or "Preservation Palette"; Benjamin Moore "Historical Color Collection", "Exterior Expressions"; or similar color lines by alternate manufacturers. g. Front Doors: Front doors: Front doors shall be wood or an approved composite material, typically painted a dark value, and shall be of a style appropriate to the architectural character of the home. i. Five Pillars of Entry Design aa. Pediment/Entablature: entry pediments shall be classically detailed and proportioned. bb. Transom: light cuts shall be consistent in scale and proportion to the rest of the residence. CC. Door: front doors shall be of a style appropriate to the architectural character of the residence. dd. Stoop: stoops shall be constructed of a natural material; the use of brick or bluestone is encouraged. ee. Railing: railings are to be integral with the architecture and character of the residence. They are not to be treated as an independent feature. ii. Front doors and entries may provide the residence with an additional touch of personality. Special care shall be given to the design and detail of such elements and shall be based on the fundamental principles of the Classical Orders. iii. Certain architectural styles, for example, European Country or Midwestern Vernacular, allow for heavier entryways and more deeply recessed doors. Classical principles of proportion still apply in the design and detailing of this type of surround. h. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. The use of stucco, siding, and wood shall be prohibited. Cantilevered chimneys are not The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 10 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 permitted. Chimneys located on exterior walls must be continuous to the grade line or a substantial structure (e.g., deck, porch, patio slab, etc.). i. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk at the front entry and one (1) wall -mounted porch light at the front door. Lamp locations shall be consistent from unit to unit. j. Front Porches: Front porches shall be covered and open. Glass and screens shall be prohibited. k. Windows: Windows shall be constructed either of wood, painted aluminum, or vinyl clad and shall have clear glass. All windows must have grid patterns. Windows shall be double hung or operable casements. Transoms shall be oriented horizontally with vertically proportioned panes of glass. There shall be no flush -mounted windows. Bay windows shall not be cantilevered. i. Window Requirements: aa. Window grids are to be proportionally similar on all windows with vertical orientation. bb. Light cuts with equivalent horizontal and vertical dimensions are permitted provided that the window maintains an overall vertical proportion. CC. Window surrounds and/or trim appropriate to the architectural character of the residence are required. ii. Typical Window Types and Proportions aa. Double Hung - Typical of Classical and Colonial Revival styles; American Period Revival; appropriate for all styles. bb. Casement - Typical of Classical and Colonial Revival styles. CC. Arched Top - Typical of European Country styles; also appropriate for Midwestern Vernacular. The Overlook at Tartan Ridc as be cc 17- loll lRug�n, As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 I. Soffit and Fascia: Soffit, fascia, and trim shall consist of vinyl, aluminum, wood, or wood composite materials. Fascia and trim may be capped with vinyl or aluminum. Colors for soffit, fascia, trim, and gutter materials shall be compatible with the color of the dwelling. 8. Garages: a. Permitted Garage Configurations: The various lot types to be found in the Overlook at Tartan Ridge development are each intended to accommodate certain garage configurations. The range of permissible garage configurations shall be defined as follows: Street loaded / front oriented: Garage faces the public street frontage of the lot and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot. This type of garage must be located at the maximum 25 -foot setback line of the lot. Other portions of the front facade, not including the garage, shall be permitted to extend up to the 15 - foot minimum setback line. Single bay and double bay overhead doors are permitted. The garage shall comprise no more than 45% of the total width of the front elevation (not applicable to sideloaded/court-oriented garages where garage does not face front of house) ii. Street loaded / court oriented: Garage faces the side of the lot and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot via a driveway court. Court oriented garages shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet, and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way. Garages with two (2) or three (3) bays shall be permitted in this configuration. Single bay and double bay overhead doors are permitted. A minimum of 22 lots within The Overlook at Tartan Ridge shall have street loaded / court -oriented garages. b. Additional Garage Standards: Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three (3) or more garage bays shall be permitted unless otherwise set forth herein. c. Percentage of Elevation: The garage shall comprise no more than 45% of the total linear width of the front elevation (not applicable to The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 12 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 sideloaded/court-oriented garages where garage does not face front of house) 9. Driveways: All driveways within The Overlook at Tartan Ridge shall be constructed of brick pavers as indicated on the preliminary development plans. 10. Gates and Gateposts: Either (a) gateposts or (b) gateposts and a gate shall be required on the front of each lot at the end of the brick sidewalk running from the front door, if such sidewalk is connected to the public sidewalk. a. Gate and Gatepost Requirements Gateposts are required and shall be located at the intersection of the public sidewalk and the brick sidewalk running from the front door, if the brick sidewalk is connected to the public sidewalk. Gateposts shall integrate with the standard landscape hedge. The design of gates and gateposts shall be appropriate to the architectural character the residence. For example, the iron gate and stone piers pictured below are appropriate for European Country styles but may not be appropriate for Classical or Colonial Revival styles. Curved Rail b. Brick or stone Piers i. Brick or stone piers are required for Courtyard Lots, and Patio Lots, and shall be installed on either side of the brick driveway. Piers may be freestanding or used in combination with an entry gate. The pier material shall coordinate with the primary masonry material used on the residence. The Overlook at Tarta As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 c. Wood Posts Wood posts shall be detailed in a manner appropriate to the architectural character of the residence. When wood posts are freestanding, they shall portray the appearance of solidity. Special attention should be given to the incorporation of the gateposts and gates with the landscape hedge and brick sidewalk. The relationship between the residence, front entry, and gateposts should be taken into account when considering a gatepost's design. k f 11. Access, Loading and other Traffic -Related Commitments: a. Public Streets: All roadways constructed as a part of this residential development shall be public. All public streets shall have a minimum right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet. Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty-eight (28) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. b. Frontage: all dwelling units in the Overlook at Tartan Ridge shall front a public roadway. c. Sidewalks, bike path, leisure trails: The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 14 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 i. For Public Use: A final system of sidewalks, bike paths, and leisure trails shall be provided as approved in the final development plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Leisure trails shall be constructed of a pervious surface and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. ii. For Private Use: Private sidewalks on individual lots shall be constructed of Brick Pavers to match the driveways and may be connected from the front door to the driveway, or from the front door to the public sidewalk. If private sidewalks are extended from the front door to the public sidewalk, the Gates and Gateposts section shall apply. 12. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments: a. A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the Final Development Plan. Landscaping shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan and shall conform to these general standards b. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. c. Maintenance of Open Space: Reserve 'A' shall be owned by the City of Dublin and maintained by the Tartan Ridge Master Homeowners Association. The overlook structure and associated path adjacent to the retention basin within Reserve 'A' shall be maintained by The Overlook at Tartan Ridge homeowners sub -association. d. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced to accommodate driveway locations and public utilities. Spacing shall be determined at the time of final development plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of the development. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2'/1) inches in caliper at installation. Trees may be grouped as indicated on the final development plan, provided that the quality is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall not obstruct sight distance or signage, subject to staff approval. e. Hedges: A hedgerow planting shall be required in front of all residential units in the development. This hedgerow shall be located on the residential property and run parallel to the front property line of each lot containing a single-family home. Details on hedgerow plantings shall be provided at the time of final development plan. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 15 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 f. Fences: All fencing in the Tartan Ridge PUD shall conform to the requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth in these standard. g. Hyland -Croy & McKitrick Road Landscape Buffer: A landscape buffer consisting of a combination of landscape mounding (+/- 4-5' ht.), evergreen trees (2 per 30 L.F.), ornamental trees (3 per 90 L.F.), and deciduous trees (1 per 45 L.F.) planted in a more naturalized manner, similar to the landscape buffer shown on the Preliminary Development Plans, shall be installed along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road within the required ninety (90) foot setback behind lots 1-17. 13. Graphics and Signage Commitments: a. Unless otherwise set forth herein or approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, all signage shall comply with the City of Dublin Signage Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164. b. A signage and graphics plan with exhibits conforming to these guidelines shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan for The Overlook at Tartan Fields. All signage shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Ground Signage: i. One (1) ground monument sign identifying the neighborhood, similar in character to the existing Tartan Ridge sign located at Brock Road and Wilton Chase Street, shall be permitted at the main entry of Brenham Way and McKitrick Road. ii. A maximum graphic area of fifty (25) square feet per sign face shall be permitted, with a limit of no more than two (2) faces per sign. iii. The maximum height of each ground sign shall be six (6) feet above grade. iv. The ground sign shall have a rectangular profile and shall have a masonry base that is harmonious to the masonry used on the other entries in the Tartan Ridge Development. 14. Homeowners' Association: All residential property owners located within the Overlook at Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in the Tartan Ridge Master Association as well as a forced and funded homeowners' association, which shall be a sub -association of the overall Tartan Ridge master association and will be formed prior to any lots being sold. Homeowners' association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions that shall be The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 16 As recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 12, 2019 As Submitted to City Council for First Reading on February 10, 2020 and Second Reading on February 24, 2020 duly recorded in the office of the Union County Recorder. These Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall include a requirement that Reserve 'A' shall be owned by the City of Dublin and maintained by the Tartan Ridge Master Homeowners Association, and that the hedgerows, overlook structure and associated path adjacent to the retention basin within Reserve 'A' shall be maintained by The Overlook at Tartan Ridge homeowners sub -association as outlined in this this text. 15. Model Homes: Homes may be used as model homes in each subarea for the purpose of marketing and sales. A manufactured modular building or model home may be used as a sales office during the development of the project and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.098. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge 17 City r Ohio of Preliminary lop me nt Dublin, r Ohio Sheet Deve lop me nt Play Date Submitted: September 5, 2019 Revised: October 24, 2019 November 21, 2019 January 21, 2020 PRELIMI"ARY SITE DATA Total Acreage: Total Number of Lots: Gross Density: Total Open Space: ±23.98 Acres Wei ±2.33 Lots/Acre ±7.7 Acres (32.1 %) SHF r IN DE 'Wff Sheet 1 Cover Page / Site Context Map Exhibit A Legal Description/Preliminary Plat Exhibit B Existing Conditions Plan Exhibit C- 1 Preliminary Development Plan Exhibit C-2 Site Dimension Plan Exhibit D-1 Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit D-2 Preliminary Landscape Details Exhibit D-3 Tree Survey & Removal Plan Exhibit D-4 Tree Survey List Exhibit E-1 Preliminary Utility Plan Exhibit E-2 Preliminary Grading Plan Exhibit E-3 Preliminary Stormwater Report Exhibit E-4 Preliminary Sanitary Study Exhibit F-1 Site Illustrative Drawing Exhibit F-2 Illustrative Tartan Ridge Lot Standards Exhibit F-3 Conceptual Pond Amenity Exhibit F-4 Pedestrian Circulation Diagram PROJECT KI e° R A T I' Exhibit G Conceptual Architecture Since its adoption by the City of Dublin in 2007, the residential portions of the Tartan Ridge Planned Development have slowly been developing to completion over the last 12 years. While the residential component of Tartan Ridge has been extremely successful, it has not satisfied growing enthusiasm for a true empty -nester maintenance -free lifestyle product. In order to meet that market demand, the developer would like to petition the city to re -zone the remaining portions of the Tartan Ridge PUD to allow the development of an upscale empty -nester cluster home neighborhood. This petition would re -zone approximately 24 acres of the original Tartan Ridge PUD, and would primarily re -zone all of Sub -Area E and Sub -Area F, and a portion of Sub -Area D1. The subject area primarily borders Hyland -Croy Road to the west, McKitrick Road to the south, Glacier Ridge Elementary to the north, and the developed portions of Tartan Ridge to the east. The re -zoning would eliminate the townhome residential in Sub -Area E, and the neighborhood retail / office in Sub -Area F, and would allow for the development of up to 56 single-family cluster lots. This new section would incorporate all of the landscape / streetscape standards as the existing development, including the Tartan Ridge Hedge and Columns, and would include architecture that would be complimentary in style and detail to the overall development. The development would be designed to meet the lifestyle needs of empty nester adults within an upscale, walkable development, utilizing the traditional New Urbanism principles embodied in the Tartan Ridge development. Tli Overlook ` Tartan Ridge City of Dublin, Ohio January 21, 2020 - -- Brock Road 4*7 �r AJr . . � 1 ''�" — --- — r � 'moi � �, •. r , .+ 4 .Y - - • L# a t I Y 1 . .� 4 04ell ZAU V. a 4K t v • ■ • • • y T/ ..tl .... • tom" ^ r •�. e' ICU 4 r • MMM in Mill iiiiiiii III 96— .l .wJ Is E Glacier Ridge Elementary L _ ' � � \` � �-� •�; � � ��; � e � �-- - i , Fs•. t t t ► 1 . t ' rt •4 r F "V r 1 � y f „ - -- U ' _ _ _ i .� `" ` w r_ i �•1 its, — - - - r•� •� Tartan Ridge b ►J 'Ro • I 1 - - ;, �. 169 j - McKitrick Rgad 4'. Jr J Ilk ' L 1 �e 1.lot,• Site Vicinity Ma p / Site Context Scale: N Planning G2 Urban Design 0 300 900 Landscape Architecture Planning + Design Ph: 614.583.9230 Staoff vromaneI tiughes ` Web: www.g2planning.com CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO 1.076 DEC. (DEED) PARCEL 15 -WD LN. 201805140003710 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 12.433 AC. (DEED) a.R. 609. P. 601 Item 13 20' Easement P.B. 5, P. 315 opo O<M CT m r% Item 13 �0 Drana E t As m or 0 3 —R)W N =� En in E co III �w ra Co ma inE Item 13 15' Easement P.B. 5, P. 315 Items 19 & 33 Sanitary Sewer Easement O.R. 731, P. 971 F1 SO6'0559"E 50.00' 551'05'59"E 35.36' re— MCm �Ad JILJ A EL 073 0 O m DVC 6700 ASSOCIATES, LLC 7.392 AC. (DEED) I.N. 201802270001572 23.979 AC. THE SHOPPES AT TARTAN RIDGE, LLC 16.670 AC. (DEED) O.R. 766, P. 143 n LANE 54'01"W V LI m m ^` re w �E. V an d AT M N mO EE o a d 0 E3� u� m - oIBM C wo 0 E mmm iD Th yr E0r 60 0 y � BARONET BOULEVARD 1'R/W — — — II LJ — — R/W — — — — VMS 2991 — — — — MCKITRICICROAD S83'31729"W 971.48' 35.36' RESERVE "O CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO A-1,02,02„ LN. 201806150004700 R=225.00' Arc -4.06' ChB=S07.33'42"E ChD -4.06' 49.12' E A=41'52'26" R=198.31' Are— 144,93' ChB=527'58'54"E ChD— 141.73' —o nx3,AsS'OR=27F 5 W.0 0'' Arc -36,73' ' pschB=s4s•o 5 '32"E/28SF ChD=36.70' E m 576'26'42"E 405 / Or // ' ;�qYGO m 0A0 so 155'51"yn $2aA=13' 47' 3 1 35.50' R=274.99' Arc=66.19' SR"" ChB=S132 " 5'E REEVE RChD=66.03' S1815'2'3"E See Detail WIDTH VARIES, PUBLIC C.R. 10 —R/W— — R/W — rl VMS 2925 CITY OF DUBIJN, OHIO CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO 0.533 AC. (DEED) 1.621 AC. (DEED) I.N. 201604140002688 I -N. 201603220002029 I 21" ACRESI (Situate in the State of Ohio, CoutityT4EDnion, I awnahill Jerome, City of Dublin, in '4rirginiiOMilitary District Survey Number 2991, being comp�iisedof all of that 16.670 acre tract of land conveyed to The Shoppes at -Tartan Ridge, LLC by deei record in Official Record 766, Page Y43, all of that 7.392 acre; tact of land conveyed to DVC 6700 Associates LLC by Need of record in Instrument NumbeeT201802270001572, and part of Reserve "Qr W41id (subdivision entitled "Tartan Ridge Section 5 Part 2", of record in Plat Book 5, P�" n1"t° references refer to the records of the Recozigi lq OffiVnim 4ounty, Ohio)beim particular) `hounded and described as follows5 i3EQMNG at the centerline intersectio LoTalbl'AtraRoad l(P'ountyHRID& 1ilatiill IHylandsCrWRoad (County Road 2); 'ice North 060 ( S9" West, with theczntez ins QCs fd an - ro _road„a IJff eet to the southwesterly comer of that 0.4775 acre eS oonvee Itat City o'Do b,�' deedui'=cord in Official Record 687, Page 589; VB=1NIlbl 83° 52'39” East prossmg said Hyland--" aL'asilinand with the southerlZ li�g�tl at'(♦2`.433acre tract conve-yeiffor The Board of Fducati'orbafffre Dublin City School is c b�deed of record in Official Record 609, Page 601, aidiatance of 695.50 feet to thio Westerly` comer of Lot 225 of;5aO "Tartan Ride Secticar3Patt 211 '; rT�' fence South 060 03 $5 :" s%ai;A'lt rvE$z{ueste{Ivl-line o said go'C 225, a, distancelof `150.37 fei a point in theTortherly right of way line of EmmetlR'hwlSarrI Tice South 830 54IIF-P West, with said northerly ri#ttlaffw$pli ald'1Sst�nrel ' ,� feet to a point in the w Ef' 4all of way line of Brenham WUy Thence SouthlQ WN19 Eastjvit aW slei'1' PrL&ayJme, a dista=bT5i(M feet to a point; Thenc0)udl r0I05'-59" Eis Vithsaidl weiii right of way line, a distantW1 feet to a poirl Thence S9Jh 0Iz° T35'S9"'F,-as-fyftartly with mid mveserly ngfit_o%'wanp crossntg said BrenhamiWk-Az lliistaneeof416.66 feet,Jtilpoint; 'Tbence North 830 54!10➢"1East}"aa ly crossing said Brenham Way and partly with the o eery, n t of way line o arone odd, a distance of 75.08 feet to a point; If" @n�SS`outfiWo 64' 0l"Wt9�qussftqridjReserveh.® of 35.36 feet to a,.. Lienceh'outh W05'59" East', sC ossing said R -e cesy4"V„"Lldistancelo'F 181.92 feet to a point'fi ttlidlwes'ter),'yshoundary of said subdivision; 6nenciravith said westerly boundary the following courses and 8istane With the arc of a curve to thc- ighi,hay'ng a tial angle of 01° 02'02", a radius Lot " 0,25,00lfeetrQan are length of 4.06 fejat gccIbgii"5- mh 07° 33'42" East and chord dis`limcou 4.06 feet to a point; South 070 02'r4tr`East, a dis aJ�nce of49.12 feet to a poini curvature to With the arc of said curve, having a centrS le of 41°"ST26PIa a us Pf S9[19J11 UeeRA an arc length of 144.93 feet,a Chord bearingIf'�o„��7°-W 5V East landiehordldis(anceef 141.73 feet to a point; South 480 55'06" East, a distanCdtifil'25149i9eClf lal ihq�ftc,I ut,N lure It" the rig 1 - Exhibit `A' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 ,00 IDD or 1 inch =100 feet REVISIONS Detail "A" /W — — — N°'S6e, 56f6il LOCATED N: VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATEOF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, CITY OF DUBLIN, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME — — — — — — — — S0628'31 "E omv "v 40.00' v+ II a COMMENTS minim REVISED PER STAFF coMMEN1s m Sheet Ce N aS oN�am: I I fa S06'28'31 "E D.61' `SSS, JS363 III e Exhibit `A' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 ,00 IDD or 1 inch =100 feet REVISIONS ME= Ennaae.rs,Sumtl."amblennes,scie,10a. Ehaf"eers•surveyors•CcIumn•Sdannsis 5500 Naw Albarry Rootl, Columbus, OH �a051 Phone:61 .75Asao roll Ree:eas.7alAW ROMANELLI & HUGHES 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD WESTERV LLE, OHIO 43081 CITYOF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PLAT2/7 LOCATED N: VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATEOF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, CITY OF DUBLIN, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME Date SEPTEMBER 4, 2ot9 Job No. tot 9oo4a DATE oescewnON 10/23/19 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS 0107/29 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS minim REVISED PER STAFF coMMEN1s Scale 1 "=100' Sheet emhtmm PRELIMINARY PLAT FORTHE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE 8 ! ! ;07NIN-:PzU7D(..ft',:TA RI LOW ZONING: R (RURAL DISTRICT) LAND USE: CIVIC/PUBLIC ASSEMBLY (GLACIER RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL) EXISTING PEDESTRIAN EXISTING . BASIN J v_ EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL \.EXISTING TREES EXISTING BASIN LAND USE: PARKS/OPEN SPACE (GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK) ZONING: i PUD ( ART N RIDGE) _AND USE: UBU BAN ESID NTIAI EDIU 0 DENSITY BRENHAM WAY ZONING: PUD (TARTAN RIDGE) LAND USE: PARKS/OPEN SPACE EMHNG BASIN I I \EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ±24.0 ACRES (VACANT/UNDEVELOPED) LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL HYLAND-CROY R AD LAND USE: PRKS/OPEN SPACE (GLA(GE METRO PARK) i i t\ li li I � I I I EXISTING TREE9y EXISTING SILO -4 LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONING: PUD (TARTAN WEST) LAND USE: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE: PARKS/OPEN SPACE (GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK) Exhibit 'B' • lanning Scale: N Urban Design The Overlook at Tartan Ridge -Existing Conditions Plan D 300 900 G 2 Landscape Architecture Planning + Design • Ph: 6 4.583 9230 City of Dublin, Ohio October 24, 2019 S t a v r o R o m a n e l l i& Hughes We b: www.g2planning com i I Exhibit 'B' • lanning Scale: N Urban Design The Overlook at Tartan Ridge -Existing Conditions Plan D 300 900 G 2 Landscape Architecture Planning + Design • Ph: 6 4.583 9230 City of Dublin, Ohio October 24, 2019 S t a v r o R o m a n e l l i& Hughes We b: www.g2planning com OPEN SPACE ±0.1 ACRES EXISTING —.PEDESTRIAN TRAIL it GLACIER ROG� ELEMENTARYI SCHOOL PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH El .11 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL UVI AAlrl nr)nV r)nArl The Overlook at Tartan Ridge -Prelim40 inary Development Plan City of Dublin, Ohio January 21, 2020 S f Q V r o f f Scale: 0 60 SITE DATA Total Acreage: Total Number of Lots: Gross Density: Total Open Space: LOT TYPICALS 25' Rearyard S/B 6' Min. Sideyard SB Example A: 52' Lot (2 -Car) SCALE: 1" = 30' / Romanelli &Hughes Planning Urban Design Landscape Architecture Planning + Design Ph: 614.583.9230 Web: www.g2planning.com ±23.98 Acres 56 ±2.33 Lots/Acre ±7.7 Acres (32.1 %) (typ.) Street Tree (typ.) le Hedgerow 1—Tartan Ridge K 15' Ga ge S/B (Courtyard .0 25' Rearyard S/B `6' Min. Sideyard S/B 64'-0" Example B: 64' Lot (Courtyard) SCALE: 1" = 30' Street Tree (typ.) Tartan Ridge HeJorow 15' Gara e S/B Courtyard Id .Only)I I-FTV-- I Zj earyar I I 6' Min. Sideyard S/B —A— Example C: 64' Lot (3 -Car) SCALE: 1" = 30' Exhibit 'C-1' --219 - ----------- - -a_ _------ _ - --- - - /I L J -L - - _ / , ----- -- I �� _ EXISTING \,/, f' Y _10Ftj4ESTRIAN PATH ,' N. V •'� /_�_ -- �a'� ',g , - T I ' Imo-,'' T� -( --- - .r" / ✓/•' '' \ 220 \ '\ l i RESERV�,,R„ F ISS 203 J I� I / L 190 996 I ' I^I / I PEDESTRIAN TRAIL TO `L CONNECT T O THE EX . ISTING TRAIL ON THE 221 : SOUTH IDE OF ' T 202'J^'� ' L J19, J ; m o1 A- " - _I ' 13'47 31 T ;' L � � R=274.99' -- I � - - - W - - `I` \ ! / I Arc=66.19' tY dS d - " 1 %� �.= Q 011 I`, ChB_S13'22'15'El �', / EXISTING BASIN ChD -66.03' �, p, I, 821 E f3 �' I = _ (TO BE MODIFIED) '55'51 "W SO6'28'31 " - 201 / ( 192 SSI ''I 40.00' 222 �; I I 35.50' S51'28'31°E I to L J I 1]O � 35.36' 0 W W + - J Z o „ 5 = � F _j J- 1-7 I I EXISTING 8' WIDE / N - ' LLL 200 L X Q ASPHALT I * ° _ i J I W 193 m PEDESTRIAN PATH BASIN 02 ry 1Q l` L I L ,1 ;e A=7'39'08" 11 0 - ,� I X ;� f R-275.00' '%�,hn`O V' ,Nr I' W 1, 223 � - , �I r - l' I I U I I L � I ,' � I' e Arc 36.73 U _ _ _ _ ChB=S45'0532°E';' 8 9 0 III I -_�- EX 24"St O Ex 24"ST O Fx 15"STt Ex 12"ST- z, l� C =36.70' ,'✓ / X64 ` J� TC=1001.7 & -1 , S� I i INV=995.24 5 T2s EX STAPLETON PLACE _Ex24"ST = o .:�CITYOFDUBCIN,'' I ----------- L , -� F -]I I I ; I" '� -- ; I boy RESERVE rrArr j I I a ��° �� ±7.2 ACRES W I '� - ,` PEDESTRIAN PATH - g ,�'L \ 11 Z l r L L'' L L I /+ A-41'52'26° EASEMENT - a rJ rJ RESERVE= Q' - R=198.31'� ,,/ J ,� 'J. I ; I� I I - / A-1'02'02" -_ `% �' ;,,� m I I R=225.00' Arc=144.93' -'� 3- y ChB-S27'S8'54"E . ;014 > m I I I I I 194to Arc3'42"E - -"-'- - ' gJv\�p� \� \ l�J` - i 'I 01 = 199 L L dS %S38'S4'01 "W,•' ChB=80733'42"E----------- 3~. ------" _ { � ChD 141.7 '% "� 198 197 196 195 I 35.36' Ch_D=4.06' - - - PEDESTRIAN PATH / ry5 \ , _ TARTAN RIDGE J z - i / \ 3 MOUND SECTION 5 PART 2 I ;I '' 1�5 --- - EASEMENT Q _TC=1004.10_ o m 1 P.B. S, P. 315 TC=1002.65 INV=999.96- LT LT I I o -'% _\_ ''80702'41"E . 12788S.F _""_-" _ INV -996.94 - -- 'RESERVE"E 225 �' W is-Ex12'St - 12"St EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO C=1005.50-SO6'0559"E 181.92'-�� 49.12' TC=1003.76 BE VACATED N _.±0.1 ACRES' Sy -INV=1000.13 ,� Ex9"WM- -(PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED) 8 Sa, =wo - a /( m " t30' - "I ,I zw TC=1002.69 \ / ' _ Fx 12 ST TC=1003.36 Ex 12 St-__ - - _ _ - _ �!`y_ - 6 __ INV -996.66 _ _--- r 3'-5' EARTHEN -tp --r S06 -05'59'E5 00 INv=l000.33 - EX BRENHAM W/#Y - - y' ---- ----� TC=IDoo.S 4 - ',g TC=1002.61 18 MOUND �._, _ - INV=994.74 INV=996.91 '" _ _ x150' Fx 15"S_T -� -806'05'59"E 416.66'- z EX 20'87 O'n 1a .9 -S VE1 _ $a' STC=1006.10 3 Fx 1b"Sa 0144561-.�- - O r o/t' - w Fx8" -CC-14456)- z i CTEX',8"Sal-',(CC-14456 -EASEMEM_ v 4 INV=993.50 47 v' RES 'B" +O,,�A RES EXISTING - _ + __ -124 ' F-.-�55' - - 1W'- - ry 125' _"--- 174' �' y'' \ 124' T_ +r' W II S83'54'01"W _ ---I-- --i- ++ �� f I 2 , 12af' PEDESTRIAN PATH 36.74' - --- - __S51'O5'59"E " 3'-5' EARTHEN RESERVE 125 ' 130' 9� -- 35.36' MOUND X99 S.F _ 3'-5' EARTHEN�� 2 26, 1, I N N 27 N ±0.1 ACRES 01 h EXISTING SANITARY h - r �' 84525.E n 7818S:F w w--lL543ax �'�1-- I-----, '32 I � TO BE REMOVED - _--' - � - P' " -- - """ " _ 45 MOUND I -- SO6'05'59"E ' Z Z 64945,.E 33 '_'_ k5005 F '-�"' 56 _ 00 N N V ��_ -- -- - ---r�51 -_ _ _ --ii- --- I 20'STESMT. 150' 50.00' _ 126' 125' 25 '`, 6574 5.F '`r T b73(}S F - - - - z z 00 130' n 0 r ao - ,IF �;-� 1 25 28_, 3P`, 34,' 2o'sTESMT. -' 1; 1 - -- -----�9� I 3' J F J W h 78175.E I. hm m 6544 S.F _ IN 1 0'�, 6500 S.F, N iv n - " n ,n, I < - gl9 ""�55 --I - __ ---1 - N 'III U;II � 65005.E n n ,p - I--- - --- -- ----- - - -- - - _ i a rn N N ti 43', N' 6500 h R 60S.F i h f I. w , 70oo&F - w w 3- 1 M I 150' - _ 12 ' 125'', � � __ I _ 6 125 , II I _ _ -- -- _- ' g++� � I ', - -Z--Z 8573 S.F I iq I ---- -__-- - ., `. 125' 13Q 0 '. I �, � � _,99 1 '` '., `, ',, 35 h, _gg5-_'- Z Z 130' 24 9 8, 1 , o'47- - 1 Z4 78348.E 5 2 3, $.F 0 W :.u; w 7000 S -_ I:o 0 1 X 421' , -� _-( rn 54'-% � °- 96S.F I n w W r 6500.8.E z Z I --- n N -- "' ' 6500 S F "' , '� N n > > N - J1,g 1 H - -20 ST FSMT.J 1 60 . 47 S F 153' N 25' BUILD N LINE' Z O 25 C9 !O 2 ' N _ 4 25' W N N \ f 125' 130' a U' e 15'BUI D LINE �,y+c' �Q w p - �_�_------- -' 'y -f'-0 - w - }I--- - -Z z 8053S.F --- 2 \w _ _ � Ei - (S;F % r�s .TS+SP CES 1 n2'm 36 n n-� , "65001S.P1 h lv' NI ivy U' 6b�8..F---------1N 53,-'' 'N - - > > 930' __ ------- 10764 F ^ ;N ' ----- N _ Qd �z - �g8_„ 67608.E y y o0TC=999.7 O 7000 S F Z o 7�2ZIII h SIDEWALK EASEMENT p ----- -"__" - f /'� 40' INV 993.86 /,' b - 5 - 25 - 2 125' I 25' 30','• 7' EMMET ROW'LANE LU �1 tl e573$.E 1 2'/ / I / t > 40 Q r o 14' S2' 66' S8' 37 ti J `' 49.- 52 Q I -""" - 003` , g1 p ��,� I Q N 6500 S.F N n ,'�00 70005,# , tl r^ 6500S.F -'r - -10 676 r J - I-"� ---- = 20' $T FSMT_ - Q ,- 1 ,yp / 15' U DING LINE n . N n n UI I 'n n OQ-__-_,QS.E h - - I Z w "-1- o \� 25' B I IN, - _ -- _"� - - 20' ST FSMT. - _ _ U� _--------------- (', ( Q -a, w 15' SA ESMT. 125 -----{ - 125' 130 - - - - - - - 130' ---- I ,I � 9 ; N o - - - v o 1 IF Lo ooz i 1 1 �, s 2 n, - $0 51 2" 6 1 I I 38 �''39 N - as I m 22' 2� 20 1 .f 19`,\ 1$ 90178.E 8B165.F ''� b "' 9295S.F i:' 94558.E _ 358.E 8134 S.F 8585 S.F R w 10394�.F _ - 8580 S'\ 1104895.EL I m o ) - -25' Bbl IL INP LINE T P 25' BUIL�ING LINE Z5 for rq TC=998.5 N �� '`.\ THE BOARD OFINv=993.38 `9g) 1 1 1 9S�` 15' BUILDIN LINE 15' BUIL ING LINE EDUCATION OF THE DUBLIN % M 0 ,--' j 1 1 \'P��� -- ------ -- =-� �-4- CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT z �c f, - /' "s I '`,5 SP C S - r -'8'4566 S.F N r 5 E '' ` 12.433 AC. (DEED) � � � ', 42' __ ----62' 66, \ 6' '.55' � S ACES ' I � O.R. 609, P. 601 I, 311, % , \ SIDEWALK EASEMENT ---�_- _ - SIDEWALK EASEMENT / to - �.� `9 N Ii 99:- ... ... :w ... h. -- - _________ �.. I I J 57 62' 66' 66' 64' 64' -62' 66' �. I 15' BUILD G LINE RESERVE "A'' DRAINAGE / ±7 AC I " EASEMENT 15' SA ESMT. -' --------.g9 15' SA ESMT. \ 25' BULLD NG LINE I \ ` T� 2 RES f ...� 99 l' a 9-9 RESERVE "/�" 7 \I r Vo, B' WIDEASPHALT - ±7.2 ACRES 799as:E, 16 '_ }5 I^ f y 14 13 12 n 7730. 11� �= (y 9 i 960 SIF PEDESTRIAN PATH �9 �'.z750 S.F 8250 S.F 1 o 8`150 S.F 8000 S.F 8000 S.F $.F '`,8249 SF 8466 ST ` o BASIN Ol \ 3'-5' EARTHEN I MOUND --1 4 1 62''', 62' --'66' 66' 64' 64' 62' 66' 166' 62' - l' ..... ...� 640 - , 20' ST ESMT. 1 20ST ESMT. 4 y��... - -=s ------ ----------- 1- - �o�� o �, �. .STI 8' WIDEASPHALT PEDESTRIAN PATH NG 20' GAS St _ PEDESTRIAN PATH EASEMENT EASEMENT iTBRi '� it _ g7""- EXISTING - PEDESTRIAN T 8'WIDEASPHALT TRAIL -- ' _ ,- - _ _ '- RIGHT-OF-WAY -'---__- PEDESTRIAN PATH _ - _ - ----o- -_ - _ - -PEDE- S-TR-IA N -PA T-H --- --- --- -- ----------- -------- --- ---- EASEMENT S' EARTHEN MOUND ----------_- PEDESTRIAN PATH --- ____ _____________� N ---- _____ -- -------- ------ ____ EASEMENT ------ ------------------�_ _ - - _ -, -_ -- ----_-_-'--- 06'05'59"W 1382.30' - -- " T.J- __ - "-______ _ " _"_ 10 REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO DATE DESCRIPTION momm PRELIMINARY PLAT ,10/23/19 REVISED PERSTAFF COMMENTS ROMANELLI &HUGHES FOR 11/21/19 REwseoEERSTAFFCOMMENTS Evans, Won Tigan, Inc. 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD 01/21/20 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS Engineers - Surveyors -Planners • Scientists WESTERV LLE, OHIO 43081 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 T H E OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 SITE PLAN emhuorn --...................... . . . . SITE STATISTICS: TOTAL ACREAGE: ±23.98 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 56 GROSS DENSITY: ±2.33 LOT\ACRE OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 3.56 ACRES PROVIDED: ±7.7 ACRES RESERVE "A": ±7.2 ACRES RESERVE "B": ±0.2 ACRES RESERVE "C": ±0.1 ACRES RESERVE"D": ±0.1 ACRES RESERVE"E": ±0.1 ACRES ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: MINIMUM LOT AREA: 6,500 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 52 FEET (AT BUILDING LINE) BUILDING SETBACKS �k FRONT YARD/ BUILDING LINE: 25MINIMUM �k FRONT YARD/ COURTYARD GARAGE OR PORCH: 15MINIMUM SIDE YARD: 6MINIMUM EACH SIDE REAR YARD: 25MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 35MAXIMUM �k OR OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT NOTES: NOTE "A": RESERVE "A" SHALL BE OWNED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND MAINTAINED BY THE TARTAN RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. THE OVERLOOK STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED PATH ADJACENT TO THE RETENTION BASIN WITHIN RESERVE "A", SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE HOMEOWNERS SUB -ASSOCIATION. NOTE "B": ALL EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND QUASI PUBLIC UTILITIES WILL BE SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT. OPEN SPACE CALCULATION: SECTION 152.086 OPEN SPACE (2% OF THE TOTAL GROSS AREA PLUS 0.03 ACRES / UNIT) (27o OF 23.98 ACRES) + (56 X 0.03 ACRES) = 2.16 ACRES SECTION 152.087 OPEN SPACE (NUMBER OF LOTS X 0.025 ACRES) (56 X 0.025 ACRES) = 1.4 ACRES) TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 3.56 ACRES BENCH MARKS: (NAVD 1988) I'" N MASTER BM ALUMINUM DISK IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HYLAND-CROY ROAD (J BRIDGE OVER NORTH FORK INDIAN RUN, 107 FT. SOUTH OF THE C/L OF MITCHELL & DEWITT ROAD. 20 FT. WEST OF THE C/L OF HYLAND-CROY ROAD. ELEVATION = 929.66 SOURCE BM TRAVERSE IRON PIN #9003, NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF I; HYLAND-CROY ROAD & McKITRICK ROAD. ELEVATION = 1004.23 BM# 1 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN EAST SIDE OF UTILITY POLE ON WEST SIDE OF JEROME ,a ROAD AND 880.5'+/- NORTH SIDE OF INTERSECTION OF McKITRICK ROAD AND JEROME ROAD. ELEVATION = 1011.72 ' I ' BM#2 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN SOUTH SIDE OF 12" TREE, 25'+/- SOUTH SIDE OF { SECTION LINE AND 500'+/- WEST SIDE OF JEROME ROAD. ELEVATION = 992.54 BM#3 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN SOUTH SIDE OF 18" TREE, 1750'+/- EAST SIDE OF HYLAND-CROY ROAD AND 15'+/- NORTH SIDE OF SECTION LINE. ELEVATION = 1002.32 ;l i II Exhibit `C-2' V GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 120 1 inch = 60 feet 17, Date Job No. LOCATED IN: SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 20190043 VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, CITY OF DUBLIN, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME scale Sheet 1"=60' 3/7 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE OPEN SPACE ±0.1 ACRES EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL GLACIER RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL � I PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATH EXISTING PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CONCEPTUAL PLANT LIST CODE BOT. NAME/COMMON NAME SIZE COND. SPACING NOTES / 1 DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES / STREET TREES IF�j L -F I I I I 'Wright � 1 11 / AC WB Acer saccharum Wright Brothers 2.5 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form 1 Wright Brothers Sugar Maple I� ENTRY FEATURE & I GI BI Ginkgo biloba'Princeton Sentry' 3" CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form I � 1 g / PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Princeton Sentry Ginkgo L-FNY- SEE EX. D-2 FOR MORE SL N ssa s Ivatica'Wildfire' 2.5" CAL. INFORMATION I y y B&B AS SHOWN Match Form . — — Wildfire Blackgum � 'Moraine' 1 11 LI ST Li uidambar st raciflua Moraine 2.5 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form a y EXISTING Moraine Sweetgum BASIN 1 1 11 TO BE RE -DESIGNED PL AC Platanus xacerfolia Bloodgood 3 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form ( ) i ° Bloodgood Planetree g { ° QU BI Quercus bicolor'American Dream' 3" CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form American Dream Swamp White Oak ° / w TA DI Taxodium distichum 3 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form I � i � �, z Bald Cypress I o J ZE SE Zelkova serrata Green Vase 2.5 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Match Form J° Green Vase Zelkova LU SMALL / ORNAMENTAL TREES II w O // \ \ { X I Q / P- ° / / \ AM CA Amelanchier canadensis1 Glenn Form' 2.511 CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Tree Form PROPOSED DESTRIAN PATH i w m / / \ \ x X Rainbow Pillar Serviceberry /ercis E 1 A canadensis 2.5" CAL. l \ I C C C B&B AS SHOWN Tree Form Eastern Redbud 1 \ 1 CR VI Crataegus viridus'Winter King' 2.5" CAL. B&B AS SHOWN Tree Form ° EXISTING ON -STREET PARKING N94NG AN&LANBSGAP UNDING AND LANDSCAPING Winter King Hawthorn BREN M WAY (HEADLIGHT SCREEN) (HEADLIGHT SCREE 1 X ° —�- EVERGREEN TREES ` - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PAT � 1 � PI AB Picea abies 6' HT. B&B PER PLAN Norway Spruce Ilk - Y PI OM Picea omorika 6' HT. B&B PER PLAN ° I Serbian Spruce 26 Il 27 32 I 33 44 I 45 I 56 II 2 PI ST Pinus Strobus 6' HT. B&B PER PLAN White Pine — — — — — — I FLOWERING / DECIDUOUS SHRUBS III 1 o� ° ` I I � I � 11 25 I1 J 28 31 l l 34 I 43 ` 1 1 II 1 Q CL RU Clethra alnifolia'Ruby Spice' 36 HT. #5 Cont. PER PLAN 46 55 I 1 � � � Ruby Spice Clethra I w 3 O — — z ` I � 1 CO SE Cornus sericea'Cardinal' 36" HT. #5 Cont. PER PLAN 1 ° O I U Cardinal Red -Twig Dogwood J � 1 1 I I ,� I I I' 1 I = I I II -- - 1 VI DE Viburnum dentatum'Christom' 36" HT. #5 Cont. PER PLAN 24 1 (I 29 30 > I 35 I 42 ° j 47 1 54 II ° c Blue Muffin Viburnum ------ Cj1 HT. #7 Cont. 4 I V I VI PR Viburnum x'Prag ense' 42 11 PER PLAN II Prague Viburnum 7verl City of Dublin, Ohio LJVI A KI M nOnV On A P'1_ ook ot Tartan R'I*dge -Preliminary Landscape January 21, 2020 Plan Stavroff PLANT KEY DECIDUOUS TREE ORNAMENTAL TRE EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUI EVERGREEN SHRL PERENNIALS/GRAS Scale: 0 60 180 / RomanL-4,11*1 & Hughes Exhibit 'D, G2Planning Urban Design Landscape Architecture Planning + Design Ph: 614.583.9230 Web: www.g2planning.com TYPICAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER 0' 20' M CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT ENLARGEMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN 0' 8' 24' STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT - ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION 10 The Overlook at Tartan Ridge =Landscape Details City of Dublin, Ohio October 24, 2019 2' 91 PLANT KEY DECIDUOUS TREE ORNAMENTAL TRE EVERGREEN TREE DECIDUOUS SHRUI EVERGREENSHRL PERENNIALS/GRA: CONCEPTUAL PLANT LIST CODE BOT. NAME/COMMON NAME SIZE COND. SPACING NOTES DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES/STREETTREES CA BE Carpinus betulus'Frans Fontaine' 2.5" CAL. B&B Plant at 10' O.C. Match Form Frans Fontaine Hornbeam EVERGREEN SHRUBS BU GV Buxus x'Green Velvet' 24" HT. B&B Plant @ 70' O.C. Green Velvet Boxwood JU SP Juniperus chinensis'Spartan' T HT. B&B Plant @ 42' O.C. Spartan Juniper FLOWERING / DECIDUOUS SHRUBS HY LI Hydrangea paniculata'Limelight' 36" HT. #5 Cont. PER PLAN Limelight Hydrangea GRASSES, PERENNIALS, GROUNDCOVERS, & VINES CA AC Calamagrostis acutiflora'Kad Foerster - #2 Cont. Plant @ 18" O.C. Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass EC FU Echinacea purpurea Magnus' - #1 Cont. Plant @ 15" O.C. Magnus Conelower HE ST Hemerocallis'Stella d'Oro' - #1 Cont. Plant @ 15" O.C. Stella d'Oro DaAily MI GR Miscanthus sinensis'Gracillimus' - #3 Cont. Plant @ 42" O.C. Maiden Grass NE FA Nepeta xfaassenii Walker's Low' - #3 Cont. Plant @ 36" O.C. Walker's Low Catmint PE AT Perovskia atriplicifolia - #3 Cont. Plant @ 36" O.C. Russian Sage CODED LANDSCAPE NOTES O TURF O LANDSCAPE BED- PROVIDE 3" DEPTH HARDWOOD MULCH, POSITIVE DRAINAGE IN ALL DIRECTIONS. HAND SPADE EDGE. ENTRY FEATURE - ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION Scale: a O Stavroff / Romanelli & Hughes A SPECIES SHADE TREE 3REEN TREES AS BACKDROP TRY FEATURE FROM FRONT, CREEN FROM REAR WED LIMESTONE OR CAST STONE 'ANEL WITH ENGRAVED, EPDXY-FILLED COPY ASE AND WING WALLS TO RETAIN RAMPNVEDGETO CARRY TARTAN :AND BACKGROUND PLANTINGS SIGN PANEL :STONE OR CAST STONE CAP STEPS FROM ±3' HT. AT BASE OF SIGN TO±1.5' AT EITHER END )M ASHLAR PATTERN STONE VENEER TO I ARCHITECTURE —. VERGREEN HEDGE BORDER TO SCREEN SIGN UPLIGHTS FROM ROAD, AND PERENNIAL BED a 12' Exhibit '13-2' Planning Urban Design Landscape Architecture Planning + Design Ph: 614.583.9230 Web: www-g2planning.com F-1 �� I VIII �8588 _j -I III I III L �� L J 1� r II II __j L F-1 m � I II l II I 1111'1 =�__ ' _��� IIIIIz I11II 1 �� � ����� II'I° I I 1111111 I III L � 10 an �IIII VIII L� I� LL w 'HIL- F� VIII III IIII I II II I_I_ III �I II ISI -0 1 ACRES 32 I� I III 11 II 11 II 11 II 11 II 11 1� 11 11 11 11 I 1\�-- 3'-5'EARTHEN 1 35 I I MOUND 34 37 I �. 27 32 1 30 26 Z 25 I I EL , \ 28 1 1 31 O II I Oil LU 24 1 > \29 1 1 30 01 I I � I I 23 / EMMET ROW LANE F- 20 I I I I 1 I I I I I 20 i\ 19 18 I I � I I I I 22 1 21 1- 993 98 102 ; \\ I' I78 77 84 76 86�—��� 10475 1 �� '^ 87 X96 m � I 91 94 \ X 90 100 101 / 103 I 1108 I II109 1 0 TREE FENCING (TYP) 1 I 1;1 t 113 112 114 1 115 j I / 116 7 I I � 117� i 41 RESERVE "A" 54 44 TREE FENCING (TYP) 51 ., _ , .,> 48 63 y .., G'761 68 65 _ I 1 45 I I 46 7- I 47 I I 1 48 49 i -moi// 1 , 1127O A�... I 1 1 i L J FENCING (TYP) -11F \ � RESERVE "K I I I I ±7.2 ACRES \ \ 17 16 15 1 1 14 13 12 11 10 1 j 9 \ I I I I JL I I I I �...�" r \ I TREE FENCING (TYP) \ _ 3'-5' EARTHEN _ MOUND REVISIONS RESERVE"C" DESCRIPTION 3'-5' EARTH N REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS 11/21/19 1 33 ±0.1 ACRES 44 MOUND CALL (614) 410-4600. % 2. THE CITY IS TO BE CONTACTED IF FENCE LOCATION NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED OR PRIOR I I r 34 1 43 Q U I U w I i Z 2X4 WOOD CRZ OR N QI I I RAILS 1 5' RADIUS U 35 WHICHEVER 1 1 42 r Z L QUARE IS GREATER J 1 =1 EXISTING v GRADE N STEEL FENCE C STAKE AT 6' O.C. STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS PROHIBITED I 36 1 I 1 41 I 1 I 1 37 I 40 1 L r I 38 1 39 � J I I I I 1 45 I I 46 7- I 47 I I 1 48 49 i -moi// 1 , 1127O A�... I 1 1 i L J FENCING (TYP) -11F \ � RESERVE "K I I I I ±7.2 ACRES \ \ 17 16 15 1 1 14 13 12 11 10 1 j 9 \ I I I I JL I I I I �...�" r \ I TREE FENCING (TYP) \ _ 3'-5' EARTHEN _ MOUND Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, ON 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 elnhuorn RESERVE"A" ±7.2 ACRES X-5EARTHEN MOUND 8 TREE FENCING (TY P) 16 v 19 � 21 20 X23122 26 HYLAND-CROY ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT ROMANELLI & HUGHES FOR 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD W ESTERVILLE, OHIO 43081 THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE TREE SURVEY & REMOVAL PLAN 15 I 1 I I 3 I II I I I � II I I I I I , I 1 I TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS: I EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED >_24' (LANDMARK) 73" DBH (2 TREES) / 3.0" (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 25 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED 6" TO <24' (PROTECTED) 545" DBH (51 TREES) / 3.0 (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 182 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0 CAL.) e TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES = 207 TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) I TREES TO BE REMOVED I TREES 3, 4, 11, 20, 85, 89-91 AND 93 ARE ASH TREES AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS TREES 18, 19, 37, 42, 74, 79, 81-84, 93,99 AND 128 ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS I I — I TREE PRESERVATION GENERAL NOTES 1. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND TREE PRESERVATION AREAS SO THAT ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED. THE FENCING SHALL BE LOCATED A DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK THAT EQUALS, AT A MINIMUM, THE DISTANCE OF THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OR 15 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. WHERE tla PHYSICAL SITE CONSTRAINTS DO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH INSTALLATION, TREE PROTECTION LOCATIONS AND METHODS SHALL BE DETERMINED ON SITE, WITH THE CONSULTATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN 1 LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR. CALL 410-4600 FOR TREE FENCING INSPECTION. 2. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE SECURED IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION DURING THE ENTIRE 1 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TO PREVENT THE IMPINGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES, MATERIALS, I SPOILS, AND EQUIPMENT INTO OR UPON THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. — 3. TREE PRESERVATION SIGNS, AVAILABLE FROM THE DIVISION OF LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING, MUST BE LOCATED ALONG THE FENCING. ANY CHANGE IN PROTECTIVE FENCING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING. 4. THE APPROVED TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE BUILDING SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES AND AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ALL CONTRACTORS AND UTILITIES. 5. DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL STEPS TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO PROTECTED TREES SHALL BE TAKEN. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, MOVEMENT AND/OR PLACEMENT OF 1 0 EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, MATERIALS OR SPOILS STORAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE w PRESERVATION AREA. NO EXCESS SOIL, ADDITIONAL FILL, LIQUIDS, OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF ALL TREES THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED. U i 6. NO ATTACHMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROPES, NAILS, ADVERTISING POSTERS, SIGNS, FENCES, OR WIRES (OTHER THAN THOSE USED FOR BRACING, GUYING OR WRAPPING) SHALL BE �L ATTACHED TO ANY TREE. U 7. NO GASEOUS LIQUIDS OR SOLID SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE HARMFUL TO TREES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. Cj 8. NO FIRE OR HEAT SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. 9. ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING SERVICE LINES, SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREE 1 PRESERVATION PLAN. I I II I I REVISIONS DATE DESCRIPTION 10/23/19 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS 11/21/19 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS 01/21/20 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, ON 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 elnhuorn RESERVE"A" ±7.2 ACRES X-5EARTHEN MOUND 8 TREE FENCING (TY P) 16 v 19 � 21 20 X23122 26 HYLAND-CROY ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT ROMANELLI & HUGHES FOR 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD W ESTERVILLE, OHIO 43081 THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE TREE SURVEY & REMOVAL PLAN 15 I 1 I I 3 I II I I I � II I I I I I , I 1 I TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS: I EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED >_24' (LANDMARK) 73" DBH (2 TREES) / 3.0" (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 25 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED 6" TO <24' (PROTECTED) 545" DBH (51 TREES) / 3.0 (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 182 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0 CAL.) e TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES = 207 TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) I TREES TO BE REMOVED I TREES 3, 4, 11, 20, 85, 89-91 AND 93 ARE ASH TREES AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS TREES 18, 19, 37, 42, 74, 79, 81-84, 93,99 AND 128 ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS I I — I TREE PRESERVATION GENERAL NOTES 1. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND TREE PRESERVATION AREAS SO THAT ALL PROTECTED TREES SHALL BE PRESERVED. THE FENCING SHALL BE LOCATED A DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK THAT EQUALS, AT A MINIMUM, THE DISTANCE OF THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OR 15 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. WHERE tla PHYSICAL SITE CONSTRAINTS DO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH INSTALLATION, TREE PROTECTION LOCATIONS AND METHODS SHALL BE DETERMINED ON SITE, WITH THE CONSULTATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN 1 LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR. CALL 410-4600 FOR TREE FENCING INSPECTION. 2. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE SECURED IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION DURING THE ENTIRE 1 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TO PREVENT THE IMPINGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES, MATERIALS, I SPOILS, AND EQUIPMENT INTO OR UPON THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. — 3. TREE PRESERVATION SIGNS, AVAILABLE FROM THE DIVISION OF LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING, MUST BE LOCATED ALONG THE FENCING. ANY CHANGE IN PROTECTIVE FENCING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF LAND USE AND LONG RANGE PLANNING. 4. THE APPROVED TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE BUILDING SITE BEFORE WORK COMMENCES AND AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING ALL CONTRACTORS AND UTILITIES. 5. DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL STEPS TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO PROTECTED TREES SHALL BE TAKEN. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, MOVEMENT AND/OR PLACEMENT OF 1 0 EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, MATERIALS OR SPOILS STORAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE w PRESERVATION AREA. NO EXCESS SOIL, ADDITIONAL FILL, LIQUIDS, OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF ALL TREES THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED. U i 6. NO ATTACHMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROPES, NAILS, ADVERTISING POSTERS, SIGNS, FENCES, OR WIRES (OTHER THAN THOSE USED FOR BRACING, GUYING OR WRAPPING) SHALL BE �L ATTACHED TO ANY TREE. U 7. NO GASEOUS LIQUIDS OR SOLID SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE HARMFUL TO TREES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. Cj 8. NO FIRE OR HEAT SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE PRESERVATION AREA. 9. ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING SERVICE LINES, SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREE 1 PRESERVATION PLAN. I I II I I No Scale LOCATED IN: VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATE OF OHIO. COUNTY OF UNION. CITY OF DUBLIN. TOWNSHIP OF JEROME Exhibit `D-3' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 120 1 inch = 60 feet Date Job No. SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 20190043 Scale Sheet I"=60' 6/7 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE EXISTING TREE OR TREE MASS NOTES: 1. INSPECTION OF INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED. CALL (614) 410-4600. % 2. THE CITY IS TO BE CONTACTED IF FENCE LOCATION NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED OR PRIOR 0 0 TO ANY ENCROACHMENT OF PRESERVATION AREA. O N Q U a U U w l U Z Z 2X4 WOOD CRZ OR O O U RAILS 1 5' RADIUS U WHICHEVER HIGH VISIBILITY MEDIUM WEIGHT BARRIER 4X4 WOOD POST5' r (OPTIONAL) QUARE IS GREATER FENCING ATTACH TO POST WITH ZIP TIES AT 1' O.C. EXISTING v GRADE N STEEL FENCE STAKE AT 6' O.C. STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IS PROHIBITED Tree Preservation Detail No Scale LOCATED IN: VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATE OF OHIO. COUNTY OF UNION. CITY OF DUBLIN. TOWNSHIP OF JEROME Exhibit `D-3' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 120 1 inch = 60 feet Date Job No. SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 20190043 Scale Sheet I"=60' 6/7 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE Number Latin name Common name DBH Condition 1 Ulmus americana American Elm 9 Good 2 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 7 Good 69 Pious strobus White Pine 9 Fair 4 Quercus alba Green Agh 7- Peer 5 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 8 Good 6 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 8 Fair 7 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 10 Good 8 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 9 Good 9 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 16 Good 10 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 12 Good 11 Ulmus americana Green Ash 6 €ai F 12 Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 16 Good 13 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 8 Good 14 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 8 Good 15 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 6 Good 16 Morus rubrua Red Mulberry 9's Good 17 Malus ioensis Crab Apple 12 Fair 84 1AIL.'m4PcPOR ra Peer 85 a oE9 ru;�, ..f n � n Peer 20 4 ,n„ „_ o eAgh 10 Bead 21 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 14 Good 22 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 14,13 Goad 23 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 8 Good 24 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 19 Fair 25 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 14 Good 26 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 13, 13, 11 Good 27 Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa 7 Good 28 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 6 Good 29 Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 12 Good 30 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 49 Fair 31 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 6 Good 32 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 12 Good 33 Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 7 Fair 34 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 16 Good 35 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 15 Good 36 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 24 Good 37 Quercus palustris Pial Oa# 3-1 Peer 38 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 16 Fair 39 Pinus resinosa Red Pine 8 Fair 40 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 7 Fair 41 Pious strobus White Pine 9 Fair 42- Dong A trnh--r White P*nn 19 Peer 43 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Fair 44 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Fair 45 Pinus strobus White Pine 12 Fair 46 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Good 47 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Fair 48 Pinus strobus White Pine 9 Fair 49 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Fair 50 Quercus alba White Oak 14 Good 51 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Fair 52 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Fair 53 Pinus strobus White Pine 9 Fair 54 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 10 Good 55 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 11 Good 56 Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 10 Good 57 Ulmus americana American Elm 14 Goad 58 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 14 Good 59 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Fair 60 Quercus alba White Oak 12 Good 61 Pinus strobus White Pine 12 Fair 62 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Good 63 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 6,6,5,5,4 Fair 64 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Good 65 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Fair I[»T/ls9[e]261 DATEDESCRI'ON Acer saccharinum 10/23/19 RE VI SED PER STAFF COMMENTS 11/21/19 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS 01/21/20 REVISED PER STAFF COMMENTS Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 emht.com ROMANELLI & HUGHES 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD W ESTERVILLE, OHIO 43081 66 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 16,13 Fair 67 Pinus strobus White Pine 6 Fair 68 Quercus alba White Oak 20 Good 69 Pious strobus White Pine 9 Fair 70 Quercus alba White Oak 9 Good 71 Pinus strobus White Pine 16 Good 72 Pious strobus White Pine 12 Good 73 Picea abies Norway Spruce 11 Fair 7iI.I.�n -I-. rI Lvry kifaI Putt 14 paAr 75 Pinus strobus White Pine 12 Good 76 Pinus strobus White Pine 12 Good 77 Ulmus americana American Elm 6 Fair 78 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 -79 a:n..r trnh��rt,i�� 1Afh I P Pon 44 nFair V e;;d 80 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 8,4 Good 84 Punas sereti na 94G E le" 9 Poor 8-2- Pin,-; White Pon n 44 d 84 1AIL.'m4PcPOR ra Peer 85 FFaXi RW5 n yW n:,.-, GFePzv.,A h -7� ;a4 86 Pious strobus White Pine 10 Fair 87 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Fair 88 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Good 99 FF11 :RMS peRRSyIVaRiG@ GFeeA."&h, 8 Geed gg Fraxinus n .,I.,-.ni,.., Green Ash 6 Geed 94 Fraximus PeF44 Green Mh 6 Faw 92 Pinus strobus White Pine 9 Fair Green 9 Peer 94 Pinus strobus White Pine 9 Fair 95 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Good 96 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 8 Fair 97 Pinus strobus White Pine 15 Good 98 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Good 99 AreF neg ^.w ower 6 9ea4 100 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Good 101 Pyrus communis Common pear 19 Good 102 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Fair 103 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Good 104 Pious strobus White Pine 6 Fair 105 Pious strobus White Pine 8 Good 106 Pious strobus White Pine 8 Good 107 Ficus strobus White Pine 11 Good 108 Pious strobus White Pine 9 Good 109 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Good 110 Pinus strobus White Pine 10 Good 111 Pinus strobus White Pine 9 Good 112 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Good 113 Pinus strobus White Pine 13 Good 114 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 Good 115 Pinus strobus White Pine 11 Good 116 Pious strobus White Pine 8 Good 117 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Good 118 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Good 119 Pious strobus White Pine 8 Good 120 Pinus strobus White Pine 8 Good 121 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 7 Good 122 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 7 Good 123 Pinus strobus White Pine 7 Good 124 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 8 Fair 125 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 18 Fair 126 Picea abies Norway Spruce 12 Good 127 Picea abies Norway Spruce 17 Good 1-24 Prunus .Wa-r� Dff11-c� Poor CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE TREE SURVEY LIST TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS: EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED >_24' (LANDMARK) 73" DBH (2 TREES) / 3.0" (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 25 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) EXISTING GOOD AND FAIR TREES REMOVED CTO <24' (PROTECTED) 545" DBH (51 TREES) / 3.0 (DIA. TREES REPLACED AT INCH FOR INCH) = 182 REPLACEMENT TREES (AT 3.0 CAL.) TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES = 207 TREES (AT 3.0" CAL.) TREES TO BE REMOVED TREES 3, 4, 11, 20, 85, 89-91 AND 93 ARE ASH TREES AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS TREES 18, 19, 37, 42, 74, 79, 81-84, 93, 99 AND 128 ARE IN POOR CONDITION AND ARE NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THE TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS iteldw_\Igbllis VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 STATE OF OHIO. COUNTY OF UNION. CITY OF DUBLIN. TOWNSHIP OF JEROME Exhibit `D-4' Date SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 Sca le Job No. 20190043 Sheet 7/7 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK ATTARTAN RIDGE _ • �- - - - �/ ,.1 J I J ------ ---= -- \ �' � ,� "--219----------- - -a _ _-_ - --- - - /I L J I� _ -Ile-� '-rte - / I ---EAS ^�1ESTRI N PATFf ,�,,'� " , I 1 L I L 189 J I -- ' IT J /; 220 •r .• _ - ,% /� \ -�! -'� RESERVE"R„ / I / Z I I % I Imo'/ ' \; ' \ / %203 J I / L 190 I / / \ ; / 996 J I PEDESTRIAN TRAIL 7Q CONNECT OTHE -" EXISTING TRAIL• N THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD 221 ,202 191 ��-...\ n r''1 •••; ``- h -. ;'J L J rn o = , 0-13'4731" - L R=274.99' J � , .I'I, II � - - i Ara=66.19' ,L�- I`, ChB=S13'22'15•E, I' a ° EXISTING BASIN ChD -66.03' J f' I' �. "1 I 222 I� - 201 , J ----- --� I _ oil BE ,�S21'55'5,"W S06'28'31'I 4' m 192 I S ,'% 35.50' S51'28'31 °E 40.00' 1 a I I an L J e0 ;'{� ,;' �' a 35.36' ,1 Y� �1 LU wI` 9 a! oI ' I I Q EX1ST11JG,A WIDE' I/ - ���^ I I L 200 II I X 193 m ^ASPR 7 ,/ BASIN 02 4=739'08" a, rV J L o PEDESTRIAN RIAN PATH ,%1 0 '�e , NWE=992.0 R=275.00' '�10 v / n f I� i -� I' W - 22 0 % s.o Ac. Fr 3 � � - Arc -36.73 L�� ChB=S45'o5'32°E% �I -� - Ex 24"St;© 0 20 ,U ChD -36.70' 7 Ex 24" ST 6c 15" STt Ex 12" ST- yr I%I TC=,00,.7 11 •St �^ 1 Y I h' INV=995.24 5 T2s EX STAPLETON PLACE ;' '�•- ! ' _Ex 24'ST - .� J CITY OFDUBLIN,'' -�;'Io=4x98.31' /. S, _ RESERVE "A' Q o d H R=158.31' % , ' ,y sr o - - o 0 6 _ Arc 144.93 , O _7.2 ACRES- ChB=S2T58'54°E W h - ChD=141.73' PEDESTRIAN + I m /, EASEMENT ' l r , a rJ rJ ,'� RES Et `'Q,. PROPOSED �... / \ gt J I J 1 I - l I ,... __ _ ;-��w _ i m J I �. I .PEDESTRIAN PATH -- +., " R=225.00', � -- 3 3 I I J I J I �` I I zo �° Arc -4.06' -" u'S _ - •I �i CO 199 1 L L 194 � %'S38'S4b1"W;'' ChB-S,I33'42'•E------- - - / Iy ?� \ 3'-5'EARTHEN J J 196 195 35.36' ChD=4.06' - - - -�. / �i \ - �98 197 I ,� _ PEDESTRIAN PATH y MOUND -"� 10 TARTAN RIDGE _ - G I I EASEMENT 1 \ SECTION 5 PART 2 L - L- L 0 1Sf -�" --- - 0702'41 •'E 1 / /-------- 225 \ \ \ -" ,'' J J P.B. 5, P. 315 '�' TC -,002.65 - ,s t b / <, - /; _- INV=999.96 - LT LT ���', +� ,� �� 225 �' .w is INV94_ Sr 12"St ' EXISTING BE VACATEDO RIGHT-OF-WAY TC=l0os.50 ��SO6'O5'59"E 181.92'=` �-'�-- 49.12' � RESERVE E .1 ACRES' T21.69 y�i NV=000.1 - Ex8"WM- -(.-- ) (NVB Sa o "WM�n ---WM i�',�' \ �g - - zw I / 1 'II � - � - lNV=1000.13 PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED I ' INV=996.66 '� Ex 12"$T TC=1003.36 Ex 12" St _ 806'05.59"E_ �- - INV=1000.33 - - - 3'-5' EARTHEN - - - » ��' " II ' I1 ,50.37 c=,002s, 8 EX BRNHAM W/#Y ti MOUND ----------------------- L INV=99040.74 4 1'7 - __ _ INV=996.91 ^ Ex 15"ST -806'05'59"E 416.66'- z ---_- - - - L"• / -{- - EX20'ST 14 79 �• -- _---�=-Ex8"Sa�1CC-14456)- TC=1006.10 -i C-,4456 'RES RV ±0.1 R --- _-- ---Ex)8"sa=f- $CC -14456} R=-- 0 RESERVE D"' t .1 A RE c ` / EASEMENT 4 �! IN = EXISTING - a ------ - - WM v 993so T_ - a-' I�1, 1• . s Ex 18" Sa r -S83'54'o1"w'--- RESERVE 44 9 z PEDESTRIAN PATH I 36.74' S51'05'59"E_ 3'-5' EARTHEN " " o 2-- - _ --' -- --- 35.36' MOUND � 3'-5' EARTHEN ±0.1 ACRES EXISTING SANITARY 45 r MOUND I 806'05.59°E _ �27 _I-- -I---- 32., I TO BE REMOVED ,"_- ---"_" - - �'�' ----- -- 1 r� _ t N 50.00' = -} 5b I - 20' ST ESMT. - I` I I - h -"34'' 20' ST ESMT. ---" _-{' '-- - ---------- ,,, - 25 28 3T`, Or', h a 46 -55 - - - I -- I w y O 19R ` i F 1 N 3 O 1 43 3 a L I4 - 01 N! I' I h I'•, 1_ I ; 99 35 �g5- - ------- --- N 24 29 8' , d,! 47 1, _-G H 54 cif 42 r 30 OI I� I� • II I . ......... -20' ST ESMT.) 4------- I" 011 Z L4] )III Q _ `------ 1 _'' - --___- o = r-" __ - O s \ L -_ N 41 3 -- IN 36 - o S1/ -- - - T� sT �I 4 r WM 2 u� , I TC=999.7 , _-_--- _- $ I I 98 � (�I SIDEWALK EASEMEiTT I y ----- �, < ' o (� I _ `.4b INV=993.86 /,' h •' --LAN y fn m - _-" p' , - - 5 1' I S 3 rn I sa Sa N h .E If 11 ' ' MMET ' � ��• ; s SOW � 37 !'St`s ° E ' oti 49 """-' 52 I -� "- 20' ST ESMT. oo�` ti°,� ° 3 I ooa z w -1 0 0 L- -- I - - a A ESMT. I I ST ESMT. Sf Sf 15 S S� 00 38 - 50 51 I I 2'1 20 19 ` 1'8 I' h 1'w• I TC- .5 - - ' �.\ J 9 N '9 - 9 INV -993.38 • N , 9 THE BOARD OF ,,� 0 � .,, I ,'St DR- EDUCATIONOFTHEDUBLINI M/ \ - `-�-�-- --- ---� / moo CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT z�, �„ - I - - / x 12.433 AC. (DEED) r -- - ___ WM------------ O.R. -- WM 7 1 O.R. 609, P. 601 I; SIDEWALK EASEMENT _ ' �' '� --- -- -- SIpEWAL�,EA$EMENT- 8 _ I So DRAEMENT �/ --- --- 15 S --- n• n• I •. EASEMENT - 15 SA ESMT. T •.g9 A ESMT. ,RESERVE A l'' a 9 RESERVE "I `99 9� `,, `.� h ' ±7,2 ACRES 8' WIDEASPHALT - ±7.2 ACRES S� 1 16 - "1 5 :f y 14 13 12 1.1 1 Q• 9 8; PEDESTRIAN PATH i ` o BASIN Ol -------- ------ •� 3'-5' EARTHEN NWE,=992.5 MOUND 7.0 AC. FT I I/ - C - l \ ~ .• 20' ST ESMT. $t ST ST ST o 20' ST ESMT. EXISTING 20' GAS EXISTING EASEMENT PEDESTRIAN 8' WIDE ASPHALT • • T 3 TRAIL PEDESTRIAN PATH_--- - - - - _ _ _-------- 8' WIDE -ASPHALT '- RIGHT-OF-WAY WAY PEDESTRIAN PATH PEDESTRIAN PATH % - --- -- ------ 3' S' EARTHEN EASEMENT -� - 4 ---- �- - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MOUND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ay - - - - - 1 - - - - -- ------ _ - ---- ----- -- - _ - -� - - - - -- --- _ - ---------- ---- -- - -- - - PEDESTRIAN PATH , , 0 . - - ---- - - - - - ---- ---- --------------------- - EASEMENT � � - - -- -- -N06'05'59"W 1382 30' -- --- -- --- ---YIA --- --- --- - - - LEGEND IIIN stm Proposed Storm Sewer CB MH �,_SanSery San Proposed Sanitary Sewer MH Water Sew WM FH Proposed Watermain VIV Exhibit `E-1' GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30 60 120 1 inch = 60 feet PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO Date Job No. onTF DESCRIPTION DEwRIPTIOSTnFFconnnnFNTs ORMPRELIMINARY ROMANELLI &HUGHES PLAT20DATE SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 20190043 FORLOCATEDIN: 01/21/29 REVISEDPERSTAFFCOMMENTs Inc. EvaneMechwart, - Planon ners Scientists Engineers • •Planners • 148 WEST SCHROCK ROAD THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 299101/21/2° Sale Sheet RF�SFo PFRSTAFF COMMENTS W ESTERV LLE, OHIO 43081 STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, CITY OF DUBLIN, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME bSurveyorsRa 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 OH H43l5 Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 1"=60' 4/7 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN emht,com PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE I 8 --_- - ------- 219 � _219 - - ----------------- LL J - I _L�_" 0' 1- - i- / �{^ h _ ^ILII 7004--__ __-__ -- r'-'""-�,- V ''� \ `�a4y 9�a' �I 1' , _ f �,'' s 1 iT, 189 - -- '� '9 EYP J I I % - - L L""" - - �j �� 220 -\- I�- 'I- - - • ;T . - _ .%-i - RESERVE`"R„ 1 ' F _L I I I ;' I; - Imo- - �; \ / 1 ; 99 203 '� J /� L 190 I a 'j /. \' / � b PEDES L J TRIA'I>yTRAILT, - , NR-CONNECTTpTHE - / r -=,_l - •"� �' EXISTING TRAIL ON THE / II I I �, 'SII / \ SOUTH,SIDE OF ENFIELD ?t_ 221 1 - �, / Q '202 F J I �... to m m m �;'' L J 9, I `' I m i o I I',IN T I L / J , I I Inv= 2.82 = - 3J J I 99 J J Q -� w_ - ,A�11'EXISTING BASIN %(TBR)' LU Z XISTING', (TO 8E MODIFIED) //--,�' O /SPE 'S 9 ATH' - '� - 201 / ( 192 DE AJV Inv= m _ 222 - - J,' I to L J I I I 991.24 1 �p Zr��3_ W Q OUTLET - -'1 Oa f% �I N 1 - T - J I I ;�/ STRUCTURE W I� f 200 Ial I ,I, 1 f,� s?I% _}-�8E. 0, 11ININ J 193 0 / BASIN 02 t lq -_- $ L I W J L oI ��,;' ^oa^ , I ' e , NWE=992.0 - N ' 22 0' / 5.0 AC. FT 3 I I 1 II U' L o L i RESERVE"Pi I, �' , f� ----- - - - - - v O ,z" stm 21 Y I , Ex 24"ST�� Fx 24"ST Fx 15"ST I' 7I I INV=99524 I TCIII L 1 1 F,I,z^'St �^ EX STAPLETON PLACE - _ - � II II - - _Ex24"ST_ - ,.� L ,"'. o CITYOFDUBL'IN,' ��, ���� /f"'�'% RESERVE A _IN ©I o - o ±7.2 ACRES '� // �' , �*/ °9 1. Inv=985.0 'I ; W ^�Oil / Inv=984.311 224` PEDESTRIAN PATH \' 9aA \ \ ��� l I'/ ---"--- EASEMENT \ ' + _ _ �1 ❑ I - - - -_-- - _ \ I, I � n1/-983.78± h oo N 3 I I I I I 194 01 1° O _ �. \ R IN 0199 -- 3 ga ' O � B TARTAN RIDGE I `I 198 197 196 III 195 I I n > ;I o / -__ / --- - PEDESTRIAN PATH ,� / 99 \ \ ^,\ 1 _ _ EASEMENT SECTION 5 PART 2 � L -_ L EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY TO y0 / _.- � � `� 9� \ \ _EARTHEN I' P.B. S, P. 315 'I, Tc=1002.65� -Tc=1004.,0_ 2e L ----_L BE VACATED / 5 ----� 0�i \------'" MOUND III INV=999.96- LT _ L_ .� gf ✓ 9 �, •`, �Op +f6y 1 - 225 I 15' INV -996 - - (PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED) _ _ _ - - (''RESERVE"E" 4 w it"st. - Ex 12" St Ery tr 1 i I' �..,1 _0.1 ACRES' ' 'Tc=,002.69 -I C=1003.36 „ - Exe"NA4EX B E - VKAY 1003.51 .11002.40 1001.91 2,c ,1001 i7 ' y',13`, 'gg7.68', %(1* 1005.15� 46 990.2 �z w 1003.3 _ TC -1003.76 1004.7 _ 1005.0 _ st I_ + INV=996.66 5 8"Sa 99 Z TC=1002.61. INV=1000.33 - -_ 7 - -1 _ --�. 'rb _ - 1� -d, w NV-994.74, �a L'� y �i Inv=996.91 , a 3'-5' EARTHEN f 1.5 :t 3.50 997 _-- ------ -- -- 7a oszss 1005.30 2.15X 1002.40 100127' H MOUND / Ex 15"St 1TST 1002.8 - 1004.4 --__ -'' - --- - -}- - - _ - 1003.51 > w IX 20' ST f , a , s�_� -Ex 8" Sa�(CC-14456)- TC=1006.10 -i '' CC-, 4456 'RES RV ' ±0.1 R r J L tr -Ex •18" Sa -/- -1(CC-14456) "1 - _9 ;'`- , o / SERVE DII s Ex 18'Sa '--EASEMENT D •` O + ,WM �<INV=993.50 2 RIM - -- - _ ACRE � O a` --' _ 4 RE 1 s � � / EXISTING -�-- -" :N % '� 1002.0_ PEDESTRIAN PATH - l __ _ -RIM= - -{---- RIM= RESERVE "CII T+❑ _ 3'-5' EARTHEN - - _ ______ ---__ 995.2 m MOUND 26 II n II a II Ft Pl:a 995.6 o �,_ N I 0! II n 2 o �o o � � _ U-1 fig., 2�-_- 32 �� s , s g ' ±0.1 ACRES 44 ao ti ° 0 45' f� .� 56 " Ir �°' _----%, o T I Q, I IN 33 r - EXISTING SANITARY -_o---- _ - _ RIM= ===_____ r` r TO BE REMOVED ST _ _-__ 996.0 - �__-____ I ', y W'01)3 1 h 1� o RIM= _-_ 20'STESML O% - --- - - - I `,NINE ,• 3 I�I 1001.5 r, I a ,I 25 II i o 0 3 II v 1 -j 31 II Mi �'Y m 101 II ,; - - m ,i o ---------- -- q c r ---993 IM- F z o i �, o `28 10 •, o O N' 1 h 0 34 43'', M 3' n' `99R 55 _ ° R LU ° m 996.0 1 u U, i'. :46 LU r o o f 1't O",- w y RIM= O h coo $ 1 [Y b o E I _ o w 01 , _ 1001.3 � __ _ - __ , n I- `� r 8 In c w �'' y I se a 35 N ^I I rn H --- - �--- - - - 'I f tI F a" u II II 1 1``, w -"--- In 24 a a II ri ,o o B ri 1_ m% m _-i y o la 8 29`` 1 1` 30 O' o 42 11 M Q; II M 47 0 54 n Q _a i o c� a O1 C7 .S1 p Q Q , 8 � C7 I " RIM=.. 20' ST ESMT. ,' RIM- _ - W-"-" I SIDEWALK,EASEMENT St _ O ¢- 0 M 1002.7 \ I rn RIMS I N o RIM-_ 23 Z1§1 c ; - - r ` M o ❑ o -997.3 53 - o; y ---- ; , • O C7 >�? 1oo1.a7-W - 3� OI o 48 " I_ 9a TC=999.7 _ Inv=993.a6 i/ h so '??i RIM- 6 5 1000.93 `, 4 I Z N o " r o, w 4b'I 10010 '41 a '1 s } OD - �_ \ 5 d ----- { 1001.59 0•SOX '`,1000.93 `, 3 � o " of "- .n M l n c� � x t 1 T S 37 m ------ „ s / ❑ I o H m 44' II M 3 I 49 52 �T 00 I m RIM= GA=, �,\ Sa 15' AESMT II N o n O_-'' -''' -I-'-1 -II p -0) -1003 1002.2 RIM= RIM= �o %coo I �0 000-----' c�o, rn / zw I I, 1004.2 1002.2 1001.3 J 1tI - RIM= o RIM= St 20' ST ESMT. ¢ w 000.1" - ,� - - 0 1000.7.- '-�-- - - - -- _ I of 20' ST ESMT. , I M - 998.4 1004.4 St I 0o p GA- \I �_ = - In m II o 1 1003.8 1 1003.4 1 03.1 RIM= n N 38 r 39 m o �{ O '^ II Nj k I a C7 - u`i t� t� 2 O TC -996.5 O O ( O 1 4 i N �� w 1000.4 � RIM= �o Vol); U "- - - --- TC=998.5 - o Y J 1000.4 � I'' - N I w ; l 'd ,' INV=993.38 2.1, '19 18''`, RIM= ST SIDEWALK EASEMENT THE BOARD OF ( j 20 I - - EDUCATIONOFTHEDUBLINI;' CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT I RIM- �6Jtt;' '999�'*j '999.87 WM I WM _ 9 7 0� C�Oo._- 7• 12.433 AC. (DEED) ' 1 O.R. 609, P. 601 I% - -- 1001.6 Rj , 4 1.00 5 1000.74 6 '7 SID%WALK EASEMENT -8 1000.08 , -• a .. h 0 i N --- 1 000 000 8- -I SAESMT.1000 �y 0 X R o=' I /' SOX999.87 5 1001.90 .08 Li r 1.38x 80 15 I9 ❑ - - ,RIM I ------ RIM 15' SA ESMT. S RIM 'S❑ 999.3 -;1`• / 999 1001 8 LEGEND Stm Proposed Storm CB MH Sewer -SanSery Proposed Sanitary San Sewer MH T/ --Water Sery FH Proposed WM 'r Watermain Vlv ExStm Existing Storm _ ExCB ExMH Sewer �sansery Existing Sanitary I ExSan •_, Sewer ExMH C7�ExWater Y Sery ExFH Existing _L_,__ ExWM__y _ Watermain ExVly Existing Minor 921 Contours Existing Major ___________920___________ Contours Proposed Minor 901 Contours Proposed Major 905 Contours GA= Ground Around Elevation (TBR) To Be Removed N 11 11 5 GARESERVE ... I ',., •` DRAINAGE .0 -_ _- _ -- ---____-- 1• _-- A EASEMENT% 100 6 � f 9 cA= ` cA= GA= cA= G<+= cA= cA= GA= ` cA ±7.2 ACRES RESERVE "A t RIM= 1001.5 1001.8 1002._3-' 1003.0 .1003.9 1003.4 1002.9 T 02.4 'i 1001.9 �0 B' WIDE ASPHALT -...� ±7.2 ACRES - S 11999.� ''PEDESTRIAN PSH L' 8 ,I i BASIN of j'7 1 b --15 14 13 12 11 '`,10 ``f ',I g 3'-5' EARTHEN a NWE,= 992.5 MOUND OUTLET S 7.10A -Pt'RIM= _- '--- -'C RIM= RIM= RIM= RIM= RIM= 'II II I •` STRUCTURE - 999.7 - 1000.6 1001.7 1001.0 1000.1', - 999.7 • • 'E=2' I� Sf $t $t $t 5r St IN Exhibit E - 2 j ------ ------------ - --- ❑ rn 20' ST ESMT. ���= ° - 20' ST ESMT. 8' WIDE EXISTING 20' GAS ala St _ 0 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN P EASEMENT BRI '- w�'1 +Jill PEDESTRIAN I _ -------- ------------------- ------ 8'WIDE;4SPHALT__ 3'-5'EARTHEN I TRAIL ------ I� II i Pf1J€STRIAN__PATH _ 97 _ ----- - -- -PEDESTRIAN PATH / - - MOUND EASEMENT - n1/=990.80 - ---_--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- w _ = GRAPHIC SCALE Inv -990.33 " T •--v - -- - - PEDESTRIAN PATH , 0 ---- ---- '------------- - --_ -- - - - - ----------------- - EASEMENT - - -- -- - - ---------- 0 30 60 120 ___-"-' _ _ ___ __ ___-""'-" _ ___________________" _____ --___- - _ - _ ___- ______________ ___.r --. :- _ 1inch =60 feet _ � ' ',#� � �AN#� RCCA �" _ 7 Inv=989.80 _ REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO Date Job No. DATE DESCRIPTIONmommPRELIMINARY PLAT 20/2s/29 RFwseoPFRSTAFFconnnnFNu ROMANELLI &HUGHES FOR LOCATED IN: SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 20190043 01/21/29 REVISEDPERSTAFFCOMMENTs VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 2991 01/21/2° RF�SFO PFRSTAFF C1/MMFNTs Evaners ahwart, - Planners - Tilton, to 148 WEST SGHROGK ROAD THE OVERLOOK A T TARTAN RIDGE Sale Sheet Engineers • bSurveyorsRa •Planners • OH H43l5 W ESTERVILLE, OHIO 43081 STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, CITY OF DUBLIN, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Toll Free: 888.775.3648 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 1"=60' 5/7 emht.com PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA ThuirsdaV,, December n2, 2019.� 6.-3C pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge McKitrick and Jerome Road 19 -0842 -PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: To facilitate the future development of 56 single-family lots and 7.9 - acres of open space on the 24.55 -acre site in Tartan Ridge, Subarea F. Location: Northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.050-153.056. Applicant: Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design Planning Contact: Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4656, cridge@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-094 MOTION: Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan with five conditions: 1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure that the street names and naming method are appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with Staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin, add green space in the area and landscape material in the area, subject to Staff approval; and 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping on the mound along Hyland Croy Road. VOTE: 6 - 0 RESULT: The Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval to City Council. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge McKitrick and Jerome Road 19-O84Z-PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes William Wilson Absent Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, P ` nner I Page 2 of 2 PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 17 of 32 [Motion passed 4-2] [5 -minute recess] Ms. Newell stated that Cases 4 and 5 would be heard together. 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-094, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-085 Preliminary Plat Ms. Newell stated that Case 4 is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning with preliminary development plan of approximately 24 acres for the future construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. The site is within the Tartan Ridge Planned Unit Development District, northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Case 5 is for the same site and the request is for a recommendation of approval to City Council for preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The Commission will hear the cases together. Staff Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that the site is currently zoned PUD, Tartan Ridge, and contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E and F, which permit a mix of uses including townhomes and commercial uses. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road and is currently undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site and a solitary tree stand in the southwest portion of the site. The proposed plan for approximately 24 acres includes 56 lots with an average density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre and eight acres of open space. Lot sizes are proposed in two different sizes. There are 34 patio lots that are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 22 courtyard lots are located on the perimeter of the site and are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to 10,800 square feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway. Sideyard setbacks are a consistent six feet minimum across the site. Rear yard setbacks are 25 feet throughout site. Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. Front -loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. The rear yard setback for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet. The development text also requires that a minimum of 22 lots in the development have court - oriented garages. On the southeast corner of the site is Lot 1. Due to the separation/isolation and odd lot shape, staff is recommending that the applicant remove Lot 1 from the plan. The applicant has put an emphasis on walkability throughout the site with sidewalks along all frontages, as well as connection and expansion to the shared -use paths along McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads. An existing connection to the school site to the north is to remain. There is significant landscaping around the perimeter of the site. The applicant is proposing mounding at a height of 3 - 5 feet with trees on top and behind in a naturalized manner. The proposed pond amenity will be a part Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 18 of 32 of the existing stormwater management pond in the northwest portion of the site. The amenity will include a patio space and shelter structure with seating. The development text requires that a hedgerow be planted and run parallel to the front property line as seen elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. It also requires gates and gatepost if a sidewalk is to connect from the front door to the public sidewalk. Brick, stone, or wood posts are permitted materials for the gateposts. Per the development text, driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers, which is a character element unique to this subarea. Outdoor spaces can be constructed within the footprint of the home. Open spaces such as at -grade patios will also be permitted to encroach 10 feet into the rear yard setback, providing increased outdoor amenity space, if desired by the homeowner. Per the development text, the HOA will be responsible for maintaining all open spaces as well as the hedgerow in front of the homes. An important architectural element will be carried over from Tartan Ridge into this subarea, which is the consistent use of cladding materials across all fagades. The City -owned pond will be re -designed slightly. Staff is recommending the subarea map include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned with this proposal. It is also requested that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure the street names and naming method is appropriate and that the applicant revise the plat to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. The rezoning and preliminary development plan have been reviewed against all applicable criteria, and staff recommends approval with three conditions. The plat has also been reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commission Questions Ms. Call inquired what is the reason for recommending deletion of Lot 1. Mr. Ridge responded that Lot 1 is separated from the rest of the community by a sewer easement The lot is irregularly shaped, larger than the other lots and isolated. Ms. Call inquired if the easement is a no -build zone. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman stated that he would assume that the area where the pond is located would be unbuildable, so it would become part of the common area. Mr. Ridge confirmed that would be the case. Ms. Fox stated that there is a lovely area on the northwest side with the pond area. The City has many retention ponds. There is opportunity to utilize them as an amenity for developments, and this is a good-sized development. If Lot 1 is eliminated, has staff suggested that a nicer amenity be created at this end of the development, as well? Mr. Ridge responded that staff has not made that request. Ms. Fox inquired how stubbing off the one street, currently unnamed, would impact ability for emergency vehicles and trucks to turn around. Mr. Ridge responded that the proposed name of the street is Jasmine Glen Drive. Ms. Kennedy inquired between which lot numbers the proposed street would be located. Ms. Fox responded that the street lies between Lot 32 and 30. She is curious about why that street has been stubbed. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 19 of 32 Mr. Ridge responded that some neighbors across the street were concerned about the glare of vehicle headlights into their homes and the closeness of that intersection to the one at Baronet Boulevard. Ms. Fox inquired if all were public streets. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively Ms. Fox requested confirmation that truck turnaround would not be an issue there. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Ms. Newell inquired how a fire vehicle would turn around, if the street terminates there. Staff responded that it would be necessary for the vehicle to back up. Ms. Newell stated that there is no ability for a fire vehicle to turn around. Once the roundabout is constructed, is there a distance requirement between that and another lane that would stop and turn? Staff responded that there is no such requirement. Ms. Fox asked about the City policy on adding a left turn lane. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it has been the City's practice for many years that with any new access point into a subdivision, a left turn lane be required to preserve the through movements on the roadway and provide safe access/egress from the development. Ms. Fox inquired if construction of that turn lane is the responsibility of the developer when constructing the development. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. It is built as a public improvement consistent with the City's standards, which the City then inspects and accepts. Ms. Fox inquired if there have been any exceptions to that practice. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there has been none during his tenure with the City. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the left turn is near Lot 1. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively; it is the McKitrick Road access point, the eastbound left -turn lane. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land and Development, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin, representative for Tartan Ridge LLC, stated that with him tonight are Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design, Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes and Steve Shell, EMH&T Engineering. Previously, they presented the Concept Plan for this development to the Commission. Stavroff has been involved with this project since its inception. They made the initial land purchase for what is now Tartan Ridge. In 2007, they believed there would be a commercial element in this development. In 2019, retail is not an option, and the majority of the residents have indicated they are not supportive of retail within the development. They would prefer to have the subdivision completed now rather than wait five to fifteen years for potential retail to occur. The current market overwhelmingly indicates that a detached, empty -nester product within a community such as this is desired. Dublin residents wanting to downsize will be able to remain within Dublin, be part of the Tartan Ridge community and have a maintenance -free lifestyle. He believes Tartan Ridge is one the best developments he has ever been involved with, and these high-end homes, built by Romanelli & Hughes, will continue that quality. The Commission's concerns shared at the Concept Plan review were noted and have been addressed; Mr. Smith will elaborate on those. As required by City Engineering, a left -turn lane into McKitrick Road will be constructed. However, there is an established New Community Authority, which must pay for the turn lane. Although the developer would build the turn lane and receive a 5% return on his investment, the residents of Tartan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 20 of 32 Ridge pay into that Community Autlhority. The residents paid for the other existing three intersections. No one is opposed to the turn lane, but the residents do not want to pay for it. However, the turn lane is not part of the rezoning matter before the Commission at this time. It could be a later matter for staff's or Council's consideration. Mr. Hammersmith stated that when he responded to the Commission's earlier question regarding the left -turn lane into this development, he responded in general terms. This turn lane and the other turn lanes constructed earlier with this development were part of an infrastructure agreement approved by City Council in 2008, and only a City Council action could modify that agreement. Gary Smith, G2 Planning and Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Columbus, stated that since July, they have been working on the architectural elements of the development, tweaking the plan and making significant changes to the development text. The Romanelli & Hughes product has been modified to meet the needs of this development. This is a 24 -acre portion of the existing Tartan Ridge development and this portion is in the southwest, below Glacier Ridge Elementary School. What is currently approved for that area are five single-family homes, 24 townhomes, and 68,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, potentially including gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants and associated uses. The developer has been working on the retail piece of the development for the past 12 years, but no viable option was identified. Because there was a strong desire to have the community completed, they looked for other options. Some form of lower -density residential was determined to be the best use. The City is fortunate to have an abundance of single-family product, and has been trying to broaden the spectrum of lifestyle options for its residents, such as the Bridge Park product. What is proposed is a continuation of that effort to address another lifestyle need. There is a niche of Dublin homeowners who no longer need a large, single-family home. However, they value their network of friends in Dublin and prefer not to move away. They continue to want a high-end home, but with limited maintenance requirements. They may prefer to travel a good portion of the year without the demands of caring for a home here. The proposed development will attract those types of buyers. They are requesting approval of 56 high quality, empty -nester patio homes. Because 29 single- family homes are already approved here, essentially, they are requesting to exchange another 27 patio homes for the 68,000 square feet of retail previously planned. The site is long, linear and encumbered by heavy setbacks along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. There is an existing pond in the northwest corner of the site, which will be used for stormwater retention. The site dictates the layout of the development. Early in the process, neighbors across the street on Brenham Way indicated that they were not excited about having lots fronting the street across from their homes and asked them to consider turning the layout to avoid that situation. Therefore, the long, linear site, pond and need to avoid having homes fronting the road across from Brenham Way have dictated the layout. In July, the Commission discussed the gridded layout of the development. While it may appear so in a Google view, he has often viewed similar developments and found that a ground -level experience of the site feels different. Upon entering the community, a spectacular model home will be seen. There was some discussion about eliminating Lot 1, but for them, Lot 1 is extremely important. The home on that lot will be the nicest home in the development and will be a critical sales tool. Although the home will be a little further apart due to the easement, many other elements will tie the home to the development, such as the landscaping, hedge treatment and the columns. Upon driving further into the community, the site will look much as it does today. On the right side will be the existing park and the homes on Brenham Way; on the left side will be a linear greenspace. Mounding and landscaping will be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 21 of 32 incorporated into that space. The same Tartan Ridge hedge will follow all the sidewalks. In a number of locations, benches will be provided, giving residents the opportunity to sit. There will be no long streets or blocks in this community. Although there is a grid pattern, due to the very short grids, drives and turns, the focus will be on the architecture. On 17 homes, additional architecture treatment on the sides will be required due to those sides being more exposed to the view. The lots along the perimeter have been widened and changed to courtyard lots, and a variance in setbacks will provide architecture that peaks in and out of the view, creating more interest. The courtyards will provide intimate spaces framed by the architecture. This will be complemented by other elements that are part of the Tartan Ridge experience, including an architectural style consistent with the existing development; hedge treatment along all the roads; and masonry columns adjacent to each driveway. With 56 driveways, there will be 112 masonry columns, costing a total of $250,000. There will be a significant investment on the landscape treatment on the street frontages. Every home will have a brick driveway and matching brick private sidewalks, which is an element not required for the existing Tartan Ridge development. The pond amenity will now be more central to the units than in the earlier plan. With a fireplace and covered seating area, it will be a place for the residents to enjoy. Along the perimeter will be a lush landscape buffer and extensive mounding along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. Not only will it buffer the rear of the homes, it also will make the drive along those roads feel pastoral. This development will replace a proposed use that would not be viable and is unpopular with many of the Tartan Ridge residents with a use that is in high demand and will serve the needs of the aging portion of Dublin's population. In addition, this development will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of traffic anticipated for the area. Patio homes typically generate less trips per day than other residential development, and its traffic will not be at peak times. These high-value homes will have high property taxes but make little impact on the schools. Due to its many attributes, this is probably the best housing development possible for this area. Ms. Fox stated that it appears they have discussed the proposed housing development with the neighbors and attempted to address any concerns. Mr. McCauley responded that there are two different HOAs. They have met with some of those board members to receive their input, and a survey was sent out to residents earlier to obtain feedback. Ms. Call inquired how the variances in home alignments would impact the front setbacks of the homes, including the garages and the sidewalks. Mr. Smith responded that the garage doors do not face the sidewalk. The minimum setback for the garages is 15 feet from the right-of-way where the sidewalk is located; the maximum distance is 25 feet. The varied depth in homes will create interest on the street. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the existing pedestrian trails to Glacier Ridge Elementary Schools would also connect to this community. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman inquired if the smaller pond would remain wet year round. Mr. McCauley responded that it would be a dry basin. Although it will provide a potential overflow area, it would rarely have water. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 22 of 32 Steve Shell, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH, stated that they were taking advantage of an open area for potential overflow storage, to provide flexibility for the City pond to the west. The proposed basin may not remain. Mr. Fishman stated that for aesthetic reasons, the City typically prefers a wet pond, which can fulfill the same purpose. Mr. Smith stated that because it is a tight area, there is a concern about having a wet pond there, which would be connected to the larger pond on the west side. They would work with City Engineering on that function. Mr. Shell stated that this would be a "bubble up" system. In higher storm events, upper storage basins are used. They would only be wet with a 50 -year event or above, so water would rarely be seen in that area. Mr. Smith stated that stormwater that would typically flow under the surface could bubble up out of it here during a greater event storm. They would consider the potential opportunity for making it a wet basin as well as landscaping opportunities, should it remain dry. Mr. McCauley stated that it would be very difficult to make this a wet pond. It would be necessary to make the pond even larger to do so. Ms. Newell stated that if the house on Lot 1 were eliminated, which is staffs recommendation, more area would be available. Mr. McCauley stated that the wet pond would be unnecessary, as there would seldom be a storm event to make it wet. Because it is a high spot, it would be difficult to make it wet all the time for aesthetic purposes only. Ms. Husak stated that the City discourages wet ponds within proximity to a road; a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way is typically required. Mr. Fishman noted that the dry basins he has seen around the City usually are full of weeds and overgrowth. There would need to be a commitment from the developer that a dry basin would be well landscaped and maintained. Mr. Smith responded that they are able to make that commitment. This will be a well maintained community. The residents will have a high level of expectations. They will work with staff to ensure what is planted will be maintained and look attractive. Ms. Kennedy inquired about the price point of these homes. Mr. Smith responded that the home prices would be approximately $600,000-$650,000. Mr. Fishman stated that he likes the development, except for Lot 1. He believes eliminating that lot would improve the greenspace view from the street. Mr. Smith responded that while he understands his point, having a model home located on that lot is a critical marketing piece for them. It also would provide a terminus for the architecture of the greater development, rather than having it bleed out to nowhere. This home will be a centerpiece, a showpiece for the community. Mr. Fishman stated that the neighbors would prefer to see open space. Many subdivisions do not have that, but Tartan Fields does. Its open space is a "Wow"factor. He would concur with staff's recommendation to eliminate that lot. Ms. Call stated that every parcel presents its own unique features. The setbacks along McKitrick Road here are very nice, and the open space being provided with this development already Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 23 of 32 exceeds the amount required, which is 3.56 acres. The actual space provided is 7.9 acres. Lot 1 would be in addition to that. Ms. Kennedy inquired if information regarding proposed developments such as this are shared with the School District, so that it can be factored into its redistricting considerations. Ms. Husak responded that she is unsure if the Schools are aware of the proposed development. However, an empty nester product would not have much impact on their redistricting considerations. Mr. Boggs stated that Dublin Schools redistricting is based on projections of development, not this specific development, but upon expected residential infill within the District's footprint. Ms. Call stated that the Schools are aware of the proposed developments that are before the Commission. This type of development, however, would have little impact. Ms. Fox stated that she likes the mounding and landscaping along the road. It will create a nice entrance along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She likes the enhancements to the pond amenity and public gathering area. The mounding appears to stop behind Lot 17, and the topography around the pond is not extreme. Is there a way to provide connectivity from inside the development out to Hyland -Croy Road, perhaps with a path? The Community Plan recommends providing connectivity from one neighborhood to another. Due to the nearby school, a path connection to Hyland -Croy would be beneficial. Mr. Smith responded that connectivity has been discussed. The concern is that this is an empty nester community. They do not want to encourage pedestrian traffic into the community from the street. They would be willing to explore connectivity from another location, but not directly from the street. They do not want to advertise a path through the community to be used by bikers or pedestrian traffic along Hyland -Croy. Ms. Fox stated that she understands. However, residents of the community would appreciate a connectivity to the existing bikepath. Perhaps it could be provided on another corner. Mr. McCauley stated that throughout Tartan Ridge, there are many other connection points. Residents of this community would have to go outside the community to access one of those paths, but they are confident the residents would prefer that to the alternative. Today, we are constructing pedestrian bridges to encourage our community to walk; perhaps it is fine to encourage the residents of the community to walk down to the street to a central point to access the 1,000 -acre park across the street. To have people cutting through this neighborhood would not have a desirable impact. Ms. Fox stated there are many pedestrian and bike paths around the proposed development, so that opportunity exists. Many of her friends have moved to communities designed for ages 55 and older. What they enjoy is a community center where they can gather. Was there any consideration for using Lot 1 for that purpose? Mr. Smith stated that Lot 1 was originally used for a community gathering spot, using the fireplace feature. However, Romanelli & Hughes has not experienced interest from potential homebuyers for having a community center, especially in a community this small. It is expensive to support the needed level of architecture, maintenance, heating and cooling needs by HOA dues from 56 lots. Financially, it would be more possible for a community of 150 patio homes to support a fitness center. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 24 of 32 Ms. Fox stated she believes an attractive architectural feature would provide a nice introduction to the community. Perhaps an open -sided feature without a high level of maintenance would be an option to consider. Mr. Smith clarified that the ultimate purpose of Lot 1 for Romanelli & Hughes is to have a model home to be used as a sales center for the development. A model home will showcase what they are selling in the community, but its ultimate repurpose is a home. Mr. McCauley stated that they have been working on developing this area for 12 years and one year on this specific plan. A model home on Lot 1 will be their sales location, and the home will be the highlight of the community. After 12 years of effort, eliminating that critical feature is too great a risk to take. When everything is completed and the hedgerows are present, this piece will be well integrated into a beautiful development. Taking this one off the board is a significant ask for the Commission to make of the developer. That home is extremely important to kick off this community. Gathering places for the community have been incorporated elsewhere in the development. Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes, 148 W. Schrock Road, Westerville Ohio 43081, stated that Lot 1 is the gateway to and the signature piece for the community. Opportunities like this to have a model that will stand out are very important to them. It will be a showcase at the entrance versus just another open greenspace. In considering providing amenities, they always consider the burden that would be placed on the HOA. They are providing multiple amenities within this community. These homeowners will expect a high level of detail for their mounds, greenspace, mulch beds, trees and shrubs — and all that comes with a price. From the HOA's perspective, the pond overlook, in particular, will require costly maintenance. To include an additional clubhouse feature for 56 patio homes would be very burdensome to the homeowners. They have spent a lot of time discussing this layout internally. Former Planning Director Mr. Papsidero has been integral to that planning effort. Ms. Newell stated that she agrees with staffs condition. She understands that Llot 1 is the premier property for marketing purposes. However, Lot 2 could serve that purpose just as well. Eliminating Lot 1 would improve the entry into the community. Mr. Fishman concurred. In regard to Ms. Fox's suggestion, he does not believe another amenity should be placed on Lot 1. Greenspace alone will provide a nice entrance. Lot 2 can be used to provide a spectacular model home. Overall, he believes the development plan is beautiful. Public Comment David Lakin, 7128 Glacier Ridge Boulevard, Dublin, OH, stated that he formerly served on the Tartan Ridge HOA. He is hopeful that all of the construction traffic will come in from McKitrick Road and not through the main portion of the neighborhood. He is concerned about the school crossing for Glacier Ridge Elementary. When they refer to the HOA, are they referring to a new HOA or the master HOA? Ms. Husak responded that this development will have a new HOA. Mr. Lakin inquired if the residents of this new development also would pay into the master HOA. Current residents pay $800/year to maintain the hedgerows and the City's open spaces. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 25 of 32 Ms. Husak responded that, as proposed, they would not. Mr. Lakin stated that on page 32 of the existing development text, the statement is made that all residential property owners located within Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners association. Why would these homes not be included, as well? This is important because the master HOA maintains many acres of City land within Tartan Ridge. They were told that due to the proximity they all have to the land, all should share the burden of the maintenance cost. It directly affects the residents' property values and quality of life. These new homes will share that same neighborhood. It would appear that all the residents in the existing development will be sharing in the cost of the left turn lane into the new development, but the new homeowners will not be sharing in the maintenance cost of the common areas. It would make sense for all the common area to be included in the master HOA, and all residential homeowners should pay equally into the master HOA. Ms. Husak stated that there are two HOAs for the area to the north. There is also an HOA for the alley -loaded lots. Because they also pay into the master HOA, they pay more than $800/year. Mr. McCauley stated that, as envisioned, the new development would have its own HOA and be responsible for its 7.5 acres of open space and right-of-way, and not be part of the Tartan Ridge master HOA. This new development will have a high level of maintenance costs in addition to its open space, including the pond and pond amenity, the brick driveways and the sidewalks, and the lawns and landscaping needs for the individual homes. This is a conversation that he and Mr. Ohlin could have with the Tartan Ridge HOA board to see how they would like to proceed. He is unsure the master HOA would want to take on what will be a heavy burden for these additional 56 lots. It would require more than $800/year per home to cover those costs. Mr. Lakin stated that there are two other subareas within the subdivision that pay into their own HOAs for private roads and specific maintenance within those subareas, in addition to paying in the master HOA. The maintenance for all the common land, including that which abuts the villa homes is paid by the master HOA. Although they do not own the land, they are responsible for the maintenance. If the City of Dublin would be willing to assume some of the responsibility for maintenance of their own land, that could be an option. Is there any opportunity for the Hyland - Croy roundabout capital project to be scheduled to coincide with the construction of the turn lane? Ms. Newell responded that issue is not part of the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Lakin stated that the varieties of the hedge materials in Tartan Ridge were determined by the City. They have accumulated information on which hedge varieties have lived and which have not. They would like to share that information with staff at the appropriate time. The HOA has been burdened with replacing hedges every year, because they are not the correct variety. They now have historical information on what has proven to be successful within their neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Lakin's earlier comment about second HOAs that can handle the specific maintenance needs of their areas. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to provide such a recommendation for the proposed development? Mr. Boggs stated that HOA considerations do not address the criteria before the Commission; however, that item could be addressed by City Council. Without knowing details about the status Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 26 of 32 of the master HOA and the details of the proposed declarations and covenants for the new HOA, he cannot provide better guidance. It would be beneficial for the applicant and the master HOA leadership to meet and discuss these issues. Ms. Fox suggested a condition be added that information with those details be provided to City Council for their consideration of this rezoning. The development text does describe the HOA obligation. This new rezoning area is part of an overall much larger development. If the new development is being treated differently than the existing development, that is an issue Council would want to be made aware of. Mr. Boggs responded that Council would want to be made aware of this matter. Including such a condition would be responsive to the criteria that the common areas be maintained appropriately. Typically, Planning staff and the Commission do not address how that occurs other than requiring that there be a forced and funded HOA. How those responsibilities are shared is not part of this Commission's purview. Ms. Fox stated that the reason she suggests Council be made aware of the matter is, in the past, Council has been petitioned by HOAs for relief when HOAs have experienced financial burdens because these specifics were not clearly addressed with the development. It would be preferable to have a good understanding of this issue as it relates to the overall development and ensure that an exception is not made that will create a problem for the master HOA, and ultimately, the City. Mr. Lakin noted that essentially, this would be defunding the master HOA the funds from the 29 homes that originally were planned in Tartan Ridge — funds he assumes were factored into calculation of the HOA fee. Ms. Call stated that the City does not address HOA fund calculations. Looking at the drawing provided, there is a red dotted line circling the development area; what does that denote? Ms. Husak responded that an outline of the entire Tartan Ridge development as it exists today was provided; the hatched area designates the proposed development area. Ms. Call stated that, in her view, if this area is being included in Tartan Ridge, it should be included financially, as well. That may mean that a sub association is needed to address the maintenance of the greater amenities in the proposed development. Although that is outside the purview of this Commission, it needs to be addressed by some party. Perhaps the Commission could direct staff to determine the proper body to address it and ensure that it is communicated to City Council. Mr. Fishman agreed, noting that perhaps these residents should pay into the master HOA and have their own sub association, as well. However, much of this area originally was planned as commercial property. The commercial area was not part of the earlier HOA fee calculation. Mr. Lakin responded that there were two parcels involved. The commercial component was planned on the right edge, and 29 homes are in the remaining area. Mr. McCauley stated that, currently, he is not sufficiently knowledgeable of the master HOA document provisions; however, they would abide by the stated terms. If the documents state that this area is to be included in the overall forced and funded HOA, they will comply. If the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 27 of 32 documents are unclear on the matter, they would discuss the issue with the master HOA leadership. In addition to lawns, this new area also will have 7.5 acres of open space and a pond amenity. The master HOA may not want to maintain that area. Because this area will have a higher degree of maintenance demands, the applicant was willing to handle that financial responsibility in its entirety. The anticipated financial costs would be calculated, and the parties would meet and discuss them. Mr. Lakin stated that the Stavroff group has been excellent to work with, and he has spoken with Mr. McCauley frequently. They like the proposed development plan. In regard to a home on Lot 1 — as a resident in the community, he has no objection to the developer's plan. Kevin Lutz, 9179 Brenham Way, Dublin, stated that his home is located across from the stubbed street. If that street were to cut through, vehicle lights would be an issue for his family; he appreciates the consideration that was made. Although he would prefer the area remain a soybean field, development will inevitably occur. He has heard that they have been trying to identify the right development for 12 years. It is better that it be development that is controlled, and a residential development is much better than the 68,000 square feet of commercial that could have been programmed. That amount of commercial space would not be a coffee shop and ice cream parlor; it would be a strip mall. He applauds the work that has been done with the streets, avoiding any direct access off Hyland -Croy Road that would have resulted in cut -through traffic through their neighborhood. Glacier Ridge Elementary School is their neighbor. Putting any commercial development here would have required a significant level of caution. Having an empty -nester neighborhood makes much more sense. From 3:00-4:00 p.m., Brenham Way is occupied by 20-25 vehicles making school pickups. The proposed development will complement that practice. If a showcase home on Lot 1 will sell all the houses in the division faster, then he supports giving them Lot 1. He would prefer the building process not take eight years! What their neighborhood needs is to be connected. They do not have a bikepath connection. For his children to ride their bikes to Jerome High School, they must either walk their bikes along Hyland - Croy Road or cut through a cornfield. This project will permit a bikepath to be constructed from Glacier Ridge Elementary to Jerome High School, meeting a real need. Although the residents may not want to pay for another left turn lane, that is a better option than the two left -turn lanes that would have occurred with a commercial development. In that case, a left -turn lane off Hyland -Croy Road would have been necessary, as well. There would also be a curbcut on the needed bikepath. Currently, the stretch of road from the elementary school to McKitrick Road has no curbcuts, so children can bike safely down to that intersection. Ms. Kennedy stated she appreciates the great public feedback and their opinions regarding a house on Lot 1. The Commission appreciates hearing the voice of the residents. Max Long, 1057 Hyland Croy Road, Dublin, stated that Jerome Township, Union County and the City of Dublin have worked together on forming a comprehensive plan — The Crossroads Area Plan. In 2015, the City agreed to Jerome Township's and Union County's plan. In the Land Use Plan, it was indicated that a rural area would be maintained throughout Hyland Croy Road. Jerome Village has already built 27 homes; 38 homes are planned; and a total of 5,300 homes are projected. In addition to Glacier Ridge Elementary, another elementary and middle school will be added on the same road. Glacier Ridge Elementary is set back 200 feet. When the Oak Park development was adopted, 230 feet of road frontage was required. For Corazon, 300 feet was required; for the Pulte Homes Autumn Rose development, 215 feet of road frontage was required. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 28 of 32 Does the text for this development require that the ROW be extended from 40 feet to 50 feet from the center of the road? Mr. Ridge responded that is the fourth condition, which was added after the staff report was distributed. Mr. Long stated the road is at the back of the pond. Lots 8 - 17 are within 100 feet of the road. Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission has indicated that Hyland -Croy will be changed to a four - lane road with an island. When that is completed, will any setback remain? On the Corazon property to the south, the islands are built up, earthen dams with trees, so those homes cannot be seen. According to page 4-2 of this plan, the backs of the homes will not be exposed to the existing road; yet, Lots 8-17 are within 100 feet of the road. The plan also provides for the homes to be architecturally staggered on the lots. With only a 3 to 5 -foot mound, there will be a direct view into the rear patios of these homes. It was understood that new residential development was not to be permitted to encroach upon this area. What will the distance be between the anticipated traffic circle and Lot 8? Mr. Ridge responded that he does not have that information at hand. Mr. Long stated that for comparison purposes, Glacier Ridge Elementary has a 250 -foot setback. The O'Brien property at 9635 Hyland Croy has a 450 -foot setback, and the other properties to the south range from 300 feet to 200 feet. Dublin has preserved that setback in the past. There will also be a path immediately next to the road. He does not want his children walking along this road. He lives on this road, which has a 45 -mph speed limit. It is often difficult to exit their driveway. This is a heavily traveled road, and these houses will be next to the road. The area plans, including the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan and the Crossroads Area Plan required some setbacks. The Gorden Property in Dublin provides a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way; adjacent to that is a service road, and an additional 100 feet is required on the inside before building is permitted. That plan provides a significant open area -- why was nothing similar required for this development? He is concerned this development will destroy the rural feel driving along Hyland -Croy Road. Commission Questions Ms. Newell inquired if the City Code has setback requirements for this area. At one time, certain City roadways were considered scenic, typically with requirements for 200 -foot setbacks. Does the Community Plan address this? Ms. Husak stated that the speaker referred to The Crossroads Plan. Staff has reviewed that plan, discussed the issue with Union County and verified that The Crossroads Plan does not address homes backing up to Hyland -Croy Road. Many of the properties that were mentioned are not within the City's jurisdiction. All properties on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road are in Jerome Township and were developed as very rural lots. The City's Zoning Code does not require a setback greater than the right-of-way width. Some of the neighborhoods, such as Bishop's Crossing, Bishop's Run and Park Place, which are now 10-15 years old, were built when the City was working on a plan called, "The Road to WOW." That plan, which was never adopted, proposed standards for greater setbacks from Hyland -Croy Road, and in exchange, higher density would be permitted. The 2007 Community Plan provided for the roadway characteristics of a scenic, rural roadway with a setback requirement of 200 feet. The Community Plan was updated in 2013, along with the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan, and that revision eliminated some of the roadway characteristics and setbacks. The current setback requirement is 80-100 feet. What is proposed with this plan is 100 feet, so it is consistent with the Community Plan. The Community Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 29 of 32 Plan is a policy document. Mr. Long is referring to Township documents, which the City of Dublin does not have. She is unsure if the Township's 2018 document has the same language, although that document has not been approved. Ms. Newell referred to Exhibit C-1, which is an EMH&T plan. Running along Hyland -Croy Road, there are a number of dashed lines; what do they denote? Mr. Smith stated that there are existing easements along Hyland -Croy Road, including a gas line. He believes the dashed lines designate those lines. Ms. Newell inquired if there are any easements for future roadway improvements. Mr. Smith responded that there are not. However, they will be dedicating 50 feet of right-of-way along Hyland -Croy Road, pre staffs request, which will result in a total of 100 feet. Mr. McCauley stated that the existing zoning, which includes the commercial development, permitted the development to be closer than 200 feet. He believes a setback of 150 feet was permitted. The new plan will provide 100 feet from the future road right-of-way. Ms. Husak stated that staff has verified the future easement is for gas lines. Mr. Smith stated that he previously served as the Zoning Officer for Jerome Township, so he is familiar with the aforementioned documents. He was present when the Township, City and the County adopted the Crossroads Area Plan. That plan never contemplated land up this far. Its focus area was the area surrounding Costco, the additional piece of industrial land at the intersection of SR161 and US33, and the Jacquemin Farms and Gorden Farms pieces. The different entities were attempting to reach a common ground on that area. He also wrote the Township's Comprehensive Plan in 2009. That plan does not contemplate 200 -foot setbacks from anything. It does address land use, rural development and conservation development. Specific setbacks were not established for any roads. From a Code standpoint, rural residential lots within the Township must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way. From Jerome Township's perspective, additional setback for any new development within the Township is preferred. Of the last four -five past developments, however, where houses backed up to the road, nothing more than 80-100 feet was required. This development would be consistent with the Township's policy. Ms. Call stated that the bikepath is shown in the drawings as continuing along the existing trail that runs adjacent to Glacier Ridge and continuing down to the roundabout. Is there a schedule for phasing in that path along with the development? Mr. McCauley responded that it would be installed when the street paving occurs, or soon thereafter. Ms. Newell stated that one of the previous citizen comments referred to the location of the construction entrance. Has the location of that entrance been determined? Mr. McCauley stated that he does not believe it has, but he does not believe there would be any objection to having it off McKitrick Road. Ms. Fox referred to the condition requiring elimination of the home on Lot 1. Like Mr. Fishman, she does not support dry retention basins. They tend to look unfinished. From an engineering standpoint, what are the options to make it look attractive? That is at the main entrance. She Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 30 of 32 would not be opposed to having an attractive piece of architecture in that location. Otherwise, there would be an unattractive dry basin and a flat field. Ms. Call requested clarification of the reason for staffs recommendation to delete Lot 1. Mr. Ridge stated that staff recommended that it be deleted because it appeared isolated from the remaining lots, is shaped irregularly and is larger than the other lots. Mr. McCauley stated that they could agree to remove the dry basin concept, leaving it as open greenspace with some landscaping. They would work with staff on how to modify the other pond appropriately for the site. However, they do need to have Lot 1 remain. As heard tonight, the neighbors support Lot 1 remaining in the plan. Although it appears irregularly shaped in the plans, when completed, it will be as attractive as the other lots. Therefore, he would request that condition be removed. They have no objection to the remaining conditions. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Supelak indicated that they have no objection to Lot 1 remaining. Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the height of the mounding along Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Ridge responded that it would be three to five feet in height and include trees. Mr. Fishman stated that he would like to see it heavily landscaped, but not with landscaping material, per se. He would prefer pine trees or something that will achieve an opaque screening. Ms. Newell stated that a variety of plantings could achieve that. Mr. Fishman stated that the plan appeared to provide many deciduous trees. He requested that the applicant commit to making the screening opaque — in whatever way that might be achieved. Mr. Smith stated that there would be an opportunity for discussion of landscaping details with the Final Development Plan. They are required to bring back a Final Landscape Plan to the Commission. Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the revised five conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions: 1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the existing storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin and add green space and landscaping within the area, subject to staff approval; and 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping in the mounding along Hyland Croy Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 31 of 32 Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the four conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Call moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City Council with the following four conditions: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan are made prior to City Council submittal; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names are approved and indicated appropriately on the plat; and 3) That the applicant revise the Preliminary Plat prior to Council review to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road, as required by Code. 4) That the applicant revise the plat to accurately display the planned 100 -foot right-of-way for Hyland -Croy Road. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] 6. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland -Croy Road, 17-061, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan A request to rezone ±45.4 acres from Rural District to Planned Unit Development District to facilitate the future development of 91 single-family homes and up to 200 living units for seniors with varying levels of care in one or more buildings and approximately 12.7 acres of open space. 7. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland -Croy Road, 17-061, Preliminary Plat A request to subdivide ±45.4 acres into one lot for a senior care facility and 91 single-family lots, rights-of-way for five public streets, and six open space reserves. Ms. Call moved, Mr. Supelak seconded to table Cases 6 and 7. Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Rauch reported that staff is attempting to schedule a joint meeting with City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board shortly after the beginning IDu CiTy of blin Planning and Zoning Commisison OHIO, UST December 12, 2019 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Summary A request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan of a 24 -acre site within the Tartan Ridge PUD to allow for the future construction of up to 56 single- family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. Site Location The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Property Owners DVC 6700 Associates LLC; The Shoppes at Tartan Ridge LLC Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.050-153.056 Case Manager Chase I Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I (614) 410-4675 cridaeadublin.oh.us Zoning Map Next Steps Upon approval of the recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission the application will be forwarded to City Council for review and final approval. �'t_Row L U) 03 r �•, .R 3KDa ien'tS4 IL 31, _ k Baronet Bind _ ►` i �� c c►tr�ck Rd SITE City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Background The approximately 24.5 -acre site was annexed into the City of Dublin in 2002 (Ord. 71-02) and originally rezoned in 2007 (Ord. 16-07) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Tartan Ridge. The proposed site contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E, and F of the larger Tartan Ridge PUD. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided non-binding feedback on a concept plan for this site in July of 2019. Site Characteristics Natural Features The site is undeveloped, except for a stormwater management pond that was installed as part of a previous phase of the Tartan Ridge development. There are trees and an abandoned silo located in the southwest portion of the site. A stream runs west to east in the northern portion of the site. This area included a Stream Corridor Protection Zone and the applicant will be required to study the area prior to development. Historic and Cultural Facilities The site is not located within the Historic District and does not contain any known historically contributing structures or artifacts. Surrounding Land Use and Development Character North: R: Rural District (Educational — Glacier Ridge Elementary) East: PUD: Tartan Ridge (Single -Family) South: PUD: Tartan West (Single -Family) West: Jerome Township (Park and Recreation — Glacier Ridge Metro Park) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has frontage on Hyland -Croy Road to the west (±1,365 Feet) and McKitrick Road to the south (±975 Feet). A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site with runs north off McKitrick Road. Utilities The site is served by public utilities, including sanitary and water. Electrical and gas are also provided on site. Proposal This is a proposal for a residential development on approximately 24 acres with a maximum of 56 single-family homes, new public streets with sidewalks, and open spaces. The proposal includes approximately 7.9 acres of open space including shared -use path connections, a gazebo and amenity space, and the expansion of a pond for use by the neighborhood. The site is currently zoned PUD — Tartan Ridge and includes Subareas D1, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single-family homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal requires a rezoning, and will result in a single subarea with a consistent development pattern through the entire site. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Community Plan/Future Land Use Recommendations throughout the Community Plan are based upon a review of existing conditions and evaluation of future development scenarios for their impacts on infrastructure, roads and the fiscal health of the City. Dublin's ability to maintain high quality of services and quality of life depends on a careful review of development proposals for conformance with the Community Plan. The Future Land Use Map classifies all parcels within the Dublin planning area with a recommended land use. The map is supported by a detailed description explaining the general character of each land use type, including typical ranges for residential and non-residential densities. The Future Land Uses for this site are Mixed Residential Low Density and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. Mixed Residential Low Density designates a typical density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre and are intended to provide a mix of housing options. Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers are intended to provide daily retail uses and personal services for the convenience of neighborhoods for which they are located. Such sites include a target of 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area for non-residential uses. At 2.33 dwelling units per acre, the proposal is for a less dense and less intense development than the Community Plan recommends. Thoroughfare Plan The Thoroughfare Plan recommends 100 feet of right-of-way and generous setbacks ranging from 100 to 200 feet along Hyland -Croy Road. The creation of meandering shared use paths is encouraged and curb cuts should be minimized as to maintain openness and the rural character of the roadway. This proposal is currently showing a dedication of only 40 feet from centerline for Hyland -Croy Road. The applicant should revise the dedication along Hyland -Croy Road to be 50 feet from existing centerline to be consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan also recommends 80 feet of right-of-way for McKitrick Road. The proposal meets this requirement by showing a dedication of 40 feet from centerline for McKitrick Road. Proposal Details Layout The proposed site is rectangular in shape and is situated west of the Tartan Ridge neighborhood and south of Glacier Ridge Elementary School. The proposal depicts the extension of Brenham Way to the south to connect to McKitrick Road, as well as the extension of Enfield Trace to the west to connect to Brenham Way. Emmet Row Lane is also to be extended on the north end of the site and will curve to the south connecting to a new stubbed public street, Jasmine Glen Drive. Three additional public streets are proposed to provide access to the center and southern portions of the site. Open space with associated landscaping is shown along Hyland -Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Brenham Way. The existing stormwater management ponds in the northwest and the southeast portions of the site are proposed to be altered and expanded. A new dry basin is proposed for the southeast portion of the site, as well. Sidewalks are shown throughout the development and a shared -use path is proposed along the Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road frontages, as well. Staff is concerned that Lot 1 is proposed in a remote location and not integrated into this Subarea. Staff recommends this lot be eliminated from the proposal. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Zoning The site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and contains all or portions of Subareas D1, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single-family homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal would create a new subarea with a uniform development pattern. site As discussed above, the 24 -acre site is a portion of the larger Tartan Ridge neighborhood. The proposal is for 56 single-family homes. A preliminary plat application (Case 19-085PP) has been prepared to coincide with the review of this rezoning application. Access Primary access to the proposed lots will be from McKitrick Road via Brenham Way. Brenham Way currently ends at Baronet Boulevard; however, the street will be extended from its terminus at Baronet Boulevard to McKitrick Road to allow for access to the site. Enfield Trace currently ends in a hammerhead just east of the existing basin at the southeast portion of the site. As approved with the original zoning, the proposal includes extending this road to the west and connecting to the extension of Brenham Way. As with other new access points created onto existing roadways from Tartan Ridge and other residential development, a left turn lane will be required to be constructed from McKitrick Road to the new public roadway connection of Brenham Way. This improvement will serve to fulfill the existing Tartan Ridge Infrastructure Agreement that lists this improvement as a required improvement with the new street connection. This proposed development will eliminate a previously approved street connection from Hyland -Croy Road to Tartan Ridge and therefore will not require any improvement to Hyland -Croy Road, which is also listed as an improvement to be made with any new street connection in the Infrastructure Agreement. On the north end of the site, Emmet Row Lane will be extended to provide access to the new homes. Emmet Row Lane is proposed to terminate in a north -south orientation into Jasmine Glen Drive. Jasmine Glen Drive is proposed to curve to the south, eventually turning into Ariel Drive. Ariel Drive will then terminate into the new extension of Brenham Way. Gaston Drive (east -west), located in the center of the site, will serve as a connection between Brenham Way, Jasmine Glen Drive and Ariel Drive. Jasmine Glen Drive is proposed to be terminated before connecting to Brenham Way. There are 15 on -street parking spaces proposed in the development, five on each of the three north -south oriented streets. The street names have not yet been approved by the City and will require approval prior to the acceptance of the preliminary plat. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of the site, including along all frontages and leading to a proposed overlook in reserve A (northwest portion of the site). An eight -foot wide shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along the entire length of Hyland -Croy Road. The proposal shows the pedestrian and bikepath network connecting into a future roundabout at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road. As this development will likely be constructed prior to this capital improvement being completed, the applicant should develop City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and connect to the existing pedestrian and bikepath system at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads in the current intersection condition and provide for safe connections and crossings Stormwater Management The proposal includes the use of three stormwater management facilities. Along with the construction of new public storm sewer and drainage structures, the existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site is proposed to be slightly altered with this proposal and is situated within Reserve A. Also proposed within Reserve A is a dry basin in the southeast portion of the site. The existing pond in Tartan Ridge (southeast portion of the site, east of Brenham Way) will be modified to accommodate the proposed development. Reserves A through E are to be owned and maintained by The Overlook at Tartan Ridge homeowners association. The existing stormwater management pond east of Brenham Way is owned by the City of Dublin and is proposed to continue to be owned and maintained by the City of Dublin. Utilities: Water This site will gain access to public water for domestic and fire protection service by the proposed construction of water mains and fire hydrants extended from existing eight -inch water main in the immediate area. Utilities: Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer will be available to the development by means of the proposed construction of new public sanitary sewer mains and associated sanitary sewer services to each proposed lot. Engineering analysis was submitted that demonstrated that the anticipated sanitary sewer flow from this development would be less than what would be expected from the currently approved zoning. Development Text The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for the development including uses, lot requirements, and architecture and materials. The applicant has provided a development text with development standards specific to this PUD Subarea, Subarea F. Uses Per the proposed development text, the permitted uses in Subarea F are limited to single-family homes. Development Standards The proposal includes 56 single-family lots generally separated into two different sizes. Courtyard lots are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Twenty-two courtyard lots are proposed and are located on the perimeter of the site. Patio lots are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line and require a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 34 lots are patio lots and are primarily located in the interior of the site. The smallest lots are 6,500 square feet and the largest lot is 10,764 square feet in size. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway. For courtyard homes, the front yard setback is a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. However, front loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. Rear yard setbacks for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet. At -grade patios on both the patio lots and courtyard lots may be permitted to encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided that no walls greater than 36 inches in height are incorporated into the patio design. Window wells may encroach into the side yards a maximum of three and one-half feet, provided that there is a minimum of eight feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one-half feet. All residential structures are limited to a maximum height of 25 feet, as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Landscaping The applicant is proposing a number of landscape improvements with this plan. The most notable landscape improvement proposed is to the exterior of the site, along Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. The applicant is proposing a naturalized mix of deciduous, ornamental and evergreen trees within Reserve A. This is consistent with other developments along the corridor and provides screening and privacy for the new homes. Along the northwest portion of the site, the applicant is proposing a less dense cluster of trees and no mounding so that a vista of the existing pond is possible from the west. Proposed for the southeast portion of the site is an entry feature surrounded by low and mid - height plantings with taller evergreens behind. The pond overlook and shelter in the northwest portion of the site will also include low and mid -height plantings as well as some ornamental trees. All of the CBU locations will be landscaped using a mix of plantings including evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and low and mid -height plantings. Street trees will be planted per City of Dublin Code. This proposal also requires a hedgerow in front of all residential units in the development to be consistent with the overall Tartan Ridge development. Architecture The Tartan Ridge development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements, which prohibit overlapping forms, particularly for roofs and require symmetry in design and window placement. In addition, diversity of architecture is strictly enforced. Subarea F will have a decidedly different feel to it, but incorporates many of the same elements found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. The applicant has indicated that the character of Subarea F will be identified by European Country and Midwestern Vernacular architectural styles. Key massing principles outlined in the development text include a prominent street presence, appropriate proportions, clean intersections and purity of form. These principles intend to provide the same high-quality architecture as is found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. Massing issues such as continuous walls and awkward proportions shall be prohibited in this subarea. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Permitted exterior materials include stone, manufactured stone, stucco, wood or cementitious fiberboard. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home are required to be represented on all elevations, similar to what already exists in Tartan Ridge. A masonry water table, a minimum of 30 inches high or to the height of the window sill is required on all elevations. No walls are permitted more than two cladding materials unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has identified 17 lots that are especially visible throughout the development. These homes are primarily on corner lots or along Brenham Way, where side elevations are highly visible. For these homes, additional cladding requirements exists as to ensure a high- quality aesthetic throughout the neighborhood. These homes must be rendered with a constant cladding material on all sides exposed to view. This requirement will also ensure consistency throughout the entirety of Tartan Ridge. Shutters, when used, are to be used consistently on all elevations and to be sized to fully cover the associated window. Shutters must be a flat panel or board and batten style. Permitted roof materials include an architectural grade asphalt shingle, wood shake, wood shingle, or natural or synthetic slate. Metal standing seam materials are permitted on porches, hyphens, and dependencies. Permitted garage configurations include street loaded/front oriented and street loaded/ courtyard oriented. Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three or more bays are permitted. However, garages shall comprise no more than 45 percent of the total linear width of the front elevation. Driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers. As part of this proposal, the applicant has indicated that the HOA declarant shall form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review all architecture to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in the development text. Entry Sign The proposal includes one ground monument sign identifying the neighborhood at Brenham Way and McKitrick Road. The applicant has indicated that this sign will be similar in character to the existing Tartan Ridge sign located at Brock Road and Wilton Chase Street. The ground sign will have a rectangular profile, a masonry base, and will be a maximum of six feet in height. 3. Criteria Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Analysis 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; Criterion met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable development standards of the Zoning Code requirements, except as altered in the proposed development text to create unique and specific standards for this proposal. However, the preliminary development plan does not accurately reflect the geographic extent of Subarea F, which should be updated prior to Council review. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; Criterion met with Condition. Based on previous discussions with the Commission, the proposal was deemed to be largely consistent with the Community Plan recommendations and the established character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the dedication along Hyland -Croy Road to be 50 feet from existing centerline to be consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. Staff is also recommending that the applicant develop and connect to the existing pedestrian and bikepath system at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads in the current intersection condition and provide for safe connections and crossings. 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; Criterion Met. This proposal provides for an orderly development and will improve the surrounding area. 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; Criterion met. The development is appropriately located within the City and is an example of the type of a development type appropriate for this District. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; Criterion Met. There proposal provides 7.9 acres of open space where 3.56 acres are required. 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; Criterion met. While a significant number of trees are being removed, the applicant has provided a tree survey and replacement plan, is proposing replacing trees on an inch - for -inch basis, and is proposing significant landscaping on the site. 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; Criterion met. The applicant has worked with staff to ensure adequate services and infrastructure is provided. 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non -conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; Criterion met. Access to the proposed site will be from all adjacent public streets and paths will also be provided through the site and to the park. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; Criterion met with Condition. The proposal includes appropriate coordination and integration with its surroundings and maintains Dublin as a quality community. Staff recommends the elimination of Lot 1 due to the separation of the lot from the remainder of the subarea. 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; Criterion met. The proposed layout and intensity are appropriate for this site. 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; Criterion Met. The development includes provisions for stormwater management via storm sewer, existing basins and a new basin. 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; Criterion Met. The proposed design, site arrangement and anticipated benefit to the City will be ensured through the proposed development text. 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; Criterion met. The preliminary development plan includes a Subarea development text based largely on the existing Tartan Ridge development text, which will create a cohesive high quality development. 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; Criterion not Applicable. The development will not be phased. 15)The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; Criterion met. The development will be adequately serviced by existing public and planned infrastructure. 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criterion met. All contributions to infrastructure have been agreed upon and approved as part of the Agreement. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 5. Recommendatic The proposal is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria contained in the Zoning Code and Approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1) That the preliminary development plan Subarea map be revised to include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That Lot 1 be eliminated from the proposal; and, 3) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; RECORD OF DISCUSSION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, July 11, 2019 1 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. PUD — Tartan Ridge Subareas D1, E, & F PIDs: 3900140580000, Yes 4000140580020,4000140581010,3900140580020 19-049CP Concept Plan Proposal: Potential rezoning of 24 acres within the Tartan Ridge development to Absent accommodate the construction of 56 single-family homes targeted Yes toward empty -nesters and associated site improvements. Location: On the east side of Hyland -Croy Road, north of the intersection with Absent McKitrick Road Request: Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Applicant: Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-049 RESULT: The Commission reviewed and commented on a Concept Plan application for the potential rezoning of 24 acres in the Tartan Ridge development to convert the currently permitted uses of commercial, townhomes, and single-family lots to small, single-family lots for an empty nester market. Most Commissioners supported the change in use, while others were concerned about losing the option of neighborhood serving commercial services. The Commission commented on the dense layout proposed for the site and the lack of integrated open space. The Commission requested the applicant uphold the architectural character and integrity of the established Tartan Ridge neighborhood. MEMBERS PRESENT: Victoria Newell Yes Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Absent William Wilson Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Senior Planner/ Manager of Current Planning PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov City of Dublin ON 10. use MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, July il, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Chair Newell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Newell led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commission members present: Ms. Newell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Supelak, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Wilson Commission members absent: Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Call Staff members present: Ms. Rauch, Ms. Husak and Mr. Hartmann ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS Mr. Fishman moved, Ms. Fox seconded, to accept the documents into the record. Vote: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes. (Motion passed 5-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Wilson seconded, to approve the June 20, 2019 meeting minutes. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. (Motion passed 5-0) Ms. Newell stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when rezoning and platting of property is under consideration. For those cases, City Council will receive recommendations from the Commission. For other cases, the Commission has the decision-making responsibility, and anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any of the administrative cases must be sworn in. There .are no cases on the consent agenda tonight, and the agenda order is typically determined at the beginning of the meeting by the Chair. CASES 1. Tartan Ridge, Subareas D1, E, & F, 19-049CP, Concept Plan Ms. Newell stated that this application is a request for the potential rezoning of 24 acres within the Tartan Ridge development to accommodate the construction of 56 single-family homes targeted toward empty nesters and associated site improvements. The site is on the east side of Hyland - Croy Road, north of the intersection with McKitrick Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 2 of 10 The Tartan Ridge development is essentially cornplete&', there areew lotus redinina. This particular siubarea was included in the overall development foir Tartan Ridge. The 2005 Tat -,tan Ridge zoning included 68,,000 square feet of commercial use, a fuel station err ed as a conditional use'. and restaurant, retail and office. Fourteen years have passed since that zoning, and no at3plication or Inquiry has been made for any roMmercial devellopinnent with'n !the area,, The other use permitted I'mwed latelly adjacent to the M/I alley -loaded lots was 24 townhouse units,, On th-l^-- northern boundary, the street could be extended Will SiX or more single-family lots pard fl, -ed. The Community Plan was updated after Tartan Ridge was zoned and reflects the uses that were expected at that time, which includes lower density, mixed residential (3-0 units/acre) with a neighborhood retail center. EMRQP.l . A- T�e applicant is proposing to create a new subarea, taking everything that is remaining OUT. OT those three existing subareas and creating a new subarea for main tenance-free, single-family 5ni- homes for empty nesters desiring to downsize but still preferring a highendliving environme. The site layout includes streetSIChat were part of the originall Tartan Ridge Plan aS well as an access point on McKitrick Road to the south. The City 'is working with Union County on a roundabout at McKltrick and Hyland -Croy Roads, which the applicant has incorporated into their plan with the ample setback that is apical of Hyland -Croy Road,, There are public street connections throuqhout the neighborhood. The applicant has provided conceptual drawings of the homes, which will be ranch and 1.5 -story homes to provide primarily first floor living,. Archit c�tu�re There are a ma jobb, of front -loaded garages due t"o the lot sees and widths, although there are possibilities for some side-loaded/courtyard gark-111ges., In the current development text for Teir'L­an Ridge, there are signtricant arch itectural requirements and standards, which are not typical for anly the development texts within the Cilc�. TI"iere is no review criteria for Concept Plan reviews. They are similar to Informal Revtews, and therefore, discussion questions have been provided -for the Common. The applicant is seeking Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 �-',age 3 of 10 9 feedback on the proposal to rezone the site to a new PUD to accommodate the proposed I construction of 56 single-family homes and associated site improvements. Mr. Fishman inquired the size of the sideyard setback. Ms. Husak stated that detail is not yet determined. However, in Tartan Ridge, the smallest setback is 6 feet. Tartan Ridge is divided 'Into estate lots, village lots and more compact lots. Mr. Supelak stated that in the original 2005 ma,113ter plan for Taiftan Ridge, Baronet Boulevard extended through the development and connected to Hyland Croy Road, that roadwayis not shown here. Isthat determined by the City or the applicant? Planning and Zoning Commissio Meeting Minutes of July 11, 201 Page 4 of 10 Planning and Zoning Commissio Meeting Minutes of July 11, 201 Page 5 of 10 1 111pliq Ni ,*,lanning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 tage 6 of 10 CAR Ms. Fox stated that the original Tartan Ridge plan called for a village -type setting. This plan departs from the opportunity to creeat_e that village—type setting and takes another direction. Was any c ideration given to adhering to e e thoriginal concpt? onsl 1 1, 1 1 1 P"Janning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 7 of 10 There was no public commenj Ms. Newell requested that the Commissioners respond to the discussion questions posed by staff,.. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 9 of 10 [Ms. Newell noted that Ms. Fox expressed her apologies for departing the meeting eany to artena a AS"pecial City Council meeting.] Mr. Smith stated that they have received beneficial feedback from the Commission. They will review and consider the suggestions made and return with a responsive application that is mutually acceptable., C. Histon"c Dublin — ARS Code Amendments & Historic Dublin Design Gui"deh"ne%m 2. Bridge Street District — Code Amendment & Design Guidelines Mr. Fishman inquired the northern boundary of the Bridge Street District, Ms. Rauch responded that it Is 1-270. Planning and Zoning Commisslo Meeting Minutees of July 11, 201 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Fishman inquired if that would be the boundary on both sides of the riverX Mr. Rauch responded affirmatively, Ms. Husak noted that the Bridge Street District is comprised of 1, 100 acres, approximately 6 percent of the City. Mr. Wilson suggested that it would be helpful to have examples of the neighborhoods in which the Residential Appearance Co:de has been applied. Commissioners could visit those neighborhoods to view them. Ms. Newell suggested that the Residential Appearance Code could be scheduled as an agenda 'topic for the net PZC meeting. The meeting was aojourned at 7:50 p.rn! 5 a r, PlanrWig a ing Commi Depu ler k of Council He 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 A Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ordinance 14-07 Requesting Approval to Change the Name of Scherers Place to Laser Lane in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is requesting Council postpone this ordinance. Staff had devised a name, but in checking with Franklin County, it was already in use. Staff will bring a proposal back on April 9. Mr. McCash moved to postpone this item until April 9. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 15-07 Accepting the Updated Estimated Average Per Acre Value of Land for Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Mr. Hahn stated there are no changes subsequent to the first reading. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that in Exhibit B, page 2, paragraph 2, line 5, the word "principals" should be "principles." Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 16-07 Rezoning Approximately 189.57 Acres Located North of the Intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, Bordered to the East by Jerome Road and to the North by Brock Road, From R, Rural, To PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Tartan Ridge - 9756 Hyland -Croy Road - Case No. 05-183Z) Ms. Husak stated that this ordinance was introduced at the March 5th Council meeting. This presentation will focus on the changes the applicant has made in response to the discussion at the prior meeting. The plan for this development includes various housing types, large open spaces and a limited commercial area in the southwest corner of the site. The housing consists of seven different single-family home types and 24 townhouse units in four buildings. Active parks are proposed throughout the site and passive open spaces are primarily located along the scenic road setbacks. The neighborhood commercial area proposed consists of 68,500 square feet of space that could be utilized for office, retail and restaurant space. In discussion of the commercial area, Council identified the following issues: (1) the importance of this area to be pedestrian oriented and accessible to bicycles; (2) the proposed location of the gas station; and (3) development text language requiring night sky preservation. Council also discussed the potential viability of the neighborhood commercial area. The applicant has submitted a revised development text that addresses the issues. 1. The conditional use language on page 46 has been revised to include language stating that the gas station/convenience store will be located in the area depicted in the preliminary development plan, which is located along Hyland -Croy Road with a 200 -foot setback. 2. The text has also been revised to require a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces, based on the number of parking spaces provided for vehicles. 3. The language regarding lighting requirements was also changed, deleting a reference to the Dublin Lighting Guidelines to state that night sky preservation is required. Planning will continue to work with the applicant to devise a lighting plan for this location, which is near homes and the Metro Park. That will be finalized during the final development plan phase. The applicant is prepared tonight to address the viability of the neighborhood commercial proposal. At their February 1 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning with 11 conditions, which are noted in the Record of Action for that meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 117 Ben Hale Jr., representative for the applicant stated that Charlie Driscoll, Edwards Land Company, is present to respond to Council's questions. Also present is Robin Lorms, a commercial consultant hired by the applicant to ensure that the proposed commercial area is a viable commercial development. One of the factors Mr. Lorms considered is the amount of available commercial area west of the river. As part of that, he reviewed vacancy rates. Out of 1,300,000 plus square feet, he found 2,000 square feet of vacant space, which translates into an occupancy rate of 99.973%. Essentially, there is 100 percent occupancy of commercial space. Mr. Lorms has accumulated some statistics, which should help Council to understand that this would be a very viable and successful commercial development. Robin Lorms principal with Integrity Resources, Crown Park Court stated that he has been asked to render an opinion regarding the potential viability of a proposed retail development at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road. Their practice specializes in retail development, market analysis and market research. One of the first steps they took was to review the occupancy levels of shopping centers west of the Scioto River to determine the supply/demand relationship. They focused on community and neighborhood type of developments, including: Avery Square with Kroger, Perimeter Square with Giant Eagle, the Shoppes at Athenry, Shawnee Square, Northbridge Village Square and Karric Square. During the first round of analysis, all the space was occupied except one store. Subsequently, a bigger space became available in the Perimeter Square and another in Avery Square. The overall market is 98 percent occupied, which is very good. A healthy ratio would be 93-94 percent occupied. They then reviewed some demographic studies within the following polygon: Post Road on the south, Hyland -Croy Road to the west, Brock Road to the north and the Scioto River to the east. Within those borders, there are approximately 26,000 people. A healthy ratio of retail space is around 28 square feet per capita. That calculates to a need for approximately 800,000 square feet of retail space. They then evaluated the content of the shopping centers and discovered that Dublin is far below the recommended commercial space. He described several existing examples of 800,000 square feet of retail. In the western section of the City, there was no retail planned between the existing retail at Avery Road and Post Road and that planned for Jerome Village. That area is experiencing tremendous population growth, and additional growth is planned. His conclusions were that this site is not only viable, it would also enhance the quality of life for the existing developments and those proposed. Mr. Reiner inquired if Mr. Lorms made any observations in regard to the east side of the river. Mr. Lorms responded that he has looked at different submarkets in Franklin county --one is the east side of the river and the Sawmill Corridor. That area has a vacancy rate of 13 percent. However, the Dublin Village Center is included in that database and is a center that is no longer viable. The Village Square is also at risk, maybe a couple of others. When those are eliminated from the equation, the occupancy is in the low 90th percentile. Some of those developments should be subjected to an adaptive re -use study at some point in time. Mr. Keenan stated that although reviewing that particular area may not have been the initial charge to Mr. Lorms, it is interesting to hear his opinion regarding Dublin Village Center. This situation is part of the reason for Council's reticence to approve additional retail development. Mr. Lorms stated that Dublin is a beautiful community; it is well-planned. People in the retail business, especially those from out of town, notice immediately the visibility and signage that H.H. Gregg and Whole Foods have. Those are the necessary fundamentals for retail. The problem with Dublin Village Center is that, although aesthetically it is pleasing, there is no visibility. Mrs. Boring stated that when Michael's was forced to leave that center, they did not want to leave that location. Mr. Keenan responded that he was interested in hearing the views of someone who is well known for their expertise in the area of retail development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 20 e Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired his views about Perimeter Center, which is virtually full, although it is situated behind gas stations, banks and fast food restaurants. In addition, there is no signage for it on Avery-Muirfield Road. Why is this so successful? Mr. Lorms responded that it is due to the issue pointed out tonight — there is pent-up demand for retail on the western side of the river. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that it is not then entirely a signage -related issue. Mr. Lorms responded that it is part of it. There is an anchor tenant, Giant Eagle, which is a draw to the center. There is also a regular, sustainable patronage of customers who live in that area and shop in that area. The Sawmill Corridor is a regional location, with customers coming from Upper Arlington, Worthington and beyond. Anchor tenants in the Sawmill Corridor demand and receive a lot of visibility and signage. The retail at Avery Road and Post Road is a community center. Mrs. Boring stated that there are many communities that do not have extensive signage, yet they have a draw to regional centers. For example, in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Lowe's store has poor visibility, yet good business volume. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Lorms' formula takes into account the type of commercial development. Presumably, it is not based entirely on square footage and population but dependent upon a business that is of sufficient interest to the residents. Mr. Lorms responded that is absolutely true. It is analogous to the hotel industry. For example, a healthy occupancy rate for hotels is 70 percent. If an interchange study is conducted and the results indicate that the hotels have a 60 percent occupancy, the conclusion could be that there is not enough demand for another hotel. However, if all of those hotels are an older format hotel, three to four newer format hotels could come in and achieve a 90 percent occupancy. It is the same with a retail business. The right retail, right configuration and right mix of tenants can achieve great success in an area with 15 percent vacancy. It is possible to build a new center and achieve 100 percent occupancy because the other retail is not meeting the market demand. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council's concern is with having another center with issues such as the Dublin Village Center. Mr. Hale stated that is a legitimate concern. If this Tartan Ridge center is built, will it take tenants from another center and leave that center empty? Mr. Lorms stated that is a valid concern. If there is a market with 500,000 square feet of space of which 100,000 square feet is vacant, and the trade area can be defined concisely, the vacancy is probably due to over supply. Adding more generic space could present a problem, unless it was for a very unique product or a missing niche. In the subject case, there is no space and everything is full. The simple formula is if the supply is full and the demand is growing, if the space is well done, well designed, and well located in the midst of existing population, then from whom would the new retail extract business? In this case, there is no other retail in the area. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not understand how the Sawmill Road regional retail relates to this discussion. Aside from that, she does not want to see any retail drawn away from the community retail area located at Post and Avery Roads, even though some customers may need to drive more than a few minutes to access it. If three additional retail centers are added to the equation -- Jerome Village, Oak Park and Tartan Ridge -- how do the numbers compare? Mr. Lorms stated that even with three additional retail centers added to the database, with the population growth anticipated, the City will continue to be under -supplied. He clarified that with the Sawmill Road example, he was attempting to respond to the distance factor — the distance between Henderson and Reed roads to Powell retail would equate to the distance between Jerome Village and the Avery/Post Road retail. Mr. Hale stated that the applicant has been working with staff on a final development plan for a portion of this site; that should be completed within a few days. The first phase will be built around the park because it is exceptionally important to the development and extends to the school. A road will be constructed and extended to the school. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 Page Held Kimberly Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, Dublin stated that most of her points are recorded in the public comments section of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. However, she would like to emphasize the following points: (1) The entryway. It would make more sense to line up the Tartan Ridge entryway to make it fully aligned with Jerome Village. The present location isn't feasible, as there is only 530 feet between the two -- not enough for two left turn lanes. Vehicles will be at risk for a collision. They requested that the plan be revised to address that, but it remains unchanged in the plan before Council. (2) Water. There are drainage tiles throughout the field where they plan to build upon. When they presented their concerns at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the developer indicated that they were aware of the issue and had some plans to address the issue. However, the residents have not seen any plans and are concerned. The developer did indicate that if any of the neighboring properties were impacted in the future with water problems, they would remedy those situations. But the neighbors are not comfortable with that statement. How long would it take before evidence of a problem is seen, and then how much longer to address it? Presently, following a rain, there is a lot of standing water in that field. In addition, part of that water is septic. There are 15 neighboring homes on septic systems and wells, and some of the systems are leaking. There will be some water purification needs. She had heard that the stormwater drain -off is intended to drain into the pond, but it would not be wise to have septic water draining into the ponds. (3) Utilities. No utilities have been planned for the 15 homes in that vicinity, which currently have well and septic systems. They would be interested in tapping into City water/sewer lines. (4) Retail. At the Commission meeting, the residents inquired why the retail is being planned for the southwest corner, rather than the southeast. The neighbors want to preserve the look of Glacier Ridge Metro Park, which is one of natural beauty. Coming over the crest of the road on Hyland -Croy in front of Glacier Ridge, one sees Glacier Ridge on the left and now will see retail on the right. It would be more appropriate to place the retail on Jerome Road. The plans are to widen both Hyland -Croy and Jerome Roads to 80 feet, so they would be able to handle a similar amount of traffic volume. (5) Convenience store. Surely, the Tartan Ridge people are not happy about the proposed convenience store immediately across the street from large, expensive single-family homes. In addition, two other retail centers are already planned for this area. Jerome Village has an entire city planned, with a significant amount of retail. There is no need for retail on this corner immediately across from the Metro Park. The residents want to preserve the natural look of the area. (6) What are the plans to eliminate the "eye sores" — the water towers, construction dumpsters, etc. She noted that the revisions to the retail area seem to indicate that the parking has been changed to make it more parking friendly. That is much appreciated. Mr. Reiner inquired about the leech fields and septic systems. Did the applicant purchase the back portions of the properties? Is that why the leech fields are protruding into the applicant's property? Ms. Clavin responded that her neighbor would be able to respond to that. Greg Theodore, 7651 Brock Road stated that all the stormwater run-off in that area flows to Brock Road, and most of it across his back field. The proposed entry to this development from Brock Road is along the edge of his front yard. The developer plans to take part of his yard for that entryway. Unfortunately, this land is part of the flow path. There are two major retention sites for all of that area along Hyland -Croy Road. Last week, the field was a river. All the leech beds in that area drain into the water flow and into that field — right into the proposed entryway from Brock Road. Mr. Reiner stated that, hopefully, the ground is absorbing it. Mr. Theodore responded that it typically does, but when the ground is frozen, the water coming from the leech beds flows across the ground. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is her understanding the issues were addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but she would like Mr. Hale to respond, as they seem to be significant. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Mr. Hale stated that they had a private meeting with the residents, which their engineer attended. They also had meetings with the Union County Engineer. As a result, the plans for the access road have been lined up with the Jerome Village entryway. Also, they have evaluated the site carefully in context with the surrounding area, and their engineer has identified two inlets that are bringing in the water. He has also calculated the volume of water flow, and the pipes are being sized sufficiently to pick the water up and transport it into the pond system at the same rate as occurs today. The neighborhood meeting was very beneficial. The residents were able to sensitize the developer to some things they believed were occurring on their properties. Their engineer has preliminarily reviewed that drainage and has assured the developer and the residents that the pipes will be sized sufficiently to remove the water at a reasonable rate. In compliance with the Dublin Code, they will also clean the stormwater before it is released from their site. Mr. Reiner stated that this is a tiled farm field, which appears to have functioned well for the farmers. Does the developer intend to intercept that water along the property line with a swale system? Mr. Hale responded that their engineers have identified two inlets that are the source of the problem, and according to the topography maps, they appear to be the only cause. However, the neighbors have stated that they believe the water is coming from more than those two inlets. Therefore, the developer has agreed to investigate that question further. Regardless, there will be sufficient storage on the site to hold that water, and they believe they have sized the pipes sufficiently to remove the water. If not, they will increase their size. Although their preliminary development plan indicates that they will be able to handle the water runoff, they are required to complete a full stormwater review in conjunction with the final development plan. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher referred to the neighbors' request to tap in to the City water and sewer lines. Will this be set up so that they can tap in, if they so choose? Mr. Hale responded that with the water tank located in this area, there is sufficient capacity. They have informed the neighbors that the first step for them would be to annex to the City of Dublin. They have offered to facilitate that for the residents at no cost. If all the neighbors would agree to the annexation, the developer will take care of the costs of the annexation application on a one-time only basis. If annexed, they would be able to tap into the City's water and sewer lines. Mr. Reiner inquired if the developer has addressed the effluent issue. The water is "sheeting" toward this new subdivision and it is carrying effluent. How would the City's water purification requirements address the effluent? Mr. Hale stated that there are some water issues on the individual properties. They anticipate the problems will improve with the over -sized pipes. Presently, some of the water is being blocked from draining. Sheet flowing is a sign of a back-up. Hopefully, their septic systems are functioning, but the residents would be welcome to tap in upon annexation. However, their studies do not indicate that they are receiving much effluent. Most of the houses are set far back from their property lines. In addition, there are intervening ponds that help to clean it. Mr. Reiner stated that the stormwater management of this plan is extremely important. When these houses are constructed, the developer should pay particular attention to the plans. Council does not want to have the residents coming to the City in 5-7 years with complaints of water ponding in their yards. Mr. Hale agreed. However, there are clearly broken tiles on the site that appear to have been broken for some period of time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the Oak Park retail will be comprised of small shops, similar to the plans for this development. She is not aware of any big box type retail planned in Jerome Village. Perhaps that is located on a site much further south, where a property owner is interested in pursuing zoning for big box retail through Jerome Township. Mr. Hale responded that another big box retail development has been zoned to the west of US 33, north of Post Road on the Skilken property. Jerome Village has a portion of big box retail in addition to the neighborhood retail, but it is a long distance from the Tartan Ridge development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she did not have the map in her materials that shows the driveway realignment. Ms. Husak stated that Council received the same packet that was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to the preliminary development plan. The plan that Mr. Hale referred to was shared with Planning staff in conjunction with the final development plan that they have been working on. It is not part of these materials. Ms. Husak added that the realignment was addressed by Condition #7 in the Record of Action, regarding "access coordination." Mr. McCash requested clarification regarding the phasing of Subarea F. The intention is to create some sort of architectural edge for Subarea E, the other townhome component. However, as it reads, the gas station and the coffee shop could be built there and it would create the necessary architectural edge. Or is the intent actually to develop the two buildings that are closer to the entry? Mr. Hale stated that it is the intent. It would be unusual to build it all at one time, unless there were tenants, but most of the infrastructure would be constructed up front. Mr. McCash stated that he recognizes that, but the text reads that the gas station, coffee shop and other components on the northeast corner would be built, but the adjoining Subarea E retail may not be built for several years down the road. At that point in time, there could be issues with the property owners when that is submitted for final development plan approval. The intention was to build the retail along with the residential structures, but that is not reflected in the text on page 50, paragraph M. The coffee shop and car wash have no direct connection to any of the residential components there from a buffering standpoint, Mr. Hale stated that what they were trying to convey is that by committing to 32,500 square feet, they were making a substantial commitment for the first phase. The question is in regard to how much architecture is necessary to make it a reality for the residents; 32,500 square feet of building development should be sufficient. Mr. McCash noted they could then have a CVS and a gas station. He noted that the concern is to avoid having the retail back up against the residential area, such as the "Shoppes at Athenry" situation. Mr. Hale responded that he discussed that situation with Mr. Driscoll, and he has indicated that he would be willing to agree that the townhomes would not be constructed until the first phase of the commercial component has been built. Mrs. Boring inquired about the square footage of the Shoppes at River Ridge. Ms. Husak responded that it is 105,000 square feet. Mrs. Boring inquired the square footage of the Mary Kelley's area. Ms. Husak responded that it is approximately 40,000 square feet, which includes the UDF and the daycare center. Mrs. Boring inquired the number of miles between the Jerome Village shopping center and the proposed retail center. Ms. Husak responded that they are approximately five miles apart. Mr. Hale noted that the Union County Engineer has indicated that the first step for them is to build a roundabout at Brock Road and Hyland Croy and they will build Jerome Road to the north. They will initiate the development on the south end. Mrs. Boring inquired the distance between this shopping center and Oak Park. Ms. Husak responded that it is approximately one mile apart. Mr. Reiner inquired if this development is essentially what Council observed in the field trip to Franklin, Tennessee. Ms. Husak responded that much of the development standards for the Westhaven development in Franklin were developer driven. Staff consulted the Westhaven booklets to determine what they did to achieve those architectural results, but the booklets did not include much detail. These development standards, on the other hand, have been meticulously created to require architectural detail to a level not previously seen. It should achieve the same results that were observed in Franklin. Mrs. Boring inquired if there are alleys in this development. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Mrs. Boring stated that Ms. Salay is not present this evening, but at the last meeting she had inquired about the landscaping requirements for alleys to achieve the results observed in Franklin. Ms. Husak stated that staff noted the concerns expressed by Council on that field trip, and they attempted to address those details thoroughly in the final development plan — fencing locations, mailbox locations, how areas are landscaped, the length of driveways, etc. Mrs. Boring stated that if those requirements are not included in the development text, they may not occur. For example, if it is not stated that the alleyways must achieve a certain landscaping level, it will not occur. Mr. Hale suggested that could be added as a condition. Mrs. Boring requested appropriate language for such a condition. Mr. Hale suggested that it could state that the alley design, landscaping and fencing be enhanced and subject to staff and Planning Commission's final review. Mr. Keenan stated that he had received several inquiries about the service station, specifically, the screening of the gas pumps. Mr. Hale responded that the service station would be totally interior to the site with a 200 -foot setback from McKitrick Road. There is a substantial landscaped island in that location, and there are trees along the street. This use will be exceptionally well landscaped, but the most effective screening is the fact that it is interior to the site. In addition, this is a small, six -pump operation. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is very supportive of this plan. He is hopeful that the architectural style will be a "break through" for this community and Central Ohio. However, the retail component does concern him. He requested clarification of Mr. McCash's concern regarding a CVS store on the corner. Mr. McCash responded that his earlier understanding was that the corner building would have a retail component of a coffee shop, but he realizes it is more of a size appropriate for a CVS. Mr. Hale responded Mr. McCash is recalling a building of approximately 10,000 square feet that would have a lake view. Mr. McCash stated that his recollection was that the corner building was to be a coffee shop, as he specifically expressed a concern that the corner building not be a pharmacy or gas station. It seems that will now occur. Vice Mayor Lecklider states that he wants to be certain he understands the text. The text precludes drive-throughs for a restaurant, but does not preclude a drive-through in connection with a pharmacy or a dry cleaner. Therefore, the text does permit a major pharmacy on this corner, including a drive-through. Mr. Hale responded that is correct. However, the drive-through component would require a conditional use. It is a prohibited use for a restaurant and therefore, restaurant drive-throughs. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that at any other location he would be less opposed to a pharmacy location, but there is a beautiful Metro Park located immediately to the west of this site. The image of a major retail pharmacy on that southwest corner with a small gas station to the interior does not seem to complement the park, in which the City has made a very substantial investment. Regardless of what type of architecture is used or how well it is landscaped, he does not like this component of the plan. Mr. McCash stated that these pharmacy buildings typically have no windows, so it will be yet another building with black or white spandoglass windows. It defeats the architectural attempts. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he observes other locations in the vicinity where the residents would have easy access to gasoline. He believes there is a gas station at US 33 and SR 42. The proposed interchange at Mitchell -DeWitt provides another opportunity for a gas station. In summary, there are several other options for gas stations, and a gas station in this location does not fit the character of the area. Ms. Husak stated that it is consistent with the Land Use Principles, regarding "providing neighborhood services in convenient locations." They had heard from some neighbors that there was a need for a gas station in this area. The retail space on the corner could He 1 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 Page be a pharmacy or a small-scale grocery store, but 20,000 square feet is the maximum area any tenant can have in this center. Different uses could be accommodated there. Mr. Hale stated that they would like to believe it will be a mix of uses that people want and will come to the center to use. This is a small, crossroads type of village. It is a neighborhood shopping center, and it has to have some destinations in order to be successful. They are interested in securing a small grocery store for this center, and it may be located on the corner. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not disagree that pharmacies, gas stations, and grocery stores are necessities of life, and he could likely support them in any location other than across from the Metro Park. Mr. Hale stated that for both the residential and commercial architecture for this rezoning, they retained an extraordinarily talented architect, Brian Jones. Mr. Jones has been an integral part of this effort, and he has created some unique designs. He is out of town and could not be present tonight. In terms of the residential architecture, Mr. Hale noted that he has never been involved in a rezoning with this level of architectural commitment for both the commercial and residential areas. When they return with the final development plan, they are expected to bring extraordinary architecture as depicted in the renderings shown tonight. Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that what Mr. Hale is showing tonight is the commercial architecture. Mr. Hale responded that the same architect is doing both portions of the project. He then pointed out the various portions shown on the renderings. Mrs. Boring stated that she is also struggling with the need for grocery or gas stations in this location. She has had no e-mails from residents expressing the need for such facilities in this area. Her desire for the area across from Glacier Ridge Metro Park is not for what is being proposed in the commercial portions. Previously, Council had discussed their desire for a rural look in this area to complement the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. She is hesitant about the gas station portion of the proposal. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if Council Members have any response to Mrs. Boring's comments. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher responded that she is relying upon this extraordinary architecture presented throughout this process. Her expectation is that the commercial will be something very different from what has been built previously in Dublin and that it will complement the area in question. While she does not disagree philosophically with the comments about the gas station, she personally has concerns about the distance people must drive from some areas of Dublin to access a gas station. Therefore, she is hopeful that, based upon what has been shown in the renderings, this will meet Council's expectations. Mrs. Boring stated that the drawback is that signage is needed at a gas station to inform the consumers of the prices. While the architecture and the landscaping may be extraordinary, a sign is needed for a gas station. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not recall signage displayed on Avery- Muirfield Road for the BP and Shell stations. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that BP actually does display the price on Avery- Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash noted that the gas station component is a conditional use in this proposed plan; it is not a permitted use. He has less concern with it, due to the fact that it is a conditional use; further, because of the setbacks, there should not be an issue with the signage. From the architectural standpoint, he is more concerned with the free-standing outbuilding on the end versus having a more integrated component within the entire center. He remains concerned with the drive aisle that runs through it, separating it and making it a free-standing structure. His concern is not with a pharmacy use, but with its location. Mr. Hale stated that somewhere on this row, a break is needed in the building to penetrate to the parking lot. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that location. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, Held 91 e Mr. McCash suggested that the break be closer to the main entry with some screening. This structure should be more part of the fagade and streetscape. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has asked the applicant to consider reconfiguring this commercial area to make more of a downtown street, with parking in the interior and no parking on the Hyland -Croy side, and making the drug store be integrated as part of the focal point. A similar area was visited in North Carolina, and he has provided the applicant with that concept — with a goal of having it integrated into a single unit, as a small downtown setting. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked how the drive-through will be accommodated. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is not connected as a building, it just appears connected as a center. They have not settled on the location for a drive-through at this time. By the time the redesign is done, there will likely be some other reconfiguration for the drive-through. It will be part of the final development plan. Mr. Langworthy summarized that staff believes the concern about integrating the center can be addressed. Mr. Hale added that Council can certainly add a condition regarding integration of the buildings. Mr. McCash noted that he would prefer it be part of a multi -tenant building versus a free standing, outbuilding piece. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked staff if a drive-through can be created that would not be visible from Hyland -Croy or the roadway to the south, that is virtually entirely internal. Mr. Langworthy responded that this is possible. There is no reason for it to be visible from the road. Even if it were on the roadside, it would be difficult to identify it as a drive- through because of the setback and landscaping. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the 200 -foot setback is not as large as some people may envision. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting it must be supplemented with landscaping. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if a car wash is a prohibited use. Mr. Hale responded it is not a permitted use. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked that the applicant list the car wash use as a prohibited use. Mr. Hale agreed to do so. Mr. McCash added that a car wash does not fall under the definition of "outdoor service facility." This issue has come up with previous rezonings. Mr. Hale added that this is a small gas station comprised of three double pumps. Mr. Reiner agreed with a previous comment regarding the need to drive a distance to access gas stations. If the mission is to build future town centers that are pedestrian friendly and move traffic off of the roads, it is important that this center include a gas station to serve the nearby residents. Mr. Reiner noted that the Franklin project was developer driven and has fabulous architecture and tight controls. One thing that impressed him in Franklin was the frontal elevations, with shadow patterns and relief on the structures. In this development, it appears that vinyl and PVC components are permitted. In view of Council and Planning Commission's mission for high quality, was there any discussion of this architectural detail at the Commission hearings? Ms. Husak responded that there was discussion about the regulation of the architecture internal to this development by an architectural review committee, similar to what has been done successfully with Tartan West. There was also mention of the City having this book as a guideline for reviewing elevations as they are submitted. Mr. Hale noted that their architect provided pictures in the book about the right and wrong way to do various architectural details for the development and massing elements. There is also a section regarding gates, hedges and walkways. They have provided guidelines for layering the various levels of architecture and landscaping. To the extent possible, they have demonstrated all of this in the guidebook for the development. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that Ms. Clavin asked about the dumpsters and how they will be screened. Dublin has strict guidelines about these and staff can review the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age requirements with her. The applicant will be held accountable to the Code in this regard. There are also Codes about permitted hours for trash pick-up. Mrs. Boring asked about page 46, under 3(c), Conditional Uses, where the language is ambiguous. It notes, "gasoline service station, provided that no more than eight (8) fueling positions shall be permitted." Other language states, "In the event that a gas station is allowed as a conditional use ...." This needs to be clarified to denote that a gas station needs approval as a conditional use. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher suggested that a motion be formulated to address the issues regarding the alley landscaping, prohibiting the car wash use, and addressing the integrated streetscape issue. Mrs. Boring stated that her intention in regard to the gas station is to limit it to four double pumps, but eliminate the language "shall be allowed" in the text and clarify that it is a conditional use. Mr. McCash moved to approve Ordinance 16-07 with the conditions that the text language be revised to eliminate the language "shall be permitted" from the conditional use section in Subarea F; that enhancement of the alleys with landscaping be addressed as part of the final development plan approval process; that at the final development plan stage, further consideration be given to the layout of the neighborhood commercial area, such as integrating buildings versus free-standing single -use buildings and creating a town center with a streetscape; and that the list of prohibited uses in Subarea F be revised to include car washes. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. Hale indicated that the applicant is in agreement with the additional conditions. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mrs. Boring asked as a matter of record why a member abstained from voting. Mr. Smith responded that it is the Chair's discretion to ask for the reason for the abstention. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Reiner to indicate for the record his reason for abstention. Mr. Reiner responded that he believes that one of the companies he owns may have dealings with one of the investors in this project and so he chose to abtain. He is not certain of this, but abstained for this reason. Mr. Hale added that Mr. Edwards is an investor in this development, and Mr. Edwards is also an investor in separate entities — primarily apartment entities. Mr. Reiner has partial ownership in these. Mr. McCash noted he is confused, as Mr. Reiner participated in this discussion. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher asked the Law Director for his opinion, given the fact that Mr. Reiner participated in the discussion. Mr. Smith stated that if a Council Member believes he or she has a conflict, it should be set forth at the outset and the member should ask to be excused from the deliberations. If a member has a conflict, they should not try to influence the vote or the content of the project. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 17-07 Amending Sections 153.002, 153.071, 153.072, and 153.210 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Residential Driveways. (Case No. 06-133ADM) Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Judson Rex, Planner stated that this ordinance is related to the regulations regarding residential driveways. The purpose is to establish clear guidelines for the design and placement of driveways within the City's residential neighborhoods. The staff report indicates that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance both in November of 2006 and in February of 2007. At the November work session, the Commission provided input in response to several specific questions from staff. This 1 L7 1 Hel RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is a public street. Mr. McCash inquired what other businesses are located on this street. This business is called LSP Technologies. Would the City essentially be naming a street after one business? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City tries to avoid such situations. LSP Technologies is the only business addressed off this street. The other two businesses — the former administration building for Washington Township and the property to the west are addressed off Shier Rings Road. Mrs. Boring stated that most of the street names in Dublin have either historical significance or are Irish -based. "Laser Lane" doesn't seem appropriate. Mr. McCash inquired about the focus of LSP Technologies' business. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes it relates to laser technology. Mr. McCash suggested that the City identify a name that is Irish and unique, remaining consistent with Dublin's policy for public streets. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be preferable not to use a name directly related to the industry that is presently located on the street. Mr. McCash agreed, as this is a public street. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff would research an appropriate name. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 15-07 Accepting the Updated Estimated Average Per Acre Value of Land for Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the legislation. Mr. Hahn stated that the City Code requires that the estimated average per acre value of land for park fees must be updated every two years, based upon the recommendation of a qualified land appraiser. The appraiser has determined the raw land value to be $41,500, identical to the per acre value established for years 2005-2006. The appraiser attributes the lack of value increase to the weak housing market. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is surprised that the City's land value has not increased, particularly in view of the $380,000 price Dublin recently paid for slightly more than one acre of land along Tuttle Crossing Boulevard. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 16-07 Rezoning Approximately 189.57 Acres Located North of the Intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, from R, Rural District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road ) Ms. Husak stated this is a rezoning application for 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. This requests a change in zoning from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows for a development of 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space and 69.14 acres of open space. On February 1, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning with 11 conditions. The proposed development will be located north of the existing Tartan West neighborhood and the recently approved Oak Park development. To the west is Glacier Ridge Metro Park. The concept He 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, 2007 Page 7 plan for this development under the name of Bantry Green was reviewed by Council in November 2005, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed proposals for the site throughout 2006. The Commission discussed a more neutral housing variety, a high-quality four-sided architecture, and the proposed location of the retail area. The site is heavily wooded and includes streams and ponds. The existing natural features have been incorporated into open spaces and park areas. There are seven subareas, each of which is described in the development text. One interesting restriction is that all garage door orientations must be away from major roads and open spaces. The text also provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department to be located in an area north of Glacier Ridge Elementary School. The text also sets standards for the open areas around the development, including gates and gate posts at the front of the homes and brick walkways from the front door of the homes to the public sidewalk. A hedgerow is proposed along the front of all the units. Ms. Husak described the open space characteristics. The Planning Commission recommended that in the Final Development Plan, additional open space be incorporated into Subarea D2 to connect the north and south open space areas. She then reviewed plans for a retail/commercial component in the development, which will be located at the corner of Hyland Croy and McKitrick Roads. She noted that this plan encourages multigenerational living and interaction by offering various housing types and public gathering spaces. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the Planning Commission's condition regarding pedestrian connectivity. Ms. Husak responded that the condition specifies that the retail/commercial area be redesigned to provide on -street parking in order that the area will be more walkable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the gas station location on the development plan. Ms. Husak stated the gas station/convenience store will be located within the commercial area in the southwest area of the development near the McKitrick/Hyland-Croy intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired regarding the size of the setback from McKitrick Road. Ms. Husak responded that it is 200 feet. Ms. Salay noted that this is not the typical gas station layout, as it will be set back from the road 200 feet, will not be located on a street corner and will be obscured by landscaping. Mr. McCash stated that the pumps will also be internally oriented behind the building. Ms. Salay noted that the gas station is a conditional use. She requested clarification of the meaning and what criteria must be met before it could be approved for this neighborhood. Ms. Readier responded that she did not have the review criteria at hand, but there are approximately ten criteria that a conditional use must meet before approval is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The conditional use criteria centers around the impact that the use will have on the surrounding properties. Thai needs to be mitigated in order to obtain conditional use approval. Mrs. Boring stated that when a conditional use is included in the text, it can imply it is a conditional use that will be permitted with the development. How can this implication be avoided? Ms. Readier noted that it was moved out of the permitted uses. Ms. Husak added that page 46, #3 -- Conditional Uses, clarifies that issue. LJ 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held Mr. McCash stated that the argument exists regarding the legal parameters of a conditional use. Is it a permitted use subject to certain criteria, or is it not a permitted use whatsoever? Ms. Readler responded that a conditional use is not a use as of right. The criteria must be satisfied before obtaining approval. It is a contemplated use upon which restrictions can be placed. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the gas station is a conditional use within a fairly large subarea. If this conditional use is ultimately approved, what guarantee is there that it will be located on the site as presented tonight? Ms. Husak responded that any subsequent application for this use would have to adhere to a final development plan which must be approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent development must meet the preliminary development plan, which specifies this location. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revisit the design of the retail to make it more pedestrian friendly. Therefore, the configuration of that subarea could potentially change. Ms. Husak responded that can occur only minimally in the areas along the front. Parallel parking versus pull -in parking is preferred in that location, and some of the parking would be relocated to interior parking lots. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if Council were to approve this preliminary development plan, is it with the absolute understanding that the final development plan will appear virtually identical to this, or it will not be approved? Ms. Husak responded that she would be hesitant to use the term "identical." The preliminary plan shows general design intent, while the final development plan permits small changes. However, it is not expected that the gas station would be located elsewhere on the site. Ms. Salay noted that it still remains as a conditional use. Mrs. Boring inquired if there is data that specifies the number of households needed to justify a retail use. How far apart in terms of distance are the two shopping areas? It is possible to connect two neighborhoods with the City's bikepath system. Ms. Husak responded that she does not have that information. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned that there will be too many square feet of retail in this area across from the park. Is there a threshold number that is used as a guideline for determining the need for retail development? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that information be provided at the second reading on March 19. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representative for the applicant stated that they have retained a retail consultant to evaluate this area. They will request that he attend the March 19 meeting to respond to Council's questions. In regard to Mrs. Boring's comment about conditional uses, in the previous application she makes reference to, there was a special provision that permitted two drive throughs. This application is for a straight conditional use minus that additional language. The applicant expects to build only what is indicated in this plan. Ms. Salay stated that is possible for bicyclists to travel to the shopping center safely, but when they reach their destination, they have a difficult time navigating within the shopping area. There often is significant conflict between bicycles and vehicles. She requested that staff pay special attention to the bike trail system connection; review ways to move the bicyclists and pedestrians from both outside and inside the neighborhood into the shopping center safely; and include convenient places for bicycles to be parked. Mrs. Boring agreed. 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, Held FIE age Mrs. Salay noted that she agrees with the request for parallel parking; it is more pedestrian friendly and presents a better fagade to the public. The plan provides for four-sided architecture on all the homes. She is impressed by the attractive and interesting architecture proposed. How will the architecture be reviewed — internally by City staff or by an architecture review committee? Ms. Husak responded that it will be reviewed by both. An internal architecture review committee (ARC) is proposed, similar to that at the Tartan West development, which works very well. That review occurs before the City receives the building permit application. The City will also have detailed development text regarding the architectural requirements. The commercial development will also be reviewed by the ARC, but all the commercial architecture will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission with the final development plan. Ms. Salay inquired how the hedgerow in front of the homes will appear. Ms. Husak responded that the development text describes the intent and character the hedgerow will take. It will serve as a low wall or fence of greenery throughout the neighborhood. The final development plan will contain more detail. Ms. Salay inquired if the proposed height of it is stated in the text. Ms. Husak responded that information is not provided. Ms. Salay inquired if all the open space is public open space. Ms. Husak stated that the open spaces will be public. Those depicted on the plan in dark green will be city parks; those in light green will be public, but may be maintained by the homeowner association. Those details will also be addressed in the final development plan. Ms. Salay stated that in the past, the City has encountered some issues with forced and funded homeowner associations versus voluntary homeowner associations regarding maintenance of public greenspace. Is staff comfortable with the text in place that these areas will be maintained to the City's standards? Ms. Husak responded that staff is exploring some landscaping options that are more meadow -like and less likely to require intense maintenance. Ms. Salay advised caution with that option as people have differing viewpoints about the appearance of meadow areas. Ms. Salay inquired about the alleyways. Last year, Council visited a community in Franklin, Tennessee that had alleyways that were well maintained. They were so beautifully landscaped that, if not for the garage doors, they could not be distinguished as alleyways. Lovely gardens were in view, and the use of fencing and landscaping was such that it did not appear to be the back yards of homes. She requested that future alleyways incorporated in development plans be similar to Westhaven alleys. She would like to ensure that heavy landscaping is utilized here. She requested that Mr. Hale provide information on the applicant's ideas for the alleyways. She appreciates the level of architectural detail included in this plan, such as the shutters and rooflines. Mr. McCash stated that Condition #5 indicates that the text is to be modified, but the modified text has not been provided. Will it be provided for the public hearing on the 19th? Ms. Husak responded that the modification in the text has been made and will be provided for the March 19th hearing. Mr. McCash inquired about Condition #11, which references the Dublin Lighting Guidelines as the standard. He does not want to see those guidelines used for this. Ms. Husak responded that Planning staff decided to keep the language referring to the Guidelines because it has some provisions regarding the cut-off fixtures that they do want to include. Mr. McCash stated that if there is a future need to refer to the development text for this site, the Dublin Lighting Guidelines would then be part of it. He requested that the reference be removed. It would be sufficient to simply require cut-off fixtures. Ms. Husak agreed to revise the condition. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the minutes from the Commission meeting indicated that the Planning Commission expected this change to have been made. 1 iJ 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, 2007 Page Ms. Husak responded that staff believed there were other provisions in the Lighting Guidelines that would apply to this development. Staff will make the change as requested. Mr. McCash stated that cut-off fixtures are covered within Night Sky Preservation Guidelines. Tempe, Phoenix and other communities have those in place. He suggested that those guidelines be adopted to address the night sky preservation components, and then select the particular zone that would work in this plan. Ms. Husak agreed to do so. Vice Mayor Lecklider complimented the Planning Commission for adding this particular condition. Although it is very appropriate with this development, it would be desirable to include it with all the new developments. He is not sure, however, how this condition will be met by the gas station. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired the timeframe for development of Tartan Ridge. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant is preparing a final development plan for phase 1, from Jerome Road westward, for submission to the Planning Department in April. Staff is working with Union County on the traffic study, traffic improvements, and cost-sharing issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the city/county's timeframe for the infrastructure improvements, as the developer cannot move forward until these are underway. Ms. Husak responded that the issues were addressed in a meeting last week, and a letter of understanding is being finalized. Those issues will be resolved before the final development plan is submitted to the Planning Commission, by mid to the end of May. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what percentage of the residential development will be completed before the commercial development is begun. Ms. Husak responded that at a minimum, the first phase -- which includes 90 lots -- will be completed. The first phase comprises under 50 percent of the residential component. She requested that the applicant provide additional clarification. Ms. Salay requested that every potential homebuyer in this development be made aware of the commercial portion as well as the potential fire department substation. She requested that the applicant describe how this will be done. Mr. Hale responded that all of the developer's sales literature will contain the site plan, which depicts the commercial component. In response to the question of the timing of construction of the commercial component, there are some contributing factors. The Nationwide development north of this site will begin later this year, and as part of phase 1 with that development, Hyland -Croy Road will be extended north to US Route 42. At the same time, Phase 1 of Tartan Ridge will occur — from Manley Road, past the school and ending at Hyland -Croy Road. Phase 1 will not be at the point this year for the commercial component to begin, but the commercial developers anticipate doing so in 2008. Mrs. Boring stated that although the sales literature can provide information on the anticipated commercial component, it is preferable for neighborhood awareness that the retail construction be underway as soon as possible. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 15-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with TechColumbus. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam requested that this resolution be postponed to the March 19 meeting. Staff is still working on the agreement. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4301671236 Phone: 614.410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr, and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Page 1 of 2 J_A_ o7 '3.- 5._-07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road (Continued) 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No - Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 — 0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 3 of 11 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Gerber said the Commission reviewed this case at the last meeting, on January 18, and it was coming back for review of the revised list of uses as it related to retail and commercial. He asked for a progress report with respect to parking in the retail area. Claudia Husak presented updates to this case and slides. She said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning for 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the applicant was asked by the Commission to revise the text to make changes to the permitted and conditional uses in the neighborhood commercial area, and to address any inconsistencies in the text. Ms. Husak said this has allowed two conditions to be eliminated from this case, and the presentation will focus on the neighborhood commercial area only, as all other aspects have been discussed previously. Ms. Husak said that Planning has met with the applicants in order to address concerns and the text has been revised in terms of the permitted uses and refers to the permitted uses in three sections of the Zoning Code: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional, NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and CC, Community Commercial Districts. She said a revised booklet had been provided to the Commissioners. Ms. Husak said the text also includes language that specifies prohibited uses which would be inappropriate in such a neighborhood setting and language that speaks to the intent of this area as a local neighborhood serving area which will help to determine whether a particular use is appropriate or not. Ms. Husak said the Conditional Use section of the text has been updated, based on previous discussion and Planning believes that the changes will ensure that this area is developed in a manner that is conducive to a neighborhood serving commercial area. She said based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the review criteria for a rezoning and preliminary development plan, and with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for the site. Ms. Husak said in addition to the modifications stated in Conditions 9 and 10 listed in the Planning Report, this proposal will meet all the Land Use Principles and will advance the general planning intent of the area. She said the Tartan Ridge development is unique and attractive, and the applicant has worked with Planning and Engineering to address issues and concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in northwest Dublin, and Planning recommends approval with the ten conditions as detailed in the Planning Report: 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 4 of 11 DRAFT Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said the Shamrock Crossing development which City Council recently approved, had the same use issue, and they handled that the same way. He said Council did not like to see all those uses listed, so they have taken out the more objectionable uses and placed the Code sections there so that there are not three pages of uses. Mr. Gerber noted that there were many people in the audience and asked if anyone wished to speak to the issues before the Commission. [No response.] Ms. Jones said she was appreciative of the update in the text. She said the uses prohibited in the text were the items she was looking to be prohibited. She said the essence of everything discussed at the last meeting had been captured regarding targeting this to neighborhood services versus more regional serving uses. She noted that the Conditional Use portion was better defined. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Ms. Jones that the list requested has been submitted. Mr. Gerber referred to Condition 8, and asked if Ms. Husak had discussed it further with the applicant since the last meeting. Ms. Husak said Planning had discussed with the applicants what the vision for that area was, and she thought the applicant was working through how it can be accommodated. Mr. Hale said everybody is interested in having activity in front of that building, and they do not want people to have to go all the way around the building to come back and park. He said if parking is done that way, there might have to be roundabouts at the ends so people can come back and get a space. Mr. Hale said they also thought there might be walls or other treatment that might allow some angular or head -in parking on one side of the street. He said they thought there were a variety of issues that need to be worked through, and they feel like the time to do that is when they get into engineering, and they come in with the final development plan because the outstanding issues are on both sides and they want to explore them fully. He said they understand that when they come back for final development plan approval, the Commission has the right to say that they want all parallel parking, and if so, they will abide by it. However, they want to explore other options with Planning to make sure that they are doing the absolute right thing. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale had any problem with Condition 8 at this point. Mr. Hale indicated he did not. Mr. Hale said the only other issue they had was that they have a couple of items that they have to do before they can do a final development plan. He said their first phase is 32 lots off Jerome Road and they have to do a turn lane there and would like to be able to process that final development plan prior to resolving the issue how they are going to share costs on other items. Mr. Saneholtz deferred to staff on the timing matters. Ms. Husak said Planning would be comfortable to add: "...prior to the approval of the final development plan" to Conditions 1 and 6. However, she said for Condition 2, she would refer to Engineering as the traffic study has to be approved by the City of Dublin as well as the Union County Engineer. Aaron Stanford said one of the reasons why Engineering included that was so Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 5 of 11 �•. that the Planning Report for the final development plan would be able to explain the traffic improvements and how they work with Union County. He said he thought they still had the ability to do that if it were based on an approval, but they were trying to be able to have all the information laid out so that it could be detailed in the Planning Report. Mr. Hale agreed to submit it. He said it would give them the opportunity to work through issues with staff while they are negotiating other items. Mr. Gerber agreed to amend Conditions 1, 2, and 6 to replacing "prior to submitting" with "prior to final development plan approval." Mr. McCash said he was concerned with some commercial uses being this close to the Metra Park. However, he said there was a need for those types of services in this area. He said because they are close to the Metro Park and on the outskirts of Dublin in the rural areas, he did not think the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines are appropriate for this area. He suggested making it a condition that provisions for night sky preservation and protection be considered instead of following the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines. Mr. McCash suggested Condition 11: That in lieu of the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines that staff work with the applicant on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale said he had done that before and agreed there were always things that could be done. Mr. Saneholtz said some of the uses he had concern with were auto repair and auto sales. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said they specifically excluded automobile sales. He said auto - oriented uses were conditional uses in these districts, therefore they would not be permitted. Ms. Jones noted that the auto -oriented uses were listed on page 44 under number 11. Mr. Saneholtz noted the text read: Miscellaneous repair shops and related services. He said his concern was that if they do have a fuel facility at this location, knowing that it is a conditional use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian -use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 6 of 11 DRAFT use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian -use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have connectivity to this area. Ms. Husak said she was not sure how far along the design of Hyland - Croy Road was. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there could be a condition that would anticipate that additional need. He said it was not a question of if it is going to happen — it is just a question of timing. Mr. Fishman said that was an excellent point, but he was concerned who would pay for a tunnel. He said the City had put in several tunnels after the fact and they were expensive. He questioned whether or not a condition could be added or was needed since the road was not yet engineered. Mr. Hale said no one knows today what the ultimate improvement will be in the future. Mr. Walter said he wondered what the applicant's responsibility was to improvements, based upon growth outside their control. He said he saw there is a pedestrian flow that will happen from Tartan, across through this development, to the park, and he did not think they could tell the developer that because other parcels around are going to develop and their parcel is the natural flow between the use we are trying to get, that they should be unduly burdened with the cost of that. However, he said he did take Mr. Saneholtz's point seriously that the developers bear some responsibility for providing some level of contribution. He said they should have staff consider that. Mr. Hale said there will be negotiation and part of that will be they will have to write a check for Brand Road because of those planned improvements and what their share is. Mr. Gerber said safety and related cost issues will be discussed at City Council. He said the minutes will reflect the Commission discussion. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 7 of 11 Mr. McCash said Council had wrestled with as far as what future needs were and how much to put on a particular developer rather than balancing it out and taking it out of the tax dollar component. Ms. Jones asked if the language in Condition 1 lent to that also: "that they had to resolve their cost-sharing arrangement prior..." She asked if "pedestrian ways" could be added so that Council could resolve it, or should it be left to go to the next level. Mr. Saneholtz said he believed that one of the current principles was "pedestrian accessibility to and from the site." He said he was in favor of adding some pedestrian language as well. Mr. Walter and Mr. Fishman agreed that would be a great solution. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with the issues being raised, however he interpreted that the word "streets" addressed all these issues. Motion and Vote: Mr. Gerber moved to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near 1-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale agreed to the above 11 conditions. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) PLANNING AND ZONING'COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 18, 2007 CITY OF DUBLIN - land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -fangs Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone: 614-4104600 fox: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www-dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text. *Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia Husak, AICP Planner Cr -)3-07 3-5-D7 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 2 of 23 Mr. Gunde said that was the ex ion for February be e a work session ha ready been sch ed instead of the sec d meeting. He said n regular cases are sche ed for the secon ebruary meeting. Mr. Gerber moved for pproval of the Decem r 7, 2006 meeting =.;iMr. es as presented. Mr. Zimmerman secon d and the vote was as flows: Mr. Walter, y Saneholtz, yes; Jones, yes; Mr. immerman, yes; and . Gerber, yes. (Approv -0.) Mr. Ge er noted that the applic is for Case 1 had cons ted to the conditions. o one pulled the nsent item.] He ann ced that the cases w d be heard in the ord of the published 1. Final D,cv6lopment Plan/Final YIdt 06-109FDP/FP — N uad, Subarea 2 — W ndotte W0949', Sections 6 and 7 — L s 157 through 183 — andotte Woods Boule rd Mr. erber swore in thea icants' representative enell Sniechowski, D. Zande and sociates, who agreed to a following three condi 'ons as listed in the Pl g report: 1) That the lands pe plans indicate the ect species of street trees for this area and that PI ; and 3) t the scale on the pl,*for Section 7 be correct otion and Vote: Mr. Gerber mov:rina r approval of this Fina evelopment Plan/Fina lat because the complies =tin l Development Pl and Final Plat criteria, the applicable dev standards the Northeast Qua UD text, with the t e conditions listed ab Zimmerpffin seconded the motio , and the vote was as yes r. Walter, abstain; Mr immerman, yes; and alter explained that h abstained because he orf relationship. Mr. c) ws: Mr. Saneholtz, y , Ms. Jones, Gerber, yes. (Appr ed 4-0-1.) Mr. d with the appli t through a client 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Claudia Husak said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads for a planned unit development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and 69 acres of open space. She presented a slide of an aerial context map which showed the proposed development and the surrounding area. She said Tartan West was south of the site and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park is to the west. Ms. Husak said further to the south is the recently approved Oak Park Development. Ms. Husak said this case was presented to the Commission under the name, Bantry Greene in June 2006, and the Commission discussed the need for more housing variety in that plan, as well as a need for high-quality architecture, and the proposed location of the retail area. Adjacent Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 3 of 23 residents also voiced concerns regarding the utility connections, increased traffic, and the retail area. She said this case was tabled at that meeting at the applicant's request. Ms. Husak said the plans have been significantly revised. Ms. Husak said small portions of the site are heavily wooded and there are three streams and two ponds currently on the site. She presented slides which showed different views of the site. She showed a proposed site plan for the development which illustrated the proposed layout of the lots, the road network, the commercial area in the south, and the open space areas. Ms. Husak said the housing consists of seven different single-family lot types and 24 townhouses which would be located in four buildings. She said active parks are proposed throughout the site, as well as passive open space located mainly along the boundaries of the site in the 200 -foot setback. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the proposed seven subareas as well as the permitted lot types in those subareas. Ms. Husak said the proposed development text describes each subarea in detail and provides development standards for each. She said it also places restrictions on garage orientation to orient them away from open spaces and parks. She said the text provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department to be located in the area north of the elementary school. Ms. Husak said the area is currently shown as open space on the plan, and it is expected to be dedicated to the City at the final development plan stage. She said the fire department has identified the need for a small substation in this area to better serve the northwest area of the City and the City will continue working with the fire department, should they choose to use this location for their substation. Ms. Husak said the proposed architecture was outlined in the development text which included standards intended to create a variety of architectural combinations. She said several architectural styles are described in the text and high-quality; four-sided architecture will be required throughout the development. Ms. Husak presented a graphic which showed the proposed open spaces within the development. She said the text distinguishes neighborhood parks, rural open spaces, and the boulevard green in the description of open spaces and provides the design intended for each of those. She said existing trees and ponds will be incorporated into the parks and the open spaces and unique and different landscaping techniques are encouraged. Ms. Husak said Planning has identified an opportunity for better connections between the open spaces in this development. She said while the open space connections are very well designed along the parks in the north and southern section there is an opportunity where a defined connection between the two areas could be established. Ms. Husak said the final development plan for this project should incorporate additional public open space in the front of lots in Subarea D2 as required by Condition 12 in the Planning report. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the layout design for the proposed neighborhood commercial area which includes retail, restaurant, and office uses at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the preliminary plan shows several building footprints along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage and the main entry into the site. A drugstore with a drive-thru is shown on the south, as well as a gas station with a convenience store along McKitrick Road. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 4 of 23 Ms. Husak said the text contains a typo for the setbacks, but the applicant is aware of that and it will be corrected. Ms. Husak said while the plan for the entire development successfully creates a place for multi- generational living and social interaction by offering a variety of housing types as well as passive and active open spaces and recreational opportunities that are conveniently located in the proximity to neighborhood services, Planning has identified areas in the neighborhood commercial portion where the function of the street network can be improved to better serve the neighborhood and provide additional opportunities to walk in this neighborhood. She said the proposed neighborhood commercial area incorporates typical suburban design elements such as pull -in parking which is auto -oriented and drive aisles in front of the buildings. She said this area should be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape by providing parallel on - street parking that takes advantage of the residential proximity and eliminates pavement in this general area. Ms. Husak said based on the evaluation of the proposal according to the review criteria for the preliminary development plan, Planning is confident that with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for this site and will also advance the general planning intent of this area. She said in addition, Planning has also determined that with the modifications listed in Conditions 11 and 12, the proposal will meet all land use principles. Ms. Husak said the Tartan Ridge development is a unique and attractive project and the applicant has worked with extensively with Planning and Engineering to work through issues and address concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in this northwest portion of the City. She said Planning recommends approval of this preliminary development plan with the 12 conditions as listed in the Planning report: 1) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering in resolution of cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That discrepancies between the text and the plans regarding garage orientation and front Build -Zones be revised to accurately reflect the intended restrictions, subject to Planning approval; 7) That the text be modified include the signage provisions as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 5 of 23 8) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 9) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 10) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 11) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; and 12) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said that in June, he had said that his client felt that the residential part of this proposal was on the wrong track, and he asked that it be tabled and said they would come back with something very different. He said this is very different from that previous application because many things have happened. He said his former client, M/I Homes no longer owned the property, and Edwards Land Company is the developer of this site. He said this was a very different program because these houses will be built by a number of builders and many of them will be custom houses. Mr. Hale said they looked at the street plan numerous times with the input of Planning and made the appropriate revisions. He said they clearly heard from the Commission at the previous meeting, that they needed high-quality architecture. He said that Brian Jones, their architect, came up with a very innovative solution with six or seven different kinds of houses that have the things that are needed to make the house look right. Mr. Hale said that Mr. Jones did a series of massing drawings which show how the houses should be massed so when an architect designs one, he has the massing drawings. He said they also show how to transition from one material to the other. Mr. Hale said it shows examples how to do gates, front doors, and shutters that are appropriate for the window sizes. He said all the standards and drawings are legal commitments that are in the zoning and it has to be done that way. He said the commercial architecture has to be done that way as well. Mr. Hale said the process, because of multiple builders, will have an architectural review committee. He said they will go through architectural review with the builders to make sure the house is in compliance with this drawing and then they will file a building permit and the City will review it. Mr. Hale said when the City reviews the permit, they will use this book to judge whether or not they followed the criteria in terms of architecture and massing, front door treatment and general surroundings. Mr. Hale said it was hard to look at drawing and understand the scale. He said one of the comparable developments was the Shoppes of Athenry where there is a UDF on the corner, Mary Kelley's, a day care, and an office building which equals 50,000 square feet. Mr. Hale discussed the available retail square footage and vacancies of the submarket, which provided all the retail needs on the west side of the river except for Tuttle Mall. He said that on this side of the City, there is a very healthy commercial base. Mr. Hale said this commercial is really a quality of life thing. It will keep people from being forced to drive four miles to get their prescriptions, to go to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 6 of 23 a small restaurant, to go to a coffee shop, or to pick up their laundry. He said they have taken the units that are more dense (townhouses and alley lots) and brought them down around the center so that it functions like a little town. Mr. Hale said that Pete Edwards and Charlie Driscoll took a very strong look at Dublin, Ohio and the Dublin school system and one of the things they found was that in Ballantrae, which is in the Hilliard school district, most people who bought at Ballantrae were not moving there from the Dublin school district. He said they believed that there is a very substantial move -up market in Dublin. He said they are talking here about housing that will range in price from $400,000 to $900,000. Mr. Hale said they have been very careful with garages and tried to not have front facing garages on any of the major streets or open spaces. Anne Wanner, The Edge Group, thanked Ms. Husak for the pre -submittal process and said Ms. Husak did a great job and kept them on track and provided great input along with a couple of other planners. Ms. Wanner said the comments and input were all very timely. She said a good job was done on the staff report and thanked Ms. Husak for that as well. Ms. Wanner said there was definitely an underserved market here — a price point between $400,000 and $800,000 and above. She said people come to Dublin to move up and there is nowhere to go. She said the other part of the design intent was that they wanted to blend new urbanism principles with suburban conservation design. She said at times, the conservation design principles now in place are challenging and they wanted to combine them with some of the newer ideas that are coming about in planning. Ms. Wanner said they also wanted to facilitate some of the comments heard before — that the residential and the commercial pieces were not integrated. Ms. Wanner presented an overall regional map which showed what was happening around Tartan Ridge. She said Jerome Village is to the north and will have approximately 2,000 homes. She said Oak Park, previously approved, as well as the ongoing development, Tartan West are located nearby. Ms. Wanner said this large amount of development will need service facilities in this area. She said the vision and inspiration of Tartan Ridge was more important. She said included in the booklet distributed was a variety of imagery, and a perspective views of what Tartan Ridge is going to look like. Ms. Wanner said when their design team first met they wanted to look at other timeless subdivision designs for inspiration. She said Frederick L. Olmstead, known as the grandfather of landscape architecture was also a land planner and he planned subdivision designs in Chicago known as Riverside, Druid Hills in Atlanta, and Forest Hills, in New York. She said in looking at his designs, they saw very interesting organic forms as patterns that they wanted to emulate. She said they visited the site several times. She said the topography of the site was not common in Dublin. She said they wanted to design with nature and use these organic forms. She said they wanted to create a place where people wanted to live. Ms. Wanner said they compared contemporary subdivision design to some of the older subdivisions of Bexley and Upper Arlington. She said they found that there is an inherent conflict with contemporary suburban design which lies in where the driveway is located versus where the pedestrian space or people space is located. She said people live in their driveways by playing in them or socializing in them. Ms. Wanner said the older neighborhoods separate their people space from their auto -oriented space by creating elements that separate the spaces such as gateposts and gates which were an extension of the house and socialization space for the home. She said they wanted to create that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 7 of 23 Ms. Wanner said people spaces in Dublin had people spaces such as gates and doors. She said they have open spaces that are oriented towards people. She said they wanted to create that. She quoted Fredrick Law Olmsted which she said she thought was very appropriate for their vision: What improvements have you here that tend to insure permanent helpfulness and permanent rural beauty? " She said that was exactly what they wanted to create — permanent beauty here. Ms. Wanner said the other layer they wanted was architectural styles. She said the six architectural styles in the book do not alone create spaces. She said they create an element of how people live. Ms. Wanner said architectural elements, special attention to front doors, windows, shutters, proportion of these elements, are very crucial in space -making. She said gates, gateposts, and hedges are on every lot. Ms. Wanner said brick and stone piers, stone walls, brick sidewalks all create the socialization space that changes how people live and they want to create that. Ms. Wanner said the open space plan is very complete with different types of spaces. She said they have Dunlevin Park, which preserves a very substantial pond. She said keeping the elements on the site is part of the space -making. She presented a slide showing the Lahinch Park site where the large trees shown will be preserved. She said the open spaces will be connected through the use of lush boulevards and sweeping views of vistas. Ms. Wanner presented a development plan showing how the lots were connected. She said there are cottage lots closer to the village area that connects to some of the estate lots towards the north of the area. She said garage orientation is an important piece of how people relate to their neighbors and they wanted to prohibit street -oriented garages, moving the garage back, out of public space and make it a private area. Ms. Wanner presented a slide of a perspective view and some elevations of the village center. She said setbacks are small so that people are not oriented towards one another, but towards the street. She said it slowed traffic and created a village pedestrian feel. Ms. Wanner said an important goal of this project was to meet Dublin's Ten Land Use Principles which have been implemented as part of the Community Plan Update. She said they feel that they have not only met the principles, but exceeded them through the elements they have created, through the additional architectural design standards they have, and through the land use plan. She said they want to create a legacy — timeless landscape architecture and timeless land planning. Brian Jones said as they wanted to make sure that the Olmsteadian vision of trying to create a place that really celebrates the landscape architecture and the planning held through. He said a lesson in studying great places, is that architecture in those places often becomes the background. He said in becoming the background, it often is about what you do not do versus what you do. Mr. Jones said they were striving for diversity within a very limited palette of stylistic expressions. He said the overall architecture of this place is being established by the village center and the commercial piece. He said in that piece, they are really trying to drive their stylistic cues from the things that have occurred throughout Dublin, as well as the Midwest, and really looking to the late 19th to 20th Century for those expressions. He said the architecture of that commercial area leads into the architecture of the residences. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 8 of 23 Mr. Jones said they were committed to looking at criteria that qualified massing, that dealt with fenestration or the way that windows are used around the building, and also a cogent idea about how materials are used and developed which they thought expressed a commitment that is quite uncommon. He said as they looked at the overall connectivity and the scale, this was not really a typical suburban solution and they feel that the commercial has integrated to the residential in a way that will be quite a great example in this region. Mr. Hale said there had been meetings with the neighbors along Hyland -Croy Road and the Muirfield Civic Action group prior to this meeting. Mr. Gerber invited those in the audience who wished to speak, to come forth, state their name for the record. He said comments would be limited to three minutes. Kim Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, presented a slide showing the proposed entry road on Brock Road. She said it did not now match with the entry road into Jerome Village. She said it was approximately 530 feet away. She said it did not seem to be a logical place for the entry road. She suggested that the entry be lined up with Jerome Village. Ms. Clavin said while doing that, the homeowner will be relieved from having property taken. She said also, trees might possibly have to be removed in the action. Ms. Gavin said she saw no improvements in the retail traffic mentioned as a resident concern. She said Hyland -Croy Road was a big traffic area and this development will have an impact on it, therefore it would be the developer's responsibility to fix the roads because they are causing the traffic impact. Ms. Clavin said the residents asked for a major thoroughfare through the development to relieve traffic, and that did not happen. She said the retail was a big concern and she thought the City agreed that they wanted to keep the Glacier Ridge look to be the natural setting. She asked why not put the retail on the southeast corner where it was away from Glacier Ridge. Mr. Gerber asked about the traffic flow Ms. Clavin mentioned. Ms. Clavin said it was the traffic flow between the two developments, Jerome Village and Tartan Ridge. Ms. Clavin said there is also a concern about drainage. She said they have not been approached with what the solution would be. She said there are drainage tiles and they are planning to build on top of them. Mr. Gerber recalled that the phone numbers and addresses of interested residents were taken so that they could be contacted, and asked if they had been notified of any meeting. Ms. Clavin said she received a notice from the developers last Wednesday or Thursday for a meeting on a Monday, and it was a holiday weekend. She said they had four days' notice and a holiday weekend. However, she said the developer made a good effort to contact everyone on the list. Marni Spears, a Hyland -Croy Road resident, said she was approached by the developer the week prior to Christmas to get the neighbors together. She said she appreciated the Commission upholding the standards for the building behind her home, north, next to the water tower. She said if they had to list concerns, it would be the drainage. She said she had not been contacted in six months. She said she had to disconnect two of her downspouts because they were coming up as fire hydrants, as she was the home closest to the field, and was getting the backflow from the section. Ms. Spears said they met with the developers on this past Monday night and reviewed Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 9 of 23 the plats. She said they were told that had been inspected by their engineer, but they were not aware of the creek beds, the boulders placed, etc. Ms. Spears said their second concern was the retail. She said she thought several Commissioners agreed that where the retail was proposed, it was a very hazardous intersection. She said it was very elevated and with the Metro Park having the retail there did not work with the crosswalk. Ms. Spears said traffic concerns were that they would have additional traffic and gas, beer, food, and restaurant deliveries. She said they were told that although the Commission had requested that the proposed homes' quality be increased, that the Commission had also demanded an increase in the number of home builders proposed. Ms. Spears said they originally were told 25 developers would be in Tartan Ridge, and tonight they heard 13. Ms. Spears said she was also there on behalf of Debbie Toddwell, a resident south of her, and also Jan Moony Paul, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road. Eric Cook, 10150 Hyland -Croy Road, said most of the residents on Hyland -Croy agreed with Ms. Spears' summary of their concerns. Mr. Cook said when a development of this size comes into an area, it is important to remember that there is an existing community already there and no one has mentioned that. He said the traffic affects them, their water tiles, septic systems, and wells. He asked that the developer address that. He said "integrating" the existing community has not been mentioned. Sue Hagar, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road, said this was the third time she had addressed the Commission, and she still was against the retail. She agreed with the concerns of Ms. Spears, Mr. Cook, and Ms. Clavin. She was also concerned that the retail might not be sustainable with that proposed at Jerome Village and a mall in the township. She said the retail could be dressed up to look nice, but it was still retail. She said on that corner, there is the Metro Park and it is a dangerous intersection. She said retail did not fit on that corner with the traffic concerns, extra gas trucks to fill up the eight -pump gas station, and food trucks to supply the UDF. Mr. Gerber recalled seeing Ms. Hagar at previous meetings and asking that staff take her address. He asked if she had been contacted, and how many times. Ms. Hagar said she was contacted one week before Christmas for a meeting the week of Christmas which was not convenient for the neighbors. Mr. Gerber said with respect to the water problems, had the City contacted them previously to discuss them. Ms. Hagar said she had not. However, she said there were discussions and concerns about water problems on Monday at the meeting with the developer's new engineer. Mr. Saneholtz said several times he had heard testimony on this property along the lines of the convenience factor of having this retail and gas, etc. close to the residents and how beneficial it would be. He asked Ms. Hagar if she saw a benefit to her fellow neighbors having the convenience factor. Ms. Hagar said they found Perimeter Loop is just three miles from the neighborhood and it supplies them with groceries, gas, hardwares, etc. She said retail had been approved caddy -comer to the high school, and there will be retail with the new Jerome Village to the north. She said she thought it was sad if they could not drive three miles to get groceries or Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 10 of 23 gasoline because it would be a lazy environment where they live. She said she had not missed not having retail. Cynthia Reed, 5208 Aryshire Drive, a Dublin resident since 1986 said she -did not intend to speak but she did not see Robert Fathman here as the representative of the Civic Action Committee of Muirfield North. She said the reason they chose not to speak was because they have since 2003 met with City representatives, Gary Gunderman and Claudia Husak, and all the representatives at the area meetings for the Community Plan. She said they had expressed great concern about any commercial business along Jerome Road. She said there are 2,400 homes planned in the new Jerome Village which is going to be out of Dublin's jurisdiction and control. Ms. Reed said it will add a lot of traffic to that area, which helped them when Tartan West was formed to help create the single -lane roundabout at the Glick/Avery/Jerome Road intersection in anticipation of this new growth to come. Ms. Reed said now, they have a chance here, at this corner to help have a say in how this develops and help alleviate some of the traffic pattern. She said Jerome Road thus far has not been improved to handle any kind of commercial traffic. She said there is the potential also of ODOT bringing down McKitrick Road further west up Hyland -Croy Road, bringing in a potential exit there. Ms. Reed said it has been the opinion of the Citizens for Responsible Zoning (C4RZ) that there would beno opposition from them as long as the commercial development stayed on the Hyland-Croy/McKitrick Road side, simply because that would be less traffic coming into the round -about where there is an elementary and middle school currently. Ms. Reed said she felt for the residents who had water, sewer, and drainage problems and hoped that the City would help them with those issues. She said her group has had no opposition to the commercial because the City and Ms. Husak have been wonderful in notifying them about anything developing in this area. She said Mr. Hale had been very forthright, and Aaron Underhill has contacted them to let them know of any development in this area. She said he worked with Ms. Husak and Mr. Gunderman to try to meet with the majority of the residents' concerns. She said they had worked hard to keep the traffic minimal on Jerome Road and tried to shift it over to the Hyland -Croy Road site that is being approved. Larry Hopper, 7400 Brock Road, said the extension of Hyland -Croy Road through the Jerome development will be a total thoroughfare, so flipping those two roads made no sense because it would create another thoroughfare in an area that would be highly trafficked anyway. He did not see that it was a necessary item to be moving the road. Mr. Hale said the Brock Road entry concern had been conditioned that they work with staff to coordinate. He said it was true that it could be flipped, if that was were the traffic engineers think it should be, but they have submitted a traffic report and addressed many of these issues and the traffic report has been provided to Dublin staff and Union County and they have committed to coordinate with those entities. He said it may very well line up if that is what the governmental bodies think it should do. Mr. Hale said that with this application, they had filed a preliminary drainage system and they were aware that they have the duty to retain the water that they put on this piece and not to burden those down steam. He said there are ponds on the site to do that. He said they do not have to detain the water, but they have to clean it. He said the concerns are being addressed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 11 of 23 Diane Marin, EMH&T, said she had been involved in the drainage patterns for this site under M/I Homes. However, she said she had not attended any public meetings. She said there are about 28 acres needing to be picked up from the Hyland -Croy area homes and traveling north to Brock Road. She said she had walked the site. Ms. Marin said the 24 -inch culvert was not blocked by the boulders in front of it. She said a drainage swale came down through the project. She said they will do the standard procedure which is picking up that drainage, getting it through their system, cleaning it, and making sure that they do not exceed the flows that go offsite, north' of them. Mr. Hale said regarding the discussion about the comer of McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads, they had done a very extensive traffic study and the City has asked them in the study to look at every intersection in the area, which they have done. He said they understand that they have some very substantial obligations. All the entries have to have turn lanes, they have looked at what their contributions will be, and they are meeting with the City to come up with a program of when- intersections get approved to the Year 2017, which is considered build -out and Jerome Village is supposed to be finished by then. He said when doing the study, they looked at build- out and level of service. Mr. Hale said they thought this commercial has been consistently been shown at many Community Plan meetings as being important to the City because people needed to be out in the community to service it. He said it was appropriately designed from a land planning point of view and from the building architecture and this was an important part of the overall theme of this development. Mr. Gerber asked that Ms. Husak address the residents' concerns. He said he got the impression that they had been contacted, but some felt that they had not been involved. He said going forward; he wanted to be vigilant with that. Mr. Gerber explained that at this stage, the Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council to either support this application or deny it. He said it will then go to City Council, and everyone will have ample opportunity to speak before City Council, and before the Commission a third time. He asked Ms. Husak to give more information about what she had discussed with the applicant and what she envisioned. Mr. Gerber said he saw some conditions that asked for some flexibility and to work things out consistent with staff recommendations. Ms. Husak said this project started after June of last year and it picked up in more earnest in October 2006 when Planning, Engineering and the applicant met on a biweekly basis reviewing concepts for an entire redesign for this development. The applicant is well aware that there are concerns from the neighboring residents. She said as soon as they felt they were ready to have a plan that was pretty close to the plan that they are presenting tonight they did contact those neighbors and it happened to unfortunately be during the holiday season, so that made it more difficult to get together. She said the traffic is as Mr. Hale stated, there is a substantial traffic study that staff as well as Union County staff is reviewing. There are multiple jurisdictions in place here for traffic and utilities and it is challenging as to who is in charge of fixing what problems. She said the applicant is committed to make major traffic improvements around their immediate site as well as the larger area and there were several intersections they had to study. She said it is true that the Hyland -Croy Road area is going to be improved and it is somewhere in the area of a four -lane road going north to Jerome Village. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 12 of 23 Ms. Husak said the access point on Brock Road to the north is being discussed in the Planning Report and Condition 9 speaks to that. She said the condition requires that those access points at the veiy least have to be coordinated. That could mean that they line up, but it is the Township and the Union County Engineer who has to sign off on it as well. Mr. Gerber asked if it was necessary to tie this down at the rezoning/preliminary stage, or was it a "floating target" everybody knows where we need to get and it would be handled at the final stage. Ms. Husak said that was correct and Jennifer Readler agreed. Mr. Gerber recalled that there were water problems in Ballantrae, and asked if staff felt like they could find some solutions here. Ms. Husak said this application would not be before the Commission if Planning did not feel they were on top of it. Mr. Gerber recalled that when this was an M/I project, Mr. Hale made a representation before the Commission, and he was sure he would do so again tonight, that whatever it takes, they will satisfy each and every adjoining landowner in their concerns with respect to water. Mr. Hale replied that there were two water issues. He said with the stormwater concern, they understand what their obligations are and he thought the stormwater, because of farming practices, is being held up and they have sized their pipes preliminarily, they have completed the hydrology studies. He said they are going to pick up that water, clean it, and put it off the property. He said if the residents will allow them, pre -development to test their wells, if the wells degenerate, they will fix them. Mr. Gerber noted that there were conditions that spoke to those issues. He urged every interested resident to give their name, address, and phone number to Flora Rogers or Claudia Husak so that she could share them with the applicant. He said they work as a community when they all talk to one another. Mr. Gerber said he thought the biggest issue tonight was the need for residential/retail components as discussed at the Community Plan Joint Work Sessions. He said before this application can continue, the Commissioners needed to discuss amongst themselves how they feel about the retail/commercial component of this. He said he could not see walking through the architecture, other setbacks, etc. if they cannot have some sort of understanding with respect to that. Kevin Walter recalled that he had suggested moving the retail to the other corner. He said he had visited the site several times. He said he was glad to hear the applicant say that the site had topography. He said the three unique things about the site are topography, substantial landscape elements, and water features which are being preserved. He said he drove through the site to try to imagine what the retail component would look like on the corner. He said looking east, it was not a very attractive corner and there is nothing there that would be displaced. He posed the question could they integrate that into what is going on around it. Mr. Walter said when he saw the renderings, he. was not sure about uses, etc., but the concept of retail is supported on that corner, and they have said it during the Community Plan Work Sessions. He said he was further in support of having a retail component of some type in that area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 13 of 23 Mr. Gerber agreed that a lot of discussion with Council had been with respect to the retail component that as we build out the hospital, all the medical facilities around Perimeter Drive and existing and anticipated housing, etc. in that area, they want to keep people closer to home. Mr. Walter said he did not think this was an excessive amount of retail, but he questioned some of the uses which can be discussed later. Rayna Jones said generally speaking, she was in favor of the development. She said she was very comfortable, now that they have come a long way in their discussions as a group and with Council as to what the uses would be in this area. She said originally, she would have liked to keep this area much more of a rural area, but she saw with the development signs, as they have decided to put the Community Plan together and what is going on in the area and improvements in roadways, and she thought the consensus is that they have opened the door to new development in this area, and as part of that body, she could see that they were going in that direction. Ms. Jones said the design of the overall site is very positive. She said she liked Brian Jones' work and the tone and design. Ms. Jones said her number one concern was water, and that it sounded as though staff was on top of that. She said it had to be addressed very firmly. She said she was not a huge fan of a lot of retail here. Ms. Jones said she thought some may be necessary as this area begins to develop. She said she preferred it not near the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, because she wanted to preserve those vistas. Ms. Jones said she would love to see very restricted retail uses so that it does not become a fast-food drive-in type environment. She did not want anything that would infringe on the enjoyment of the park. She said she was against anything that would travel across the road and interfere with the park which was a priceless gem in our community. Ms. Jones said generally speaking, as far as rezoning and beginning this process, she was fine. Ted Saneholtz asked if the 200 -foot setbacks on McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads were met at the corner. Ms. Husak said the current plan shows the 200 -foot setbacks. She said however, there is a discussion about a new right-of-way acquisition on Hyland -Croy Road and there may be some small deviations (20 feet) where those issues will have to be resolved because the projected right-of-way for Hyland -Croy Road was 80 feet, and it is now 120 feet. Mr. Saneholtz asked what the Hyland -Croy Road area would potentially look like. He said a meandered four -lane road was previously discussed. He said he understood it was a preliminary discussion. Ms. Husak said she believed that an Emerald Parkway design was also one that had come up many times when the discussion was about what Hyland -Croy Road could look like. She said Emerald Parkway is a good example of a Dublinized road. Mr. Saneholtz said when he looked at Hyland -Croy now, it was hard for him to accept retail on the corner, but if he thought about what the future holds potentially for that area and intersection, he has a lot less resistance to retail on that corner. He said he was not sure that he accepted all the details of the present plan, but he was not nearly as adamantly against some form of retail/commercial on the comer as he once was, having had the opportunity to envision what Hyland -Croy might evolve into in the future. Ms. Husak agreed that increased development in this area will change it dramatically. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 14 of 23 Todd Zimmerman said he approved of the retail issue on that base. He said it was in the right location from a future traffic standpoint and that it was in a good service location from the east. He said it will draw more people there and keep people from using Avery Road and Perimeter Road. Mr. Saneholtz said his over-riding concern about putting retail here is its long-term viability as a functioning successful retail corner in light of the extensive (700,000 square feet of commercial and retail) just two miles north. He said Oak Park has recently been approved and there will be an interchange at McKitrick Road and US 33. He said his real concern for the community as a whole is that the center becomes not viable and not vibrant and that in 15 years, they regret it after things have developed around it over time. He said that was his major reservation. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that the Shoppes at Athenry center on Avery Road was vibrant and used. He predicted that someday this will look and be like that. Mr. Gerber said he sensed they had enough support for another one of these concepts, but they seemed to latch onto things in Dublin. He said they get a good idea and all of a sudden; every project has to be the same with the same brick color, etc. He said they needed to get more creative down the road. He said if they are to support retail here he did not think there should be more. He said they had to make sure that the retail here works. Mr. Gerber said retail in some neighborhoods has not worked. He thought it had been a failure of design and that it had also been a failure of the landlord to attract suitable retailers with suitable uses. Mr. Gerber said he thought it was beholding on all of the Commissioners to help in that process to make these people successful and to make these vibrant centers. He said the concept only works if the locals utilize the center. Mr. Saneholtz said that brought up a concept for consideration. He asked Mr. Jones if there was a way to make the 19,400 -square -foot structure and all the structures that are anticipated to be retail, more adaptive to other uses, if in the future office use might be the actual dominant need in this little pod because of the tremendous retail to the north. He asked if there was any way to look at the architecture and the design in such a way to make it not look like they took retail and put offices in it, but something that can function both ways. Mr. Jones said he thought you cannot separate the fact that this really is about place making and they do have the Stavroff Company that has been in the community for a long time and have had that vision. He said when looking at the long-term viability in this place making, it really has much to do with the viability of these buildings becoming something else over a period of time. He said the commitment to quality material and to the architectural design is going to provide for that vitality. He stressed that this is a delicately -scaled project, and if they compared other things that seemed to be like it, and put them side-by-side, it is diminutive in its scale and character. He said the setbacks have increased and it will have a great feel in relationship to the park across the street and will provide that kind of place that is going to be very viable in the next 20-30 years as a special place. Mr. Jones said its scale will dominate its success over what is occurring to the north. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Gerber said they had to make sure that the retail was integrated. He said it is on Dublin's northern border and gateway features, etc. are wanted. He said with the retail, this seemed like where City Council wants to go and where the Joint Work Sessions have gone. He said if it could be done within the parameters that it has to fit, it sounded like all the Commissioners were supportive. He said it was now time for them to do what they normally do at rezonings/preliminary plans and review the text. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was any economic barrier to it being somehow evolving into office. He said he assumed that retail would command a higher square footage rental than office space and that was part of his concern about the viability of retail here if. in fact it becomes expensive and we have very near by, inexpensive retail space. He said that was part of the challenge of this particular site. Mr. Gerber said he heard the applicant say if there was a conversion to occur, that they could sustain that from economics and from an architectural aesthetic standpoint it fits as well. He said if it was the pleasure of the Commission that retail can work there and it is consistent with what they have been doing, then he recommended that they stay on retail and address the condition on parking, and then review the text, and then cover architecture, setbacks, etc. He asked Ms. Husak what Planning's thinking was in regards to parking. Ms. Husak said Planning has reviewed this site plan and particularly how it functions with the remainder of the development. She said the text states the intention of this is to be a neighborhood commercial area. She said Planning is concerned that some design features are more suburban where parking is in front of buildings, signalizing where you can park rather than encouraging walking around in front of the buildings, drawing on the fact that there is a lot of people living in the vicinity that could conceivably walk and use those uses. Ms. Husak said therefore, the idea that Planning has in this area is to have it function more as a street with parallel parking and on -street parking. She said now, it is shown as pull -in parking in front of those buildings. Mr. Gerber asked if Ms. Husak felt there was ample parking for that. Ms. Husak said that was one of the good things about a neighborhood commercial center or mixed-use development where uses have offsetting hours and there are people there that could walk. Mr. Gerber said that they wanted to encourage neighbors to walk. Mr. Saneholtz said the proposed parking was approximately one space for every 240 square feet. He asked if Code was every 150 square feet. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale objected to Planning's suggestion for parking. Ms. Wanner said one of the key issues with this retail is the viability. She said the parking numbers included in the text are key. She said they need to create enough parking for this retail center. She said they understand that Planning staff is trying to minimize the parking, however this is not a good option to keep the center viable. Ms. Wanner said they had addressed the parallel parking next to the buildings where it is most important to be able to create that people space. Mr. Walter said conservation design has only been mentioned briefly tonight. He said in the Community Plan, they said not only that there would be retail in this space, but this entire Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 16 of 23 property would be in a conservation design zone. He said he struggled with coming up the hill and seeing cars parked into a small parking space. He said it was an important vista because it was the crest as you come up the hill. Mr. Walter said he was not supporting making it look like a car dealership. Mr. Gerber confirmed that Ms. Husak had looked at this plan and that there was ample parking and that it will work. Ms. Husak agreed. Steve Langworthy said Planning was trying to have this development live up to what it says it is, a neighborhood center and not a suburban shopping center. He said the view aspect of that was important in that it helps establish the character of that center right from the road. He said he thought Mr. Walter's point about that was crucial, which was that that dominant view be of building, rather than automobiles as might be seen in a traditional suburban shopping center. Mr. Langworthy said if the parking ratio is not adequate for their needs; it may be that they need to shift the design around to get more parking in another area of the site that is not as visible from the road. He suggested it could be further interior to the site or some of the interior spaces or buildings could be moved around to accommodate those other parking pods. He said if parking numbers are a concern, he thought there was a way that can be addressed. Mr. Walter said on the west side there are very heavily wooded areas, and on Hyland -Croy Road to the south, there is the appearance of a grape vineyard, and something comparable is needed that fits with the area. He said retail could be done if it is done correctly. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not see frontage landscaping such as walls and hedges other than internal addressed in the text. He asked about the periphery and along the road with laid stone walls to Dublinize this whole neighborhood. Mr. Langworthy said those were details that they could deal with, but one of the disadvantages of this area is when water is put up front, water does not block views very well. There is not a lot of room to make dense landscaping to make it function like they would like. He said in order to make that neighborhood feel again, they have to minimize the vehicles. Mr. Walter said that Planning said it parked fine and the applicant said they wanted more parking. Mr. Hale said they thought Planning was saying that maybe they should reduce the parking on the site. He said they thought that one parked car per 240 square feet is adequate, but less than that is not adequate. Mr. Hale said the only issue was the arrangement of the parking. He said they thought there should be parallel parking and maybe some angled parking to get more out front. He said they thought there were walls and fences in front. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with comments made with respect that this needs to fit in and that the City does not want another strip center. He said he understood from Ms. Husak that they can do other things and provide the needed parking. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber clarified that Condition 10 stated they should work together and the Commission will see it at the final. He said they also could from there get into hedges, walls, etc. Ms. Wanner said the parking scenario presented tonight is identical to what they had done at Oak Park that was approved about a month ago. She said they have 200 feet of the setback, which is ample room to provide mounding and landscaping. She said part of their theming was stone walls. Ms. Wanner said they wanted to put some of that theming along Hyland -Croy Road with Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 17 of 23 trees, shrubs and stone walls which will more than screen those cars. Ms. Wanner said however, it is the cars in front of the retail center that is the viability issue for them. She said being able to screen them is wonderful, but it is having that critical mass of cars in front of the store that is critical to them for the viability of the center. Mr. Langworthy asked whether there were entry doors only on the Hyland -Croy Road side and there is no pedestrian access to the other side. Ms. Wanner said there was pedestrian access on both sides. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that access to the building was not being cut off with parking. Mr. Walter said he was hearing the applicant say that if they do not have parking in the way it is configured, the center is not viable therefore; they do not want to move forward. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Wanner said they believed it was configured appropriately. Mr. Gerber asked if the applicant was saying that the recommendation of staff to the Commission as contained in Condition 10 is unworkable. Mr. Hale and Ms. Wanner said no, it was not unworkable. Mr. Hale said his belief was that Planning thought they had head -in parking on two sides of the street. He said their drawing shows parallel parking on one side and either angled or head -in parking on the other side. He said they were happy to work out the details out with staff before they come back with the final development plan. Mr. Hale said they were convinced that there needs to be parking in front of the buildings along the street. He said the buildings were two- sided and there was signage on both sides. He said that ninety percent of the parking is in the center. Mr. Gerber read aloud Condition 10: That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval. He said he interpreted that as it was the goal of staff and he heard loudly of the Commission that we want this to be integrated into the community and they do not want it to look like a strip center. He said he also heard from Mr. Hale that they could work with that as long as they had certain requirements. Mr. Gerber suggested that they go work on it and let them move forward. Mr. Hale said he agreed to Condition 10. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Hale what uses he envisioned. Mr. Hale said they had similar discussions at City Council. He said there were two things they could do like the SR 161/Shamrock project, they could come up with an alternate list that is half this long. He said another thing they could do is say those uses are allowed in a CC, Community Commercial District, except for... Mr. Gerber said this was a planned district, and so they were not talking about Code issues. Ms. Jones said there were many uses listed that she would not consider neighborhood retail services like antique stores and secondary stores. Mr. Gerber said he was most concerned with this because he was sure the houses would be built before the retail and commercial. He said every potential home buyer will have to be told what is coming so that they will have a full awareness. He said someday, a gas station will be warranted in this area, but wondered if it could be deemed a conditional use. Ms. Readler said the gasoline station could be moved to a conditional use section and this list of uses. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 18 of 23 Ms. Jones objected to the conditional use: Drive-thru services in association with any permitted use in Subarea F. She said the only type of drive-thru service she could imagine might be a pharmacy drive-thru to service the neighborhood. She asked if they were going to leave it open ended or try to limit the type of drive-thru. Mr. Gerber said this needed to be balanced because it is not known what is going to go in now or in 15 years. He said he wanted to guard against drive-thru traffic inside because it would not be pedestrian -friendly any more. Mr. Zimmerman read from the top of Page 47, concerning parking and loading and the reduced number of stacking spaces proposed in the text. He said he would like to have something said on stacking, but still give staff an opportunity to review in the future. Mr. Gerber asked how that could be worded as a condition. Mr. Hale suggested the condition: That the stacking will be determined at the time of the final development plan. He suggested making the gas station a conditional use. Ms. Jones asked if they wanted to narrow the list of permitted uses, or leave them as broad as possible to cover the future. Mr. Saneholtz said there were permitted uses listed that he would very strongly object to, for instance, repair shops and related services. Mr. Walter said he had a problem with any of the classifications that had the word "miscellaneous" included. He said if they were going to be this specific, they cannot be this specific and broad at the same time. Mr. Gerber said he thought all drive-thrus had to be deemed conditional uses. Mr. Walter agreed, but said the question was how many drive -thins were allowed and are there any that the Commission is going to disapprove. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Hale suggested that they say the permitted uses for drive-thrus exclude restaurants. Mr. Saneholtz suggested excluding food service. Mr. Hale said they hope to have a drug store, and possibly a dry cleaner or bank. He agreed they would not do drive-thru restaurants. He agreed that all drive-thrus will be conditional uses, the gas station will be a conditional use, and they will make sure the repair listed does not include auto repair. Mr. Zimmerman asked if they wanted to go through the list use by use. Mr. Gerber asked if there was another way to do it. Ms. Readler said no, unless it was tabled and changed, then brought back to the Commission. Mr. Hale asked if they could agree that the final list will be approved at the time of the final development plan. Ms. Readler said that the problem with that is only the Commission will have the final say on the list of retail uses since Council does not see a final development plan. Mr. Langworthy said there are three types of uses, the ones that fit into a neighborhood context, ones that fit in a neighborhood context with a conditional use approval, and those that do not fit. Ms. Jones said there were some that were more regional in nature and not neighborhood in nature. Mr. Langworthy suggested the case be tabled to the next meeting and that a revised list be brought back for review. Mr. Gerber said that was a good idea. Ms. Jones said this was a big change for our community, and although she thought they were all moving in a positive direction, she thought it would be nice to pin this down so that we are really cautious about what uses we do allow in neighborhood retail for a center of this nature. Mr. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 19 of 23 Saneholtz agreed. Mr. Gerber said when he made the motion, he would add that as a bases for tabling. Mr. Walter asked if the buildings would have second floors, and if so, what would the use be and what was the square footage. Mr. Hale said the square footage given was for the ground floor. He said they included in the text that they could provided office or residential use on the second floors and they do not have to increase the parking ratio. Mr. Zimmerman referred to page 46 of the text under Density: Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout the subarea. He asked if there was an certain maximum amount of square footage allowed for patio. Ms. Husak said it was not calculated like that. She said it was part of the conditional use review. Mr. Zimmerman asked where on the site patio is generally contemplated. Ms. Husak said currently, to the north of the entry a restaurant is indicated with a patio surrounding it on two sides that would face the pond. She said there is also potential for patio space around the major tenant buildings, but it is preliminary at this point. Mr. Saneholtz asked that Item H-1 — Setback Requirements on page 47 of the text be addressed. Ms. Husak said that was the area of the text where there was a typographical error. She said it was supposed to read: The pavement setback shall be 110 feet, and the minimum building setback 180 feet from the proposed future right-of-way. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it was the same for McKitrick Road #2. Ms. Husak said it was. Mr. Hale said changes had been made in the drawings and they did not get added to the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Item J — Lighting: All lighting shall be in conformance with Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines except as provided for in this text and asked it be explained. Ms. Husak said Condition 5 addressed it. Mr. Walter asked to clarify the lighting condition, and if the reworked Kroger Center on Bridge Street had exposed gooseneck lighting. He asked if that would be precluded in this where it stated that all building illumination shall come from concealed sources. He asked about sign lighting. Ms. Husak said Planning had noticed the Kroger Center as well and is investigating that issue further. She said it is envisioned to be like the Giant Eagle center and the Shppes at Avery, where the Burgundy Room restaurant is located. Mr. Saneholtz said he could not find Exhibit A-8 in Item K — Architecture. Ms. Husak said that Condition 6 should also state "...discrepancy between text and plans in general." Mr. Gerber asked that it be added. Mr. Gerber said that in the final development plan stage, it will be in a larger format because the Commission will have to review a landscape package, etc. He asked if the sign package will be reviewed at the final stage as well. Ms. Readler said yes, except to the extent that it is addressed anywhere in text. Ms. Jones said signs were addressed on Page 45 of the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to L-3, Page 49 and asked staff if the proposed signage was appropriate. Ms. Husak said Condition 7 addressed that portion of the text. Mr. Walter confirmed that two shopping center monument signs were contemplated; one on each of the roadways for this retail center. Mr. Hale said except for the Code. Ms. Husak said yes. Mr. Saneholtz referred to C on Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 20 of 23 Page 49 and E that mentioned the color of the sign text. He said there was no mention of the color of the signs themselves. Ms. Husak said there were three colors contemplated, but a decision on what the colors will be made at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz asked if staff was happy with the phasing of the project. Ms. Husak indicated that they were. Mr. Saneholtz said that Subarea F could be an open field for years. Ms. Husak said Planning has requested that the applicant contemplate phasing for Subarea F, particularly, and due to the multiple conditions, that is the language proposed. Mr. Saneholtz understood that if nothing was done in Subarea E, then literally Subarea F could sit blank forever or until something was done in Subarea E. Mr. Hale said they had never thought that they do not have the right to build the commercial at the same time. He said he did not think they had to wait sequentially to get to the commercial because they believe they are going to do that relatively quickly. Mr. Saneholtz said he was just interested that all of the Commissioners understood that the corner could, under these terms, sit vacant for 15 years. Mr. Gerber said that was the same as with every project that the Commission sees. Mr. Saneholtz said there had been other projects that sat partially finished and they do not have any leverage to cause completion of it. However, he believed that this text said they were going to be required to build some commercial. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said the intent behind this was to create an edge with either the building at the northeast corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, or at the east/west entry on Hyland -Croy Road. He said they addressed what structures in the first phase must be under construction within 24 month. He said there are no further restrictions placed on when the remainder has to go in. Mr. Saneholtz said he just wanted to clarify that his understanding was correct. Mr. Gerber said he liked the stepping up the level of the architecture. He recalled that at Tartan West there was an internal architectural review board which did a good job, and the same thing is being contemplated here. He said that was a great idea. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not think it applied to the commercial area. Mr. Hale said it did. Mr. Gunderman added that the commercial area will come to the Commission in the final development plan, whereas the single-family homes will just go through an administrative review process. Mr. Saneholtz asked about Exhibit 13 on Page E-9 which calculated the open space. He asked how the required setback space was credited to the development. He said he had heard multiple explanations where some got none, some got half credit, and others got 100 percent credit and asked why. Ms. Husak said that Code requires each subdivision to set aside certain acreage of open space. She said it was approximately 11 for this site. She said it was a formula in the Code based on the size of the site as well as the number of housing units. She said setbacks get credited 50 percent if amenities to the public are included in those open spaces and whether or not a development gets credited for open space, really just becomes an issue if they are short on what they are required to have. , Mr. Walter asked with respect to the bikepath and that general area, what was staffs position on connecting that to the Metro Park. He said at that intersection, it appeared that it was being driven up to the north, to the main entrance. Ms. Husak said it would definitely require some coordination with the Metro Park, similar to what was done with the Oak Park development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 21 of 23 Mr. Walter said it was disconcerting to him that at Jerome High School, there is the same kind of corner situation preventing easy pedestrian access as now exists at the Metro Park. He said it was an unsafe pedestrian/car interaction. He said he would like to see if they could work that better when it gets to final, plus sitting that as a connection to Tartan West that does not seem to be completed. Mr. Saneholtz said the connectivity of this development to the park itself is huge, especially if there is a four -lane boulevard in front. Mr. Walter said the water feature on Hyland -Croy Road seemed to have a hard edge on it and he wondered if they were going to try to naturalize it so that it is in keeping with some of the other naturally existing ponds. Mr. Hale said the side that Mr. Walter was referring to would be naturalized. Mr. Gerber asked if the garden lots and alleyways really sold. He asked what they would look like in 15 years. Mr. Hale said if done right, they will be fine. He said there is a limited number of them and they feel there will be a demand for them. Mr. Gerber asked if they did not work, what would Plan B be. Mr. Hale said he guessed they would come back and request to put in 80 - foot lots instead. Ms. Husak asked everyone to recall what was seen in Westhaven where a majority of the lots were alley access lots with garages in the rear and it worked. Mr. Langworthy said he had visited the Kentlands and asked the same question about the marketability of this type of lots. He said the comment made was similar to what Mr. Hale said. He said they said there is a certain market that would not buy that, but there is a certain market that will, and the key is to balance the number so that there is enough to address that market, but not too many that some will stay vacant. Mr. Saneholtz said that he liked the concept of having some alley loaded garages. He said at Westhaven, it gave those sections the pedestrian feel which is definitely different than our typical pattern. He said he appreciated the flexibility and the attempts the developer has taken upon themselves to give us the opportunity to do it. Mr. Gerber said this was a great project and thought that they had moved the biggest mountains tonight. He said he would like to table this in order to get with staff on commercial uses. Mr. Hale asked if the case could be tabled to the February 1 meeting and waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Gerber asked if that would give Planning enough time. Mr. Gunderman said it would be enough time if the only issue to deal with was the commercial uses. Mr. Gerber said it was, with a fine combining of some of the other comments the Commissioners have made. Mr. Gunderman noted that if there is no need for new drawings and only a new list of uses, they could waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Walter asked if that at the next meeting, they would have the opportunity to go into detail on some of the other subareas. Mr. Gerber suggested that the issues with other subareas be discussed tonight. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 22 of 23 Mr. Walter said the topology of the site has a ridge, and he asked how much earth will be moved specifically in Subareas 7 and 2. He said he did not want those areas flattened. Aaron Stanford said if the question pointed toward the level of grading or elevation changes, what they provided did not indicate at this point of time what will be seen as a change in elevation. He said that would be worked out through the final development plan. Mr. Walter said he asked because the grading at the Riverside Drive retail center looked significantly different than what was contemplated. He wanted to make sure that is covered at some point. Mr. Gunderman said there had been questions about that grading and the plans really are consistent. Mr. Walter said he was concerned about the change of hills in Phase 7, Subarea D-2. Ms. Wanner said there will be some grading. She said they will try to keep the natural features like the tree rows and minimize the grading around the trees. Mr. Walter asked where staff was considering the stub street on the northern entrance to be. Ms. Husak said that was also a final development plan issues. She said they wanted to build in, connectivity to future possibilities for development. She said it would have, to be located sensitively to existing vegetation. Mr. Walter .said he liked all the features discussed in the southern area, but the north gets very linear there. He said if there was away to make it less linear he would like it. He said there will probably be two very different characteristics in the neighborhood depending upon which area you live. Mr. Gerber asked that the issue be kept in mind for the final development plan stage. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Page 22 where it stated that shutters were to be operable or appear as such. He asked if "appear as such" meant that they cannot be fastened directly to the building as might be seen in lesser quality. Ms. Husak said the shutters would appear workable and be sized to cover the window. Mr. Saneholtz said he found the wording interesting under I -BB on Page 22 of the text just above the blue shutter graphic. Mr. Jones said "or appears as operable" generally means that there is shutter hardware that is associated. He said it was not just a shutter tacked to the wall. Mr. Hale said they were happy to do whatever the Commission wanted. He asked if they wanted to spend five minutes going over the uses, or bring them back at the next meeting. Mr. Saneholtz said there was no need to rush through the uses, and he would like the professional planning staff time to review them. Mr. Gerber said he understood the list of uses was short. He said other comments had been made tonight. He said the purpose of waiving the 15 -Day Rule was to get it back here. However, he said there is a risk because two Commissioners were not present tonight. He said procedurally, he was not sure how to proceed. Mr. Hale suggested it could be approved, subject to bringing back the list to the next meeting, and the discussion is the list. Mr. Gerber suggested holding off. He said five Commissioners had pretty much signed on to this and are very much committed to recommending approval to City Council. He said it had been tried before and sometimes people get confused about what is going on. He said he preferred that they come back on February 0 and wrap it up. Mr. Gerber said he was not looking for a three-hour meeting on the topic. He said he thought they could go Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 23 of 23 through the points that have been raised. He said staff was keenly aware of what those points are and can work with the applicant to get those to the Commission. Mr. Gunderman said basically, the same conditions were expected in the next discussion with the only thing changing between what is before them now would be a list of uses for the commercial area. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Gunderman. Mr. Gunderman said the recommendations for uses will be sent in the Commission packet. Mr. Walter said the Commissioners will see revised conditions, because Mr. Gunderman said the same conditions will get tweaked. Ms. Husak said as an example, Condition 7 was a good candidate to be taken care of then. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Page 39, Subarea D-1, #3, Garden Lots, down to H. He said on the other Subarea D-2 it mentioned: Such fences shall not be made of vinyl and it was absent in H and assumed it was a typographical error he would like correct. Mr. Langworthy said they would like to take the mention out because it was already forbidden by Code. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Subarea E, Page 43, at the bottom: Off Street Parking — All townhouse units.shall be required to have a minimum of two off street parking spaces. He asked if the garage was considered as off street, not a driveway behind the garage. Mr. Hale said garages were considered as off street parking, not the driveway behind the garage. MOTION AND VOTE: Mr. Gerber moved to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text, and to further clarify the conditions contained in the staff report, consistent to the discussion at this meeting. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and Mr. Hale agreed to the tabling. Mr. Gerber said he thought this was a great project and that the big issues were covered. He said they are just about there and he thought he could speak for everyone on the Commission that there was ample support for this and they looked forward to seeing this on February I'`. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 5-0.) Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Flora Roger and Libby F ley Administrative Assistants Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 17 of 32 [Motion passed 4-2] [5 -minute recesslL Ms. Newell stated that Cases 4 and 5 would be heard together. 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-094, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-085 Preliminary Plat Ms. Newell stated that Case 4 is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning with preliminary development plan of approximately 24 acres for the future construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. The site is within the Tartan Ridge Planned Unit Development District, northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Case 5 is for the same site and the request is for a recommendation of approval to City Council for preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The Commission will hear the cases together. Staff Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that the site is currently zoned PUD, Tartan Ridge, and contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E and F, which permit a mix of uses including townhomes and commercial uses. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road and is currently undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site and a solitary tree stand in the southwest portion of the site. The proposed plan for approximately 24 acres includes 56 lots with an average density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre and eight acres of open space. Lot sizes are proposed in two different sizes. There are 34 patio lots that are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 22 courtyard lots are located on the perimeter of the site and are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to 10,800 square feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway. Sideyard setbacks are a consistent six feet minimum across the site. Rear yard setbacks are 25 feet throughout site. Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. Front -loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. The rear yard setback for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet. The development text also requires that a minimum of 22 lots in the development have court - oriented garages. On the southeast corner of the site is Lot 1. Due to the separation/isolation and odd lot shape, staff is recommending that the applicant remove Lot 1 from the plan. The applicant has put an emphasis on walkability throughout the site with sidewalks along all frontages, as well as connection and expansion to the shared -use paths along McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads. An existing connection to the school site to the north is to remain. There is significant landscaping around the perimeter of the site. The applicant is proposing mounding at a height of 3 - 5 feet with trees on top and behind in a naturalized manner. The proposed pond amenity will be a part Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 18 of 32 of the existing stormwater management pond in the northwest portion of the site. The amenity will include a patio space and shelter structure with seating. The development text requires that a hedgerow be planted and run parallel to the front property line as seen elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. It also requires gates and gatepost if a sidewalk is to connect from the front door to the public sidewalk. Brick, stone, or wood posts are permitted materials for the gateposts. Per the development text, driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers, which is a character element unique to this subarea. Outdoor spaces can be constructed within the footprint of the home. Open spaces such as at -grade patios will also be permitted to encroach 10 feet into the rear yard setback, providing increased outdoor amenity space, if desired by the homeowner. Per the development text, the HOA will be responsible for maintaining all open spaces as well as the hedgerow in front of the homes. An important architectural element will be carried over from Tartan Ridge into this subarea, which is the consistent use of cladding materials across all fagades. The City -owned pond will be re -designed slightly. Staff is recommending the subarea map include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned with this proposal. It is also requested that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure the street names and naming method is appropriate and that the applicant revise the plat to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. The rezoning and preliminary development plan have been reviewed against all applicable criteria, and staff recommends approval with three conditions. The plat has also been reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commission Questions Ms. Call inquired what is the reason for recommending deletion of Lot 1. Mr. Ridge responded that Lot 1 is separated from the rest of the community by a sewer easement The lot is irregularly shaped, larger than the other lots and isolated. Ms. Call inquired if the easement is a no -build zone. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman stated that he would assume that the area where the pond is located would be unbuildable, so it would become part of the common area. Mr. Ridge confirmed that would be the case. Ms. Fox stated that there is a lovely area on the northwest side with the pond area. The City has many retention ponds. There is opportunity to utilize them as an amenity for developments, and this is a good-sized development. If Lot 1 is eliminated, has staff suggested that a nicer amenity be created at this end of the development, as well? Mr. Ridge responded that staff has not made that request. Ms. Fox inquired how stubbing off the one street, currently unnamed, would impact ability for emergency vehicles and trucks to turn around. Mr. Ridge responded that the proposed name of the street is Jasmine Glen Drive. Ms. Kennedy inquired between which lot numbers the proposed street would be located. Ms. Fox responded that the street lies between Lot 32 and 30. She is curious about why that street has been stubbed. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 19 of 32 Mr. Ridge responded that some neighbors across the street were concerned about the glare of vehicle headlights into their homes and the closeness of that intersection to the one at Baronet Boulevard. Ms. Fox inquired if all were public streets. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively Ms. Fox requested confirmation that truck turnaround would not be an issue there. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Ms. Newell inquired how a fire vehicle would turn around, if the street terminates there. Staff responded that it would be necessary for the vehicle to back up. Ms. Newell stated that there is no ability for a fire vehicle to turn around. Once the roundabout is constructed, is there a distance requirement between that and another lane that would stop and turn? Staff responded that there is no such requirement. Ms. Fox asked about the City policy on adding a left turn lane. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it has been the City's practice for many years that with any new access point into a subdivision, a left turn lane be required to preserve the through movements on the roadway and provide safe access/egress from the development. Ms. Fox inquired if construction of that turn lane is the responsibility of the developer when constructing the development. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. It is built as a public improvement consistent with the City's standards, which the City then inspects and accepts. Ms. Fox inquired if there have been any exceptions to that practice. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there has been none during his tenure with the City. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the left turn is near Lot 1. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively; it is the McKitrick Road access point, the eastbound left -turn lane. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land and Development, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin, representative for Tartan Ridge LLC, stated that with him tonight are Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design, Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes and Steve Shell, EMH&T Engineering. Previously, they presented the Concept Plan for this development to the Commission. Stavroff has been involved with this project since its inception. They made the initial land purchase for what is now Tartan Ridge. In 2007, they believed there would be a commercial element in this development. In 2019, retail is not an option, and the majority of the residents have indicated they are not supportive of retail within the development. They would prefer to have the subdivision completed now rather than wait five to fifteen years for potential retail to occur. The current market overwhelmingly indicates that a detached, empty -nester product within a community such as this is desired. Dublin residents wanting to downsize will be able to remain within Dublin, be part of the Tartan Ridge community and have a maintenance -free lifestyle. He believes Tartan Ridge is one the best developments he has ever been involved with, and these high-end homes, built by Romanelli & Hughes, will continue that quality. The Commission's concerns shared at the Concept Plan review were noted and have been addressed; Mr. Smith will elaborate on those. As required by City Engineering, a left -turn lane into McKitrick Road will be constructed. However, there is an established New Community Authority, which must pay for the turn lane. Although the developer would build the turn lane and receive a 5% return on his investment, the residents of Tartan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 20 of 32 Ridge pay into that Community Autlhority. The residents paid for the other existing three intersections. No one is opposed to the turn lane, but the residents do not want to pay for it. However, the turn lane is not part of the rezoning matter before the Commission at this time. It could be a later matter for staff's or Council's consideration. Mr. Hammersmith stated that when he responded to the Commission's earlier question regarding the left -turn lane into this development, he responded in general terms. This turn lane and the other turn lanes constructed earlier with this development were part of an infrastructure agreement approved by City Council in 2008, and only a City Council action could modify that agreement. Gary Smith, G2 Planning and Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Columbus, stated that since July, they have been working on the architectural elements of the development, tweaking the plan and making significant changes to the development text. The Romanelli & Hughes product has been modified to meet the needs of this development. This is a 24 -acre portion of the existing Tartan Ridge development and this portion is in the southwest, below Glacier Ridge Elementary School. What is currently approved for that area are five single-family homes, 24 townhomes, and 68,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, potentially including gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants and associated uses. The developer has been working on the retail piece of the development for the past 12 years, but no viable option was identified. Because there was a strong desire to have the community completed, they looked for other options. Some form of lower -density residential was determined to be the best use. The City is fortunate to have an abundance of single-family product, and has been trying to broaden the spectrum of lifestyle options for its residents, such as the Bridge Park product. What is proposed is a continuation of that effort to address another lifestyle need. There is a niche of Dublin homeowners who no longer need a large, single-family home. However, they value their network of friends in Dublin and prefer not to move away. They continue to want a high-end home, but with limited maintenance requirements. They may prefer to travel a good portion of the year without the demands of caring for a home here. The proposed development will attract those types of buyers. They are requesting approval of 56 high quality, empty -nester patio homes. Because 29 single- family homes are already approved here, essentially, they are requesting to exchange another 27 patio homes for the 68,000 square feet of retail previously planned. The site is long, linear and encumbered by heavy setbacks along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. There is an existing pond in the northwest corner of the site, which will be used for stormwater retention. The site dictates the layout of the development. Early in the process, neighbors across the street on Brenham Way indicated that they were not excited about having lots fronting the street across from their homes and asked them to consider turning the layout to avoid that situation. Therefore, the long, linear site, pond and need to avoid having homes fronting the road across from Brenham Way have dictated the layout. In July, the Commission discussed the gridded layout of the development. While it may appear so in a Google view, he has often viewed similar developments and found that a ground -level experience of the site feels different. Upon entering the community, a spectacular model home will be seen. There was some discussion about eliminating Lot 1, but for them, Lot 1 is extremely important. The home on that lot will be the nicest home in the development and will be a critical sales tool. Although the home will be a little further apart due to the easement, many other elements will tie the home to the development, such as the landscaping, hedge treatment and the columns. Upon driving further into the community, the site will look much as it does today. On the right side will be the existing park and the homes on Brenham Way; on the left side will be a linear greenspace. Mounding and landscaping will be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 21 of 32 incorporated into that space. The same Tartan Ridge hedge will follow all the sidewalks. In a number of locations, benches will be provided, giving residents the opportunity to sit. There will be no long streets or blocks in this community. Although there is a grid pattern, due to the very short grids, drives and turns, the focus will be on the architecture. On 17 homes, additional architecture treatment on the sides will be required due to those sides being more exposed to the view. The lots along the perimeter have been widened and changed to courtyard lots, and a variance in setbacks will provide architecture that peaks in and out of the view, creating more interest. The courtyards will provide intimate spaces framed by the architecture. This will be complemented by other elements that are part of the Tartan Ridge experience, including an architectural style consistent with the existing development; hedge treatment along all the roads; and masonry columns adjacent to each driveway. With 56 driveways, there will be 112 masonry columns, costing a total of $250,000. There will be a significant investment on the landscape treatment on the street frontages. Every home will have a brick driveway and matching brick private sidewalks, which is an element not required for the existing Tartan Ridge development. The pond amenity will now be more central to the units than in the earlier plan. With a fireplace and covered seating area, it will be a place for the residents to enjoy. Along the perimeter will be a lush landscape buffer and extensive mounding along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. Not only will it buffer the rear of the homes, it also will make the drive along those roads feel pastoral. This development will replace a proposed use that would not be viable and is unpopular with many of the Tartan Ridge residents with a use that is in high demand and will serve the needs of the aging portion of Dublin's population. In addition, this development will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of traffic anticipated for the area. Patio homes typically generate less trips per day than other residential development, and its traffic will not be at peak times. These high-value homes will have high property taxes but make little impact on the schools. Due to its many attributes, this is probably the best housing development possible for this area. Ms. Fox stated that it appears they have discussed the proposed housing development with the neighbors and attempted to address any concerns. Mr. McCauley responded that there are two different HOAs. They have met with some of those board members to receive their input, and a survey was sent out to residents earlier to obtain feedback. Ms. Call inquired how the variances in home alignments would impact the front setbacks of the homes, including the garages and the sidewalks. Mr. Smith responded that the garage doors do not face the sidewalk. The minimum setback for the garages is 15 feet from the right-of-way where the sidewalk is located; the maximum distance is 25 feet. The varied depth in homes will create interest on the street. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the existing pedestrian trails to Glacier Ridge Elementary Schools would also connect to this community. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman inquired if the smaller pond would remain wet year round. Mr. McCauley responded that it would be a dry basin. Although it will provide a potential overflow area, it would rarely have water. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 22 of 32 Steve Shell, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH, stated that they were taking advantage of an open area for potential overflow storage, to provide flexibility for the City pond to the west. The proposed basin may not remain. Mr. Fishman stated that for aesthetic reasons, the City typically prefers a wet pond, which can fulfill the same purpose. Mr. Smith stated that because it is a tight area, there is a concern about having a wet pond there, which would be connected to the larger pond on the west side. They would work with City Engineering on that function. Mr. Shell stated that this would be a "bubble up" system. In higher storm events, upper storage basins are used. They would only be wet with a 50 -year event or above, so water would rarely be seen in that area. Mr. Smith stated that stormwater that would typically flow under the surface could bubble up out of it here during a greater event storm. They would consider the potential opportunity for making it a wet basin as well as landscaping opportunities, should it remain dry. Mr. McCauley stated that it would be very difficult to make this a wet pond. It would be necessary to make the pond even larger to do so. Ms. Newell stated that if the house on Lot 1 were eliminated, which is staffs recommendation, more area would be available. Mr. McCauley stated that the wet pond would be unnecessary, as there would seldom be a storm event to make it wet. Because it is a high spot, it would be difficult to make it wet all the time for aesthetic purposes only. Ms. Husak stated that the City discourages wet ponds within proximity to a road; a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way is typically required. Mr. Fishman noted that the dry basins he has seen around the City usually are full of weeds and overgrowth. There would need to be a commitment from the developer that a dry basin would be well landscaped and maintained. Mr. Smith responded that they are able to make that commitment. This will be a well maintained community. The residents will have a high level of expectations. They will work with staff to ensure what is planted will be maintained and look attractive. Ms. Kennedy inquired about the price point of these homes. Mr. Smith responded that the home prices would be approximately $600,000-$650,000. Mr. Fishman stated that he likes the development, except for Lot 1. He believes eliminating that lot would improve the greenspace view from the street. Mr. Smith responded that while he understands his point, having a model home located on that lot is a critical marketing piece for them. It also would provide a terminus for the architecture of the greater development, rather than having it bleed out to nowhere. This home will be a centerpiece, a showpiece for the community. Mr. Fishman stated that the neighbors would prefer to see open space. Many subdivisions do not have that, but Tartan Fields does. Its open space is a "Wow"factor. He would concur with staff's recommendation to eliminate that lot. Ms. Call stated that every parcel presents its own unique features. The setbacks along McKitrick Road here are very nice, and the open space being provided with this development already Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 23 of 32 exceeds the amount required, which is 3.56 acres. The actual space provided is 7.9 acres. Lot 1 would be in addition to that. Ms. Kennedy inquired if information regarding proposed developments such as this are shared with the School District, so that it can be factored into its redistricting considerations. Ms. Husak responded that she is unsure if the Schools are aware of the proposed development. However, an empty nester product would not have much impact on their redistricting considerations. Mr. Boggs stated that Dublin Schools redistricting is based on projections of development, not this specific development, but upon expected residential infill within the District's footprint. Ms. Call stated that the Schools are aware of the proposed developments that are before the Commission. This type of development, however, would have little impact. Ms. Fox stated that she likes the mounding and landscaping along the road. It will create a nice entrance along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She likes the enhancements to the pond amenity and public gathering area. The mounding appears to stop behind Lot 17, and the topography around the pond is not extreme. Is there a way to provide connectivity from inside the development out to Hyland -Croy Road, perhaps with a path? The Community Plan recommends providing connectivity from one neighborhood to another. Due to the nearby school, a path connection to Hyland -Croy would be beneficial. Mr. Smith responded that connectivity has been discussed. The concern is that this is an empty nester community. They do not want to encourage pedestrian traffic into the community from the street. They would be willing to explore connectivity from another location, but not directly from the street. They do not want to advertise a path through the community to be used by bikers or pedestrian traffic along Hyland -Croy. Ms. Fox stated that she understands. However, residents of the community would appreciate a connectivity to the existing bikepath. Perhaps it could be provided on another corner. Mr. McCauley stated that throughout Tartan Ridge, there are many other connection points. Residents of this community would have to go outside the community to access one of those paths, but they are confident the residents would prefer that to the alternative. Today, we are constructing pedestrian bridges to encourage our community to walk; perhaps it is fine to encourage the residents of the community to walk down to the street to a central point to access the 1,000 -acre park across the street. To have people cutting through this neighborhood would not have a desirable impact. Ms. Fox stated there are many pedestrian and bike paths around the proposed development, so that opportunity exists. Many of her friends have moved to communities designed for ages 55 and older. What they enjoy is a community center where they can gather. Was there any consideration for using Lot 1 for that purpose? Mr. Smith stated that Lot 1 was originally used for a community gathering spot, using the fireplace feature. However, Romanelli & Hughes has not experienced interest from potential homebuyers for having a community center, especially in a community this small. It is expensive to support the needed level of architecture, maintenance, heating and cooling needs by HOA dues from 56 lots. Financially, it would be more possible for a community of 150 patio homes to support a fitness center. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 24 of 32 Ms. Fox stated she believes an attractive architectural feature would provide a nice introduction to the community. Perhaps an open -sided feature without a high level of maintenance would be an option to consider. Mr. Smith clarified that the ultimate purpose of Lot 1 for Romanelli & Hughes is to have a model home to be used as a sales center for the development. A model home will showcase what they are selling in the community, but its ultimate repurpose is a home. Mr. McCauley stated that they have been working on developing this area for 12 years and one year on this specific plan. A model home on Lot 1 will be their sales location, and the home will be the highlight of the community. After 12 years of effort, eliminating that critical feature is too great a risk to take. When everything is completed and the hedgerows are present, this piece will be well integrated into a beautiful development. Taking this one off the board is a significant ask for the Commission to make of the developer. That home is extremely important to kick off this community. Gathering places for the community have been incorporated elsewhere in the development. Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes, 148 W. Schrock Road, Westerville Ohio 43081, stated that Lot 1 is the gateway to and the signature piece for the community. Opportunities like this to have a model that will stand out are very important to them. It will be a showcase at the entrance versus just another open greenspace. In considering providing amenities, they always consider the burden that would be placed on the HOA. They are providing multiple amenities within this community. These homeowners will expect a high level of detail for their mounds, greenspace, mulch beds, trees and shrubs — and all that comes with a price. From the HOA's perspective, the pond overlook, in particular, will require costly maintenance. To include an additional clubhouse feature for 56 patio homes would be very burdensome to the homeowners. They have spent a lot of time discussing this layout internally. Former Planning Director Mr. Papsidero has been integral to that planning effort. Ms. Newell stated that she agrees with staffs condition. She understands that Llot 1 is the premier property for marketing purposes. However, Lot 2 could serve that purpose just as well. Eliminating Lot 1 would improve the entry into the community. Mr. Fishman concurred. In regard to Ms. Fox's suggestion, he does not believe another amenity should be placed on Lot 1. Greenspace alone will provide a nice entrance. Lot 2 can be used to provide a spectacular model home. Overall, he believes the development plan is beautiful. Public Comment David Lakin, 7128 Glacier Ridge Boulevard, Dublin, OH, stated that he formerly served on the Tartan Ridge HOA. He is hopeful that all of the construction traffic will come in from McKitrick Road and not through the main portion of the neighborhood. He is concerned about the school crossing for Glacier Ridge Elementary. When they refer to the HOA, are they referring to a new HOA or the master HOA? Ms. Husak responded that this development will have a new HOA. Mr. Lakin inquired if the residents of this new development also would pay into the master HOA. Current residents pay $800/year to maintain the hedgerows and the City's open spaces. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 25 of 32 Ms. Husak responded that, as proposed, they would not. Mr. Lakin stated that on page 32 of the existing development text, the statement is made that all residential property owners located within Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners association. Why would these homes not be included, as well? This is important because the master HOA maintains many acres of City land within Tartan Ridge. They were told that due to the proximity they all have to the land, all should share the burden of the maintenance cost. It directly affects the residents' property values and quality of life. These new homes will share that same neighborhood. It would appear that all the residents in the existing development will be sharing in the cost of the left turn lane into the new development, but the new homeowners will not be sharing in the maintenance cost of the common areas. It would make sense for all the common area to be included in the master HOA, and all residential homeowners should pay equally into the master HOA. Ms. Husak stated that there are two HOAs for the area to the north. There is also an HOA for the alley -loaded lots. Because they also pay into the master HOA, they pay more than $800/year. Mr. McCauley stated that, as envisioned, the new development would have its own HOA and be responsible for its 7.5 acres of open space and right-of-way, and not be part of the Tartan Ridge master HOA. This new development will have a high level of maintenance costs in addition to its open space, including the pond and pond amenity, the brick driveways and the sidewalks, and the lawns and landscaping needs for the individual homes. This is a conversation that he and Mr. Ohlin could have with the Tartan Ridge HOA board to see how they would like to proceed. He is unsure the master HOA would want to take on what will be a heavy burden for these additional 56 lots. It would require more than $800/year per home to cover those costs. Mr. Lakin stated that there are two other subareas within the subdivision that pay into their own HOAs for private roads and specific maintenance within those subareas, in addition to paying in the master HOA. The maintenance for all the common land, including that which abuts the villa homes is paid by the master HOA. Although they do not own the land, they are responsible for the maintenance. If the City of Dublin would be willing to assume some of the responsibility for maintenance of their own land, that could be an option. Is there any opportunity for the Hyland - Croy roundabout capital project to be scheduled to coincide with the construction of the turn lane? Ms. Newell responded that issue is not part of the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Lakin stated that the varieties of the hedge materials in Tartan Ridge were determined by the City. They have accumulated information on which hedge varieties have lived and which have not. They would like to share that information with staff at the appropriate time. The HOA has been burdened with replacing hedges every year, because they are not the correct variety. They now have historical information on what has proven to be successful within their neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Lakin's earlier comment about second HOAs that can handle the specific maintenance needs of their areas. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to provide such a recommendation for the proposed development? Mr. Boggs stated that HOA considerations do not address the criteria before the Commission; however, that item could be addressed by City Council. Without knowing details about the status Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 26 of 32 of the master HOA and the details of the proposed declarations and covenants for the new HOA, he cannot provide better guidance. It would be beneficial for the applicant and the master HOA leadership to meet and discuss these issues. Ms. Fox suggested a condition be added that information with those details be provided to City Council for their consideration of this rezoning. The development text does describe the HOA obligation. This new rezoning area is part of an overall much larger development. If the new development is being treated differently than the existing development, that is an issue Council would want to be made aware of. Mr. Boggs responded that Council would want to be made aware of this matter. Including such a condition would be responsive to the criteria that the common areas be maintained appropriately. Typically, Planning staff and the Commission do not address how that occurs other than requiring that there be a forced and funded HOA. How those responsibilities are shared is not part of this Commission's purview. Ms. Fox stated that the reason she suggests Council be made aware of the matter is, in the past, Council has been petitioned by HOAs for relief when HOAs have experienced financial burdens because these specifics were not clearly addressed with the development. It would be preferable to have a good understanding of this issue as it relates to the overall development and ensure that an exception is not made that will create a problem for the master HOA, and ultimately, the City. Mr. Lakin noted that essentially, this would be defunding the master HOA the funds from the 29 homes that originally were planned in Tartan Ridge — funds he assumes were factored into calculation of the HOA fee. Ms. Call stated that the City does not address HOA fund calculations. Looking at the drawing provided, there is a red dotted line circling the development area; what does that denote? Ms. Husak responded that an outline of the entire Tartan Ridge development as it exists today was provided; the hatched area designates the proposed development area. Ms. Call stated that, in her view, if this area is being included in Tartan Ridge, it should be included financially, as well. That may mean that a sub association is needed to address the maintenance of the greater amenities in the proposed development. Although that is outside the purview of this Commission, it needs to be addressed by some party. Perhaps the Commission could direct staff to determine the proper body to address it and ensure that it is communicated to City Council. Mr. Fishman agreed, noting that perhaps these residents should pay into the master HOA and have their own sub association, as well. However, much of this area originally was planned as commercial property. The commercial area was not part of the earlier HOA fee calculation. Mr. Lakin responded that there were two parcels involved. The commercial component was planned on the right edge, and 29 homes are in the remaining area. Mr. McCauley stated that, currently, he is not sufficiently knowledgeable of the master HOA document provisions; however, they would abide by the stated terms. If the documents state that this area is to be included in the overall forced and funded HOA, they will comply. If the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 27 of 32 documents are unclear on the matter, they would discuss the issue with the master HOA leadership. In addition to lawns, this new area also will have 7.5 acres of open space and a pond amenity. The master HOA may not want to maintain that area. Because this area will have a higher degree of maintenance demands, the applicant was willing to handle that financial responsibility in its entirety. The anticipated financial costs would be calculated, and the parties would meet and discuss them. Mr. Lakin stated that the Stavroff group has been excellent to work with, and he has spoken with Mr. McCauley frequently. They like the proposed development plan. In regard to a home on Lot 1 — as a resident in the community, he has no objection to the developer's plan. Kevin Lutz, 9179 Brenham Way, Dublin, stated that his home is located across from the stubbed street. If that street were to cut through, vehicle lights would be an issue for his family; he appreciates the consideration that was made. Although he would prefer the area remain a soybean field, development will inevitably occur. He has heard that they have been trying to identify the right development for 12 years. It is better that it be development that is controlled, and a residential development is much better than the 68,000 square feet of commercial that could have been programmed. That amount of commercial space would not be a coffee shop and ice cream parlor; it would be a strip mall. He applauds the work that has been done with the streets, avoiding any direct access off Hyland -Croy Road that would have resulted in cut -through traffic through their neighborhood. Glacier Ridge Elementary School is their neighbor. Putting any commercial development here would have required a significant level of caution. Having an empty -nester neighborhood makes much more sense. From 3:00-4:00 p.m., Brenham Way is occupied by 20-25 vehicles making school pickups. The proposed development will complement that practice. If a showcase home on Lot 1 will sell all the houses in the division faster, then he supports giving them Lot 1. He would prefer the building process not take eight years! What their neighborhood needs is to be connected. They do not have a bikepath connection. For his children to ride their bikes to Jerome High School, they must either walk their bikes along Hyland - Croy Road or cut through a cornfield. This project will permit a bikepath to be constructed from Glacier Ridge Elementary to Jerome High School, meeting a real need. Although the residents may not want to pay for another left turn lane, that is a better option than the two left -turn lanes that would have occurred with a commercial development. In that case, a left -turn lane off Hyland -Croy Road would have been necessary, as well. There would also be a curbcut on the needed bikepath. Currently, the stretch of road from the elementary school to McKitrick Road has no curbcuts, so children can bike safely down to that intersection. Ms. Kennedy stated she appreciates the great public feedback and their opinions regarding a house on Lot 1. The Commission appreciates hearing the voice of the residents. Max Long, 1057 Hyland Croy Road, Dublin, stated that Jerome Township, Union County and the City of Dublin have worked together on forming a comprehensive plan — The Crossroads Area Plan. In 2015, the City agreed to Jerome Township's and Union County's plan. In the Land Use Plan, it was indicated that a rural area would be maintained throughout Hyland Croy Road. Jerome Village has already built 27 homes; 38 homes are planned; and a total of 5,300 homes are projected. In addition to Glacier Ridge Elementary, another elementary and middle school will be added on the same road. Glacier Ridge Elementary is set back 200 feet. When the Oak Park development was adopted, 230 feet of road frontage was required. For Corazon, 300 feet was required; for the Pulte Homes Autumn Rose development, 215 feet of road frontage was required. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 28 of 32 Does the text for this development require that the ROW be extended from 40 feet to 50 feet from the center of the road? Mr. Ridge responded that is the fourth condition, which was added after the staff report was distributed. Mr. Long stated the road is at the back of the pond. Lots 8 - 17 are within 100 feet of the road. Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission has indicated that Hyland -Croy will be changed to a four - lane road with an island. When that is completed, will any setback remain? On the Corazon property to the south, the islands are built up, earthen dams with trees, so those homes cannot be seen. According to page 4-2 of this plan, the backs of the homes will not be exposed to the existing road; yet, Lots 8-17 are within 100 feet of the road. The plan also provides for the homes to be architecturally staggered on the lots. With only a 3 to 5 -foot mound, there will be a direct view into the rear patios of these homes. It was understood that new residential development was not to be permitted to encroach upon this area. What will the distance be between the anticipated traffic circle and Lot 8? Mr. Ridge responded that he does not have that information at hand. Mr. Long stated that for comparison purposes, Glacier Ridge Elementary has a 250 -foot setback. The O'Brien property at 9635 Hyland Croy has a 450 -foot setback, and the other properties to the south range from 300 feet to 200 feet. Dublin has preserved that setback in the past. There will also be a path immediately next to the road. He does not want his children walking along this road. He lives on this road, which has a 45 -mph speed limit. It is often difficult to exit their driveway. This is a heavily traveled road, and these houses will be next to the road. The area plans, including the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan and the Crossroads Area Plan required some setbacks. The Gorden Property in Dublin provides a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way; adjacent to that is a service road, and an additional 100 feet is required on the inside before building is permitted. That plan provides a significant open area -- why was nothing similar required for this development? He is concerned this development will destroy the rural feel driving along Hyland -Croy Road. Commission Questions Ms. Newell inquired if the City Code has setback requirements for this area. At one time, certain City roadways were considered scenic, typically with requirements for 200 -foot setbacks. Does the Community Plan address this? Ms. Husak stated that the speaker referred to The Crossroads Plan. Staff has reviewed that plan, discussed the issue with Union County and verified that The Crossroads Plan does not address homes backing up to Hyland -Croy Road. Many of the properties that were mentioned are not within the City's jurisdiction. All properties on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road are in Jerome Township and were developed as very rural lots. The City's Zoning Code does not require a setback greater than the right-of-way width. Some of the neighborhoods, such as Bishop's Crossing, Bishop's Run and Park Place, which are now 10-15 years old, were built when the City was working on a plan called, "The Road to WOW." That plan, which was never adopted, proposed standards for greater setbacks from Hyland -Croy Road, and in exchange, higher density would be permitted. The 2007 Community Plan provided for the roadway characteristics of a scenic, rural roadway with a setback requirement of 200 feet. The Community Plan was updated in 2013, along with the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan, and that revision eliminated some of the roadway characteristics and setbacks. The current setback requirement is 80-100 feet. What is proposed with this plan is 100 feet, so it is consistent with the Community Plan. The Community Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 29 of 32 Plan is a policy document. Mr. Long is referring to Township documents, which the City of Dublin does not have. She is unsure if the Township's 2018 document has the same language, although that document has not been approved. Ms. Newell referred to Exhibit C-1, which is an EMH&T plan. Running along Hyland -Croy Road, there are a number of dashed lines; what do they denote? Mr. Smith stated that there are existing easements along Hyland -Croy Road, including a gas line. He believes the dashed lines designate those lines. Ms. Newell inquired if there are any easements for future roadway improvements. Mr. Smith responded that there are not. However, they will be dedicating 50 feet of right-of-way along Hyland -Croy Road, pre staffs request, which will result in a total of 100 feet. Mr. McCauley stated that the existing zoning, which includes the commercial development, permitted the development to be closer than 200 feet. He believes a setback of 150 feet was permitted. The new plan will provide 100 feet from the future road right-of-way. Ms. Husak stated that staff has verified the future easement is for gas lines. Mr. Smith stated that he previously served as the Zoning Officer for Jerome Township, so he is familiar with the aforementioned documents. He was present when the Township, City and the County adopted the Crossroads Area Plan. That plan never contemplated land up this far. Its focus area was the area surrounding Costco, the additional piece of industrial land at the intersection of SR161 and US33, and the Jacquemin Farms and Gorden Farms pieces. The different entities were attempting to reach a common ground on that area. He also wrote the Township's Comprehensive Plan in 2009. That plan does not contemplate 200 -foot setbacks from anything. It does address land use, rural development and conservation development. Specific setbacks were not established for any roads. From a Code standpoint, rural residential lots within the Township must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way. From Jerome Township's perspective, additional setback for any new development within the Township is preferred. Of the last four -five past developments, however, where houses backed up to the road, nothing more than 80-100 feet was required. This development would be consistent with the Township's policy. Ms. Call stated that the bikepath is shown in the drawings as continuing along the existing trail that runs adjacent to Glacier Ridge and continuing down to the roundabout. Is there a schedule for phasing in that path along with the development? Mr. McCauley responded that it would be installed when the street paving occurs, or soon thereafter. Ms. Newell stated that one of the previous citizen comments referred to the location of the construction entrance. Has the location of that entrance been determined? Mr. McCauley stated that he does not believe it has, but he does not believe there would be any objection to having it off McKitrick Road. Ms. Fox referred to the condition requiring elimination of the home on Lot 1. Like Mr. Fishman, she does not support dry retention basins. They tend to look unfinished. From an engineering standpoint, what are the options to make it look attractive? That is at the main entrance. She Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 30 of 32 would not be opposed to having an attractive piece of architecture in that location. Otherwise, there would be an unattractive dry basin and a flat field. Ms. Call requested clarification of the reason for staffs recommendation to delete Lot 1. Mr. Ridge stated that staff recommended that it be deleted because it appeared isolated from the remaining lots, is shaped irregularly and is larger than the other lots. Mr. McCauley stated that they could agree to remove the dry basin concept, leaving it as open greenspace with some landscaping. They would work with staff on how to modify the other pond appropriately for the site. However, they do need to have Lot 1 remain. As heard tonight, the neighbors support Lot 1 remaining in the plan. Although it appears irregularly shaped in the plans, when completed, it will be as attractive as the other lots. Therefore, he would request that condition be removed. They have no objection to the remaining conditions. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Supelak indicated that they have no objection to Lot 1 remaining. Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the height of the mounding along Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Ridge responded that it would be three to five feet in height and include trees. Mr. Fishman stated that he would like to see it heavily landscaped, but not with landscaping material, per se. He would prefer pine trees or something that will achieve an opaque screening. Ms. Newell stated that a variety of plantings could achieve that. Mr. Fishman stated that the plan appeared to provide many deciduous trees. He requested that the applicant commit to making the screening opaque — in whatever way that might be achieved. Mr. Smith stated that there would be an opportunity for discussion of landscaping details with the Final Development Plan. They are required to bring back a Final Landscape Plan to the Commission. Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the revised five conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions: 1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the existing storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin and add green space and landscaping within the area, subject to staff approval; and 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping in the mounding along Hyland Croy Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 31 of 32 Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the four conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Call moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City Council with the following four conditions: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan are made prior to City Council submittal; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names are approved and indicated appropriately on the plat; and 3) That the applicant revise the Preliminary Plat prior to Council review to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road, as required by Code. 4) That the applicant revise the plat to accurately display the planned 100 -foot right-of-way for Hyland -Croy Road. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] IDu CiTy of blin Planning and Zoning Commisison OHIO, UST December 12, 2019 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Summary A request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan of a 24 -acre site within the Tartan Ridge PUD to allow for the future construction of up to 56 single- family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. Site Location The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Property Owners DVC 6700 Associates LLC; The Shoppes at Tartan Ridge LLC Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.050-153.056 Case Manager Chase I Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I (614) 410-4675 cridaeadublin.oh.us Zoning Map Next Steps Upon approval of the recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission the application will be forwarded to City Council for review and final approval. �'t_Row L U) 03 r �•, .R 3KDa ien'tS4 IL 31, _ k Baronet Bind _ ►` i �� c c►tr�ck Rd SITE City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Background The approximately 24.5 -acre site was annexed into the City of Dublin in 2002 (Ord. 71-02) and originally rezoned in 2007 (Ord. 16-07) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Tartan Ridge. The proposed site contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E, and F of the larger Tartan Ridge PUD. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided non-binding feedback on a concept plan for this site in July of 2019. Site Characteristics Natural Features The site is undeveloped, except for a stormwater management pond that was installed as part of a previous phase of the Tartan Ridge development. There are trees and an abandoned silo located in the southwest portion of the site. A stream runs west to east in the northern portion of the site. This area included a Stream Corridor Protection Zone and the applicant will be required to study the area prior to development. Historic and Cultural Facilities The site is not located within the Historic District and does not contain any known historically contributing structures or artifacts. Surrounding Land Use and Development Character North: R: Rural District (Educational — Glacier Ridge Elementary) East: PUD: Tartan Ridge (Single -Family) South: PUD: Tartan West (Single -Family) West: Jerome Township (Park and Recreation — Glacier Ridge Metro Park) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has frontage on Hyland -Croy Road to the west (±1,365 Feet) and McKitrick Road to the south (±975 Feet). A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site with runs north off McKitrick Road. Utilities The site is served by public utilities, including sanitary and water. Electrical and gas are also provided on site. Proposal This is a proposal for a residential development on approximately 24 acres with a maximum of 56 single-family homes, new public streets with sidewalks, and open spaces. The proposal includes approximately 7.9 acres of open space including shared -use path connections, a gazebo and amenity space, and the expansion of a pond for use by the neighborhood. The site is currently zoned PUD — Tartan Ridge and includes Subareas D1, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single-family homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal requires a rezoning, and will result in a single subarea with a consistent development pattern through the entire site. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Community Plan/Future Land Use Recommendations throughout the Community Plan are based upon a review of existing conditions and evaluation of future development scenarios for their impacts on infrastructure, roads and the fiscal health of the City. Dublin's ability to maintain high quality of services and quality of life depends on a careful review of development proposals for conformance with the Community Plan. The Future Land Use Map classifies all parcels within the Dublin planning area with a recommended land use. The map is supported by a detailed description explaining the general character of each land use type, including typical ranges for residential and non-residential densities. The Future Land Uses for this site are Mixed Residential Low Density and Mixed Use Neighborhood Center. Mixed Residential Low Density designates a typical density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre and are intended to provide a mix of housing options. Mixed Use Neighborhood Centers are intended to provide daily retail uses and personal services for the convenience of neighborhoods for which they are located. Such sites include a target of 60,000 square feet of gross leasable area for non-residential uses. At 2.33 dwelling units per acre, the proposal is for a less dense and less intense development than the Community Plan recommends. Thoroughfare Plan The Thoroughfare Plan recommends 100 feet of right-of-way and generous setbacks ranging from 100 to 200 feet along Hyland -Croy Road. The creation of meandering shared use paths is encouraged and curb cuts should be minimized as to maintain openness and the rural character of the roadway. This proposal is currently showing a dedication of only 40 feet from centerline for Hyland -Croy Road. The applicant should revise the dedication along Hyland -Croy Road to be 50 feet from existing centerline to be consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan also recommends 80 feet of right-of-way for McKitrick Road. The proposal meets this requirement by showing a dedication of 40 feet from centerline for McKitrick Road. Proposal Details Layout The proposed site is rectangular in shape and is situated west of the Tartan Ridge neighborhood and south of Glacier Ridge Elementary School. The proposal depicts the extension of Brenham Way to the south to connect to McKitrick Road, as well as the extension of Enfield Trace to the west to connect to Brenham Way. Emmet Row Lane is also to be extended on the north end of the site and will curve to the south connecting to a new stubbed public street, Jasmine Glen Drive. Three additional public streets are proposed to provide access to the center and southern portions of the site. Open space with associated landscaping is shown along Hyland -Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Brenham Way. The existing stormwater management ponds in the northwest and the southeast portions of the site are proposed to be altered and expanded. A new dry basin is proposed for the southeast portion of the site, as well. Sidewalks are shown throughout the development and a shared -use path is proposed along the Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road frontages, as well. Staff is concerned that Lot 1 is proposed in a remote location and not integrated into this Subarea. Staff recommends this lot be eliminated from the proposal. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Zoning The site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and contains all or portions of Subareas D1, E, and F which allow for a mix of uses ranging from single-family homes to townhomes and a commercial center with the potential for office, retail and restaurant uses. A fuel station is permitted as a conditional use. This proposal would create a new subarea with a uniform development pattern. site As discussed above, the 24 -acre site is a portion of the larger Tartan Ridge neighborhood. The proposal is for 56 single-family homes. A preliminary plat application (Case 19-085PP) has been prepared to coincide with the review of this rezoning application. Access Primary access to the proposed lots will be from McKitrick Road via Brenham Way. Brenham Way currently ends at Baronet Boulevard; however, the street will be extended from its terminus at Baronet Boulevard to McKitrick Road to allow for access to the site. Enfield Trace currently ends in a hammerhead just east of the existing basin at the southeast portion of the site. As approved with the original zoning, the proposal includes extending this road to the west and connecting to the extension of Brenham Way. As with other new access points created onto existing roadways from Tartan Ridge and other residential development, a left turn lane will be required to be constructed from McKitrick Road to the new public roadway connection of Brenham Way. This improvement will serve to fulfill the existing Tartan Ridge Infrastructure Agreement that lists this improvement as a required improvement with the new street connection. This proposed development will eliminate a previously approved street connection from Hyland -Croy Road to Tartan Ridge and therefore will not require any improvement to Hyland -Croy Road, which is also listed as an improvement to be made with any new street connection in the Infrastructure Agreement. On the north end of the site, Emmet Row Lane will be extended to provide access to the new homes. Emmet Row Lane is proposed to terminate in a north -south orientation into Jasmine Glen Drive. Jasmine Glen Drive is proposed to curve to the south, eventually turning into Ariel Drive. Ariel Drive will then terminate into the new extension of Brenham Way. Gaston Drive (east -west), located in the center of the site, will serve as a connection between Brenham Way, Jasmine Glen Drive and Ariel Drive. Jasmine Glen Drive is proposed to be terminated before connecting to Brenham Way. There are 15 on -street parking spaces proposed in the development, five on each of the three north -south oriented streets. The street names have not yet been approved by the City and will require approval prior to the acceptance of the preliminary plat. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of the site, including along all frontages and leading to a proposed overlook in reserve A (northwest portion of the site). An eight -foot wide shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along the entire length of Hyland -Croy Road. The proposal shows the pedestrian and bikepath network connecting into a future roundabout at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road. As this development will likely be constructed prior to this capital improvement being completed, the applicant should develop City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and connect to the existing pedestrian and bikepath system at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads in the current intersection condition and provide for safe connections and crossings Stormwater Management The proposal includes the use of three stormwater management facilities. Along with the construction of new public storm sewer and drainage structures, the existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site is proposed to be slightly altered with this proposal and is situated within Reserve A. Also proposed within Reserve A is a dry basin in the southeast portion of the site. The existing pond in Tartan Ridge (southeast portion of the site, east of Brenham Way) will be modified to accommodate the proposed development. Reserves A through E are to be owned and maintained by The Overlook at Tartan Ridge homeowners association. The existing stormwater management pond east of Brenham Way is owned by the City of Dublin and is proposed to continue to be owned and maintained by the City of Dublin. Utilities: Water This site will gain access to public water for domestic and fire protection service by the proposed construction of water mains and fire hydrants extended from existing eight -inch water main in the immediate area. Utilities: Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer will be available to the development by means of the proposed construction of new public sanitary sewer mains and associated sanitary sewer services to each proposed lot. Engineering analysis was submitted that demonstrated that the anticipated sanitary sewer flow from this development would be less than what would be expected from the currently approved zoning. Development Text The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for the development including uses, lot requirements, and architecture and materials. The applicant has provided a development text with development standards specific to this PUD Subarea, Subarea F. Uses Per the proposed development text, the permitted uses in Subarea F are limited to single-family homes. Development Standards The proposal includes 56 single-family lots generally separated into two different sizes. Courtyard lots are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Twenty-two courtyard lots are proposed and are located on the perimeter of the site. Patio lots are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line and require a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 34 lots are patio lots and are primarily located in the interior of the site. The smallest lots are 6,500 square feet and the largest lot is 10,764 square feet in size. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway. For courtyard homes, the front yard setback is a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. However, front loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. Rear yard setbacks for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet. At -grade patios on both the patio lots and courtyard lots may be permitted to encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided that no walls greater than 36 inches in height are incorporated into the patio design. Window wells may encroach into the side yards a maximum of three and one-half feet, provided that there is a minimum of eight feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one-half feet. All residential structures are limited to a maximum height of 25 feet, as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Landscaping The applicant is proposing a number of landscape improvements with this plan. The most notable landscape improvement proposed is to the exterior of the site, along Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. The applicant is proposing a naturalized mix of deciduous, ornamental and evergreen trees within Reserve A. This is consistent with other developments along the corridor and provides screening and privacy for the new homes. Along the northwest portion of the site, the applicant is proposing a less dense cluster of trees and no mounding so that a vista of the existing pond is possible from the west. Proposed for the southeast portion of the site is an entry feature surrounded by low and mid - height plantings with taller evergreens behind. The pond overlook and shelter in the northwest portion of the site will also include low and mid -height plantings as well as some ornamental trees. All of the CBU locations will be landscaped using a mix of plantings including evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and low and mid -height plantings. Street trees will be planted per City of Dublin Code. This proposal also requires a hedgerow in front of all residential units in the development to be consistent with the overall Tartan Ridge development. Architecture The Tartan Ridge development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements, which prohibit overlapping forms, particularly for roofs and require symmetry in design and window placement. In addition, diversity of architecture is strictly enforced. Subarea F will have a decidedly different feel to it, but incorporates many of the same elements found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. The applicant has indicated that the character of Subarea F will be identified by European Country and Midwestern Vernacular architectural styles. Key massing principles outlined in the development text include a prominent street presence, appropriate proportions, clean intersections and purity of form. These principles intend to provide the same high-quality architecture as is found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. Massing issues such as continuous walls and awkward proportions shall be prohibited in this subarea. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Permitted exterior materials include stone, manufactured stone, stucco, wood or cementitious fiberboard. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home are required to be represented on all elevations, similar to what already exists in Tartan Ridge. A masonry water table, a minimum of 30 inches high or to the height of the window sill is required on all elevations. No walls are permitted more than two cladding materials unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has identified 17 lots that are especially visible throughout the development. These homes are primarily on corner lots or along Brenham Way, where side elevations are highly visible. For these homes, additional cladding requirements exists as to ensure a high- quality aesthetic throughout the neighborhood. These homes must be rendered with a constant cladding material on all sides exposed to view. This requirement will also ensure consistency throughout the entirety of Tartan Ridge. Shutters, when used, are to be used consistently on all elevations and to be sized to fully cover the associated window. Shutters must be a flat panel or board and batten style. Permitted roof materials include an architectural grade asphalt shingle, wood shake, wood shingle, or natural or synthetic slate. Metal standing seam materials are permitted on porches, hyphens, and dependencies. Permitted garage configurations include street loaded/front oriented and street loaded/ courtyard oriented. Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three or more bays are permitted. However, garages shall comprise no more than 45 percent of the total linear width of the front elevation. Driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers. As part of this proposal, the applicant has indicated that the HOA declarant shall form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review all architecture to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in the development text. Entry Sign The proposal includes one ground monument sign identifying the neighborhood at Brenham Way and McKitrick Road. The applicant has indicated that this sign will be similar in character to the existing Tartan Ridge sign located at Brock Road and Wilton Chase Street. The ground sign will have a rectangular profile, a masonry base, and will be a maximum of six feet in height. 3. Criteria Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Analysis 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; Criterion met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable development standards of the Zoning Code requirements, except as altered in the proposed development text to create unique and specific standards for this proposal. However, the preliminary development plan does not accurately reflect the geographic extent of Subarea F, which should be updated prior to Council review. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; Criterion met with Condition. Based on previous discussions with the Commission, the proposal was deemed to be largely consistent with the Community Plan recommendations and the established character of the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the dedication along Hyland -Croy Road to be 50 feet from existing centerline to be consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan. Staff is also recommending that the applicant develop and connect to the existing pedestrian and bikepath system at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads in the current intersection condition and provide for safe connections and crossings. 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; Criterion Met. This proposal provides for an orderly development and will improve the surrounding area. 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; Criterion met. The development is appropriately located within the City and is an example of the type of a development type appropriate for this District. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; Criterion Met. There proposal provides 7.9 acres of open space where 3.56 acres are required. 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; Criterion met. While a significant number of trees are being removed, the applicant has provided a tree survey and replacement plan, is proposing replacing trees on an inch - for -inch basis, and is proposing significant landscaping on the site. 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; Criterion met. The applicant has worked with staff to ensure adequate services and infrastructure is provided. 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non -conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; Criterion met. Access to the proposed site will be from all adjacent public streets and paths will also be provided through the site and to the park. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; Criterion met with Condition. The proposal includes appropriate coordination and integration with its surroundings and maintains Dublin as a quality community. Staff recommends the elimination of Lot 1 due to the separation of the lot from the remainder of the subarea. 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; Criterion met. The proposed layout and intensity are appropriate for this site. 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; Criterion Met. The development includes provisions for stormwater management via storm sewer, existing basins and a new basin. 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; Criterion Met. The proposed design, site arrangement and anticipated benefit to the City will be ensured through the proposed development text. 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; Criterion met. The preliminary development plan includes a Subarea development text based largely on the existing Tartan Ridge development text, which will create a cohesive high quality development. 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; Criterion not Applicable. The development will not be phased. 15)The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; Criterion met. The development will be adequately serviced by existing public and planned infrastructure. 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criterion met. All contributions to infrastructure have been agreed upon and approved as part of the Agreement. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-084Z/PDP — Overlook at Tartan Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 5. Recommendatic The proposal is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria contained in the Zoning Code and Approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1) That the preliminary development plan Subarea map be revised to include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That Lot 1 be eliminated from the proposal; and, 3) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; RECORD OF ACTION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA ThuirsdaV,, December n2, 2019.� 6.-3C pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge McKitrick and Jerome Road 19 -0842 -PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: To facilitate the future development of 56 single-family lots and 7.9 - acres of open space on the 24.55 -acre site in Tartan Ridge, Subarea F. Location: Northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.050-153.056. Applicant: Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design Planning Contact: Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I Contact Information: 614.410.4656, cridge@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-094 MOTION: Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan with five conditions: 1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure that the street names and naming method are appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with Staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin, add green space in the area and landscape material in the area, subject to Staff approval; and 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping on the mound along Hyland Croy Road. VOTE: 6 - 0 RESULT: The Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval to City Council. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge McKitrick and Jerome Road 19-O84Z-PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes William Wilson Absent Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, P ` nner I Page 2 of 2 PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 17 of 32 Ms. Newell stated that Cases 4 and 5 would be heard together. 4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-094, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-085 Preliminary Plat Ms. Newell stated that Case 4 is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning with preliminary development plan of approximately 24 acres for the future construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. The site is within the Tartan Ridge Planned Unit Development District, northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Case 5 is for the same site and the request is for a recommendation of approval to City Council for preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The Commission will hear the cases together. Staff Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that the site is currently zoned PUD, Tartan Ridge, and contains all or portions of Subareas Dl, E and F, which permit a mix of uses including townhomes and commercial uses. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road and is currently undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site and a solitary tree stand in the southwest portion of the site. The proposed plan for approximately 24 acres includes 56 lots with an average density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre and eight acres of open space. Lot sizes are proposed in two different sizes. There are 34 patio lots that are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining 22 courtyard lots are located on the perimeter of the site and are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to 10,800 square feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway. Sideyard setbacks are a consistent six feet minimum across the site. Rear yard setbacks are 25 feet throughout site. Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. Front -loaded garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non -garage portions of the front fagade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15 -foot setback. The rear yard setback for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet. The development text also requires that a minimum of 22 lots in the development have court - oriented garages. On the southeast corner of the site is Lot 1. Due to the separation/isolation and odd lot shape, staff is recommending that the applicant remove Lot 1 from the plan. The applicant has put an emphasis on walkability throughout the site with sidewalks along all frontages, as well as connection and expansion to the shared -use paths along McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads. An existing connection to the school site to the north is to remain. There is significant landscaping around the perimeter of the site. The applicant is proposing mounding at a height of 3 - 5 feet with trees on top and behind in a naturalized manner. The proposed pond amenity will be a part Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 18 of 32 of the existing stormwater management pond in the northwest portion of the site. The amenity will include a patio space and shelter structure with seating. The development text requires that a hedgerow be planted and run parallel to the front property line as seen elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. It also requires gates and gatepost if a sidewalk is to connect from the front door to the public sidewalk. Brick, stone, or wood posts are permitted materials for the gateposts. Per the development text, driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers, which is a character element unique to this subarea. Outdoor spaces can be constructed within the footprint of the home. Open spaces such as at -grade patios will also be permitted to encroach 10 feet into the rear yard setback, providing increased outdoor amenity space, if desired by the homeowner. Per the development text, the HOA will be responsible for maintaining all open spaces as well as the hedgerow in front of the homes. An important architectural element will be carried over from Tartan Ridge into this subarea, which is the consistent use of cladding materials across all fagades. The City -owned pond will be re -designed slightly. Staff is recommending the subarea map include the existing stormwater management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned with this proposal. It is also requested that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure the street names and naming method is appropriate and that the applicant revise the plat to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. The rezoning and preliminary development plan have been reviewed against all applicable criteria, and staff recommends approval with three conditions. The plat has also been reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval with four conditions. Commission Questions Ms. Call inquired what is the reason for recommending deletion of Lot 1. Mr. Ridge responded that Lot 1 is separated from the rest of the community by a sewer easement The lot is irregularly shaped, larger than the other lots and isolated. Ms. Call inquired if the easement is a no -build zone. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman stated that he would assume that the area where the pond is located would be unbuildable, so it would become part of the common area. Mr. Ridge confirmed that would be the case. Ms. Fox stated that there is a lovely area on the northwest side with the pond area. The City has many retention ponds. There is opportunity to utilize them as an amenity for developments, and this is a good-sized development. If Lot 1 is eliminated, has staff suggested that a nicer amenity be created at this end of the development, as well? Mr. Ridge responded that staff has not made that request. Ms. Fox inquired how stubbing off the one street, currently unnamed, would impact ability for emergency vehicles and trucks to turn around. Mr. Ridge responded that the proposed name of the street is Jasmine Glen Drive. Ms. Kennedy inquired between which lot numbers the proposed street would be located. Ms. Fox responded that the street lies between Lot 32 and 30. She is curious about why that street has been stubbed. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 19 of 32 Mr. Ridge responded that some neighbors across the street were concerned about the glare of vehicle headlights into their homes and the closeness of that intersection to the one at Baronet Boulevard. Ms. Fox inquired if all were public streets. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively Ms. Fox requested confirmation that truck turnaround would not be an issue there. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Ms. Newell inquired how a fire vehicle would turn around, if the street terminates there. Staff responded that it would be necessary for the vehicle to back up. Ms. Newell stated that there is no ability for a fire vehicle to turn around. Once the roundabout is constructed, is there a distance requirement between that and another lane that would stop and turn? Staff responded that there is no such requirement. Ms. Fox asked about the City policy on adding a left turn lane. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it has been the City's practice for many years that with any new access point into a subdivision, a left turn lane be required to preserve the through movements on the roadway and provide safe access/egress from the development. Ms. Fox inquired if construction of that turn lane is the responsibility of the developer when constructing the development. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. It is built as a public improvement consistent with the City's standards, which the City then inspects and accepts. Ms. Fox inquired if there have been any exceptions to that practice. Mr. Hammersmith responded that there has been none during his tenure with the City. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the left turn is near Lot 1. Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively; it is the McKitrick Road access point, the eastbound left -turn lane. Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land and Development, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin, representative for Tartan Ridge LLC, stated that with him tonight are Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design, Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes and Steve Shell, EMH&T Engineering. Previously, they presented the Concept Plan for this development to the Commission. Stavroff has been involved with this project since its inception. They made the initial land purchase for what is now Tartan Ridge. In 2007, they believed there would be a commercial element in this development. In 2019, retail is not an option, and the majority of the residents have indicated they are not supportive of retail within the development. They would prefer to have the subdivision completed now rather than wait five to fifteen years for potential retail to occur. The current market overwhelmingly indicates that a detached, empty -nester product within a community such as this is desired. Dublin residents wanting to downsize will be able to remain within Dublin, be part of the Tartan Ridge community and have a maintenance -free lifestyle. He believes Tartan Ridge is one the best developments he has ever been involved with, and these high-end homes, built by Romanelli & Hughes, will continue that quality. The Commission's concerns shared at the Concept Plan review were noted and have been addressed; Mr. Smith will elaborate on those. As required by City Engineering, a left -turn lane into McKitrick Road will be constructed. However, there is an established New Community Authority, which must pay for the turn lane. Although the developer would build the turn lane and receive a 5% return on his investment, the residents of Tartan Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 20 of 32 Ridge pay into that Community Autlhority. The residents paid for the other existing three intersections. No one is opposed to the turn lane, but the residents do not want to pay for it. However, the turn lane is not part of the rezoning matter before the Commission at this time. It could be a later matter for staff's or Council's consideration. Mr. Hammersmith stated that when he responded to the Commission's earlier question regarding the left -turn lane into this development, he responded in general terms. This turn lane and the other turn lanes constructed earlier with this development were part of an infrastructure agreement approved by City Council in 2008, and only a City Council action could modify that agreement. Gary Smith, G2 Planning and Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Columbus, stated that since July, they have been working on the architectural elements of the development, tweaking the plan and making significant changes to the development text. The Romanelli & Hughes product has been modified to meet the needs of this development. This is a 24 -acre portion of the existing Tartan Ridge development and this portion is in the southwest, below Glacier Ridge Elementary School. What is currently approved for that area are five single-family homes, 24 townhomes, and 68,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses, potentially including gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants and associated uses. The developer has been working on the retail piece of the development for the past 12 years, but no viable option was identified. Because there was a strong desire to have the community completed, they looked for other options. Some form of lower -density residential was determined to be the best use. The City is fortunate to have an abundance of single-family product, and has been trying to broaden the spectrum of lifestyle options for its residents, such as the Bridge Park product. What is proposed is a continuation of that effort to address another lifestyle need. There is a niche of Dublin homeowners who no longer need a large, single-family home. However, they value their network of friends in Dublin and prefer not to move away. They continue to want a high-end home, but with limited maintenance requirements. They may prefer to travel a good portion of the year without the demands of caring for a home here. The proposed development will attract those types of buyers. They are requesting approval of 56 high quality, empty -nester patio homes. Because 29 single- family homes are already approved here, essentially, they are requesting to exchange another 27 patio homes for the 68,000 square feet of retail previously planned. The site is long, linear and encumbered by heavy setbacks along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. There is an existing pond in the northwest corner of the site, which will be used for stormwater retention. The site dictates the layout of the development. Early in the process, neighbors across the street on Brenham Way indicated that they were not excited about having lots fronting the street across from their homes and asked them to consider turning the layout to avoid that situation. Therefore, the long, linear site, pond and need to avoid having homes fronting the road across from Brenham Way have dictated the layout. In July, the Commission discussed the gridded layout of the development. While it may appear so in a Google view, he has often viewed similar developments and found that a ground -level experience of the site feels different. Upon entering the community, a spectacular model home will be seen. There was some discussion about eliminating Lot 1, but for them, Lot 1 is extremely important. The home on that lot will be the nicest home in the development and will be a critical sales tool. Although the home will be a little further apart due to the easement, many other elements will tie the home to the development, such as the landscaping, hedge treatment and the columns. Upon driving further into the community, the site will look much as it does today. On the right side will be the existing park and the homes on Brenham Way; on the left side will be a linear greenspace. Mounding and landscaping will be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 21 of 32 incorporated into that space. The same Tartan Ridge hedge will follow all the sidewalks. In a number of locations, benches will be provided, giving residents the opportunity to sit. There will be no long streets or blocks in this community. Although there is a grid pattern, due to the very short grids, drives and turns, the focus will be on the architecture. On 17 homes, additional architecture treatment on the sides will be required due to those sides being more exposed to the view. The lots along the perimeter have been widened and changed to courtyard lots, and a variance in setbacks will provide architecture that peaks in and out of the view, creating more interest. The courtyards will provide intimate spaces framed by the architecture. This will be complemented by other elements that are part of the Tartan Ridge experience, including an architectural style consistent with the existing development; hedge treatment along all the roads; and masonry columns adjacent to each driveway. With 56 driveways, there will be 112 masonry columns, costing a total of $250,000. There will be a significant investment on the landscape treatment on the street frontages. Every home will have a brick driveway and matching brick private sidewalks, which is an element not required for the existing Tartan Ridge development. The pond amenity will now be more central to the units than in the earlier plan. With a fireplace and covered seating area, it will be a place for the residents to enjoy. Along the perimeter will be a lush landscape buffer and extensive mounding along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. Not only will it buffer the rear of the homes, it also will make the drive along those roads feel pastoral. This development will replace a proposed use that would not be viable and is unpopular with many of the Tartan Ridge residents with a use that is in high demand and will serve the needs of the aging portion of Dublin's population. In addition, this development will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of traffic anticipated for the area. Patio homes typically generate less trips per day than other residential development, and its traffic will not be at peak times. These high-value homes will have high property taxes but make little impact on the schools. Due to its many attributes, this is probably the best housing development possible for this area. Ms. Fox stated that it appears they have discussed the proposed housing development with the neighbors and attempted to address any concerns. Mr. McCauley responded that there are two different HOAs. They have met with some of those board members to receive their input, and a survey was sent out to residents earlier to obtain feedback. Ms. Call inquired how the variances in home alignments would impact the front setbacks of the homes, including the garages and the sidewalks. Mr. Smith responded that the garage doors do not face the sidewalk. The minimum setback for the garages is 15 feet from the right-of-way where the sidewalk is located; the maximum distance is 25 feet. The varied depth in homes will create interest on the street. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the existing pedestrian trails to Glacier Ridge Elementary Schools would also connect to this community. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman inquired if the smaller pond would remain wet year round. Mr. McCauley responded that it would be a dry basin. Although it will provide a potential overflow area, it would rarely have water. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 22 of 32 Steve Shell, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH, stated that they were taking advantage of an open area for potential overflow storage, to provide flexibility for the City pond to the west. The proposed basin may not remain. Mr. Fishman stated that for aesthetic reasons, the City typically prefers a wet pond, which can fulfill the same purpose. Mr. Smith stated that because it is a tight area, there is a concern about having a wet pond there, which would be connected to the larger pond on the west side. They would work with City Engineering on that function. Mr. Shell stated that this would be a "bubble up" system. In higher storm events, upper storage basins are used. They would only be wet with a 50 -year event or above, so water would rarely be seen in that area. Mr. Smith stated that stormwater that would typically flow under the surface could bubble up out of it here during a greater event storm. They would consider the potential opportunity for making it a wet basin as well as landscaping opportunities, should it remain dry. Mr. McCauley stated that it would be very difficult to make this a wet pond. It would be necessary to make the pond even larger to do so. Ms. Newell stated that if the house on Lot 1 were eliminated, which is staffs recommendation, more area would be available. Mr. McCauley stated that the wet pond would be unnecessary, as there would seldom be a storm event to make it wet. Because it is a high spot, it would be difficult to make it wet all the time for aesthetic purposes only. Ms. Husak stated that the City discourages wet ponds within proximity to a road; a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way is typically required. Mr. Fishman noted that the dry basins he has seen around the City usually are full of weeds and overgrowth. There would need to be a commitment from the developer that a dry basin would be well landscaped and maintained. Mr. Smith responded that they are able to make that commitment. This will be a well maintained community. The residents will have a high level of expectations. They will work with staff to ensure what is planted will be maintained and look attractive. Ms. Kennedy inquired about the price point of these homes. Mr. Smith responded that the home prices would be approximately $600,000-$650,000. Mr. Fishman stated that he likes the development, except for Lot 1. He believes eliminating that lot would improve the greenspace view from the street. Mr. Smith responded that while he understands his point, having a model home located on that lot is a critical marketing piece for them. It also would provide a terminus for the architecture of the greater development, rather than having it bleed out to nowhere. This home will be a centerpiece, a showpiece for the community. Mr. Fishman stated that the neighbors would prefer to see open space. Many subdivisions do not have that, but Tartan Fields does. Its open space is a "Wow"factor. He would concur with staff's recommendation to eliminate that lot. Ms. Call stated that every parcel presents its own unique features. The setbacks along McKitrick Road here are very nice, and the open space being provided with this development already Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 23 of 32 exceeds the amount required, which is 3.56 acres. The actual space provided is 7.9 acres. Lot 1 would be in addition to that. Ms. Kennedy inquired if information regarding proposed developments such as this are shared with the School District, so that it can be factored into its redistricting considerations. Ms. Husak responded that she is unsure if the Schools are aware of the proposed development. However, an empty nester product would not have much impact on their redistricting considerations. Mr. Boggs stated that Dublin Schools redistricting is based on projections of development, not this specific development, but upon expected residential infill within the District's footprint. Ms. Call stated that the Schools are aware of the proposed developments that are before the Commission. This type of development, however, would have little impact. Ms. Fox stated that she likes the mounding and landscaping along the road. It will create a nice entrance along Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She likes the enhancements to the pond amenity and public gathering area. The mounding appears to stop behind Lot 17, and the topography around the pond is not extreme. Is there a way to provide connectivity from inside the development out to Hyland -Croy Road, perhaps with a path? The Community Plan recommends providing connectivity from one neighborhood to another. Due to the nearby school, a path connection to Hyland -Croy would be beneficial. Mr. Smith responded that connectivity has been discussed. The concern is that this is an empty nester community. They do not want to encourage pedestrian traffic into the community from the street. They would be willing to explore connectivity from another location, but not directly from the street. They do not want to advertise a path through the community to be used by bikers or pedestrian traffic along Hyland -Croy. Ms. Fox stated that she understands. However, residents of the community would appreciate a connectivity to the existing bikepath. Perhaps it could be provided on another corner. Mr. McCauley stated that throughout Tartan Ridge, there are many other connection points. Residents of this community would have to go outside the community to access one of those paths, but they are confident the residents would prefer that to the alternative. Today, we are constructing pedestrian bridges to encourage our community to walk; perhaps it is fine to encourage the residents of the community to walk down to the street to a central point to access the 1,000 -acre park across the street. To have people cutting through this neighborhood would not have a desirable impact. Ms. Fox stated there are many pedestrian and bike paths around the proposed development, so that opportunity exists. Many of her friends have moved to communities designed for ages 55 and older. What they enjoy is a community center where they can gather. Was there any consideration for using Lot 1 for that purpose? Mr. Smith stated that Lot 1 was originally used for a community gathering spot, using the fireplace feature. However, Romanelli & Hughes has not experienced interest from potential homebuyers for having a community center, especially in a community this small. It is expensive to support the needed level of architecture, maintenance, heating and cooling needs by HOA dues from 56 lots. Financially, it would be more possible for a community of 150 patio homes to support a fitness center. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 24 of 32 Ms. Fox stated she believes an attractive architectural feature would provide a nice introduction to the community. Perhaps an open -sided feature without a high level of maintenance would be an option to consider. Mr. Smith clarified that the ultimate purpose of Lot 1 for Romanelli & Hughes is to have a model home to be used as a sales center for the development. A model home will showcase what they are selling in the community, but its ultimate repurpose is a home. Mr. McCauley stated that they have been working on developing this area for 12 years and one year on this specific plan. A model home on Lot 1 will be their sales location, and the home will be the highlight of the community. After 12 years of effort, eliminating that critical feature is too great a risk to take. When everything is completed and the hedgerows are present, this piece will be well integrated into a beautiful development. Taking this one off the board is a significant ask for the Commission to make of the developer. That home is extremely important to kick off this community. Gathering places for the community have been incorporated elsewhere in the development. Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes, 148 W. Schrock Road, Westerville Ohio 43081, stated that Lot 1 is the gateway to and the signature piece for the community. Opportunities like this to have a model that will stand out are very important to them. It will be a showcase at the entrance versus just another open greenspace. In considering providing amenities, they always consider the burden that would be placed on the HOA. They are providing multiple amenities within this community. These homeowners will expect a high level of detail for their mounds, greenspace, mulch beds, trees and shrubs — and all that comes with a price. From the HOA's perspective, the pond overlook, in particular, will require costly maintenance. To include an additional clubhouse feature for 56 patio homes would be very burdensome to the homeowners. They have spent a lot of time discussing this layout internally. Former Planning Director Mr. Papsidero has been integral to that planning effort. Ms. Newell stated that she agrees with staffs condition. She understands that Llot 1 is the premier property for marketing purposes. However, Lot 2 could serve that purpose just as well. Eliminating Lot 1 would improve the entry into the community. Mr. Fishman concurred. In regard to Ms. Fox's suggestion, he does not believe another amenity should be placed on Lot 1. Greenspace alone will provide a nice entrance. Lot 2 can be used to provide a spectacular model home. Overall, he believes the development plan is beautiful. Public Comment David Lakin, 7128 Glacier Ridge Boulevard, Dublin, OH, stated that he formerly served on the Tartan Ridge HOA. He is hopeful that all of the construction traffic will come in from McKitrick Road and not through the main portion of the neighborhood. He is concerned about the school crossing for Glacier Ridge Elementary. When they refer to the HOA, are they referring to a new HOA or the master HOA? Ms. Husak responded that this development will have a new HOA. Mr. Lakin inquired if the residents of this new development also would pay into the master HOA. Current residents pay $800/year to maintain the hedgerows and the City's open spaces. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 25 of 32 Ms. Husak responded that, as proposed, they would not. Mr. Lakin stated that on page 32 of the existing development text, the statement is made that all residential property owners located within Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners association. Why would these homes not be included, as well? This is important because the master HOA maintains many acres of City land within Tartan Ridge. They were told that due to the proximity they all have to the land, all should share the burden of the maintenance cost. It directly affects the residents' property values and quality of life. These new homes will share that same neighborhood. It would appear that all the residents in the existing development will be sharing in the cost of the left turn lane into the new development, but the new homeowners will not be sharing in the maintenance cost of the common areas. It would make sense for all the common area to be included in the master HOA, and all residential homeowners should pay equally into the master HOA. Ms. Husak stated that there are two HOAs for the area to the north. There is also an HOA for the alley -loaded lots. Because they also pay into the master HOA, they pay more than $800/year. Mr. McCauley stated that, as envisioned, the new development would have its own HOA and be responsible for its 7.5 acres of open space and right-of-way, and not be part of the Tartan Ridge master HOA. This new development will have a high level of maintenance costs in addition to its open space, including the pond and pond amenity, the brick driveways and the sidewalks, and the lawns and landscaping needs for the individual homes. This is a conversation that he and Mr. Ohlin could have with the Tartan Ridge HOA board to see how they would like to proceed. He is unsure the master HOA would want to take on what will be a heavy burden for these additional 56 lots. It would require more than $800/year per home to cover those costs. Mr. Lakin stated that there are two other subareas within the subdivision that pay into their own HOAs for private roads and specific maintenance within those subareas, in addition to paying in the master HOA. The maintenance for all the common land, including that which abuts the villa homes is paid by the master HOA. Although they do not own the land, they are responsible for the maintenance. If the City of Dublin would be willing to assume some of the responsibility for maintenance of their own land, that could be an option. Is there any opportunity for the Hyland - Croy roundabout capital project to be scheduled to coincide with the construction of the turn lane? Ms. Newell responded that issue is not part of the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Lakin stated that the varieties of the hedge materials in Tartan Ridge were determined by the City. They have accumulated information on which hedge varieties have lived and which have not. They would like to share that information with staff at the appropriate time. The HOA has been burdened with replacing hedges every year, because they are not the correct variety. They now have historical information on what has proven to be successful within their neighborhood. Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Lakin's earlier comment about second HOAs that can handle the specific maintenance needs of their areas. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to provide such a recommendation for the proposed development? Mr. Boggs stated that HOA considerations do not address the criteria before the Commission; however, that item could be addressed by City Council. Without knowing details about the status Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 26 of 32 of the master HOA and the details of the proposed declarations and covenants for the new HOA, he cannot provide better guidance. It would be beneficial for the applicant and the master HOA leadership to meet and discuss these issues. Ms. Fox suggested a condition be added that information with those details be provided to City Council for their consideration of this rezoning. The development text does describe the HOA obligation. This new rezoning area is part of an overall much larger development. If the new development is being treated differently than the existing development, that is an issue Council would want to be made aware of. Mr. Boggs responded that Council would want to be made aware of this matter. Including such a condition would be responsive to the criteria that the common areas be maintained appropriately. Typically, Planning staff and the Commission do not address how that occurs other than requiring that there be a forced and funded HOA. How those responsibilities are shared is not part of this Commission's purview. Ms. Fox stated that the reason she suggests Council be made aware of the matter is, in the past, Council has been petitioned by HOAs for relief when HOAs have experienced financial burdens because these specifics were not clearly addressed with the development. It would be preferable to have a good understanding of this issue as it relates to the overall development and ensure that an exception is not made that will create a problem for the master HOA, and ultimately, the City. Mr. Lakin noted that essentially, this would be defunding the master HOA the funds from the 29 homes that originally were planned in Tartan Ridge — funds he assumes were factored into calculation of the HOA fee. Ms. Call stated that the City does not address HOA fund calculations. Looking at the drawing provided, there is a red dotted line circling the development area; what does that denote? Ms. Husak responded that an outline of the entire Tartan Ridge development as it exists today was provided; the hatched area designates the proposed development area. Ms. Call stated that, in her view, if this area is being included in Tartan Ridge, it should be included financially, as well. That may mean that a sub association is needed to address the maintenance of the greater amenities in the proposed development. Although that is outside the purview of this Commission, it needs to be addressed by some party. Perhaps the Commission could direct staff to determine the proper body to address it and ensure that it is communicated to City Council. Mr. Fishman agreed, noting that perhaps these residents should pay into the master HOA and have their own sub association, as well. However, much of this area originally was planned as commercial property. The commercial area was not part of the earlier HOA fee calculation. Mr. Lakin responded that there were two parcels involved. The commercial component was planned on the right edge, and 29 homes are in the remaining area. Mr. McCauley stated that, currently, he is not sufficiently knowledgeable of the master HOA document provisions; however, they would abide by the stated terms. If the documents state that this area is to be included in the overall forced and funded HOA, they will comply. If the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 27 of 32 documents are unclear on the matter, they would discuss the issue with the master HOA leadership. In addition to lawns, this new area also will have 7.5 acres of open space and a pond amenity. The master HOA may not want to maintain that area. Because this area will have a higher degree of maintenance demands, the applicant was willing to handle that financial responsibility in its entirety. The anticipated financial costs would be calculated, and the parties would meet and discuss them. Mr. Lakin stated that the Stavroff group has been excellent to work with, and he has spoken with Mr. McCauley frequently. They like the proposed development plan. In regard to a home on Lot 1 — as a resident in the community, he has no objection to the developer's plan. Kevin Lutz, 9179 Brenham Way, Dublin, stated that his home is located across from the stubbed street. If that street were to cut through, vehicle lights would be an issue for his family; he appreciates the consideration that was made. Although he would prefer the area remain a soybean field, development will inevitably occur. He has heard that they have been trying to identify the right development for 12 years. It is better that it be development that is controlled, and a residential development is much better than the 68,000 square feet of commercial that could have been programmed. That amount of commercial space would not be a coffee shop and ice cream parlor; it would be a strip mall. He applauds the work that has been done with the streets, avoiding any direct access off Hyland -Croy Road that would have resulted in cut -through traffic through their neighborhood. Glacier Ridge Elementary School is their neighbor. Putting any commercial development here would have required a significant level of caution. Having an empty -nester neighborhood makes much more sense. From 3:00-4:00 p.m., Brenham Way is occupied by 20-25 vehicles making school pickups. The proposed development will complement that practice. If a showcase home on Lot 1 will sell all the houses in the division faster, then he supports giving them Lot 1. He would prefer the building process not take eight years! What their neighborhood needs is to be connected. They do not have a bikepath connection. For his children to ride their bikes to Jerome High School, they must either walk their bikes along Hyland - Croy Road or cut through a cornfield. This project will permit a bikepath to be constructed from Glacier Ridge Elementary to Jerome High School, meeting a real need. Although the residents may not want to pay for another left turn lane, that is a better option than the two left -turn lanes that would have occurred with a commercial development. In that case, a left -turn lane off Hyland -Croy Road would have been necessary, as well. There would also be a curbcut on the needed bikepath. Currently, the stretch of road from the elementary school to McKitrick Road has no curbcuts, so children can bike safely down to that intersection. Ms. Kennedy stated she appreciates the great public feedback and their opinions regarding a house on Lot 1. The Commission appreciates hearing the voice of the residents. Max Long, 1057 Hyland Croy Road, Dublin, stated that Jerome Township, Union County and the City of Dublin have worked together on forming a comprehensive plan — The Crossroads Area Plan. In 2015, the City agreed to Jerome Township's and Union County's plan. In the Land Use Plan, it was indicated that a rural area would be maintained throughout Hyland Croy Road. Jerome Village has already built 27 homes; 38 homes are planned; and a total of 5,300 homes are projected. In addition to Glacier Ridge Elementary, another elementary and middle school will be added on the same road. Glacier Ridge Elementary is set back 200 feet. When the Oak Park development was adopted, 230 feet of road frontage was required. For Corazon, 300 feet was required; for the Pulte Homes Autumn Rose development, 215 feet of road frontage was required. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 28 of 32 Does the text for this development require that the ROW be extended from 40 feet to 50 feet from the center of the road? Mr. Ridge responded that is the fourth condition, which was added after the staff report was distributed. Mr. Long stated the road is at the back of the pond. Lots 8 - 17 are within 100 feet of the road. Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission has indicated that Hyland -Croy will be changed to a four - lane road with an island. When that is completed, will any setback remain? On the Corazon property to the south, the islands are built up, earthen dams with trees, so those homes cannot be seen. According to page 4-2 of this plan, the backs of the homes will not be exposed to the existing road; yet, Lots 8-17 are within 100 feet of the road. The plan also provides for the homes to be architecturally staggered on the lots. With only a 3 to 5 -foot mound, there will be a direct view into the rear patios of these homes. It was understood that new residential development was not to be permitted to encroach upon this area. What will the distance be between the anticipated traffic circle and Lot 8? Mr. Ridge responded that he does not have that information at hand. Mr. Long stated that for comparison purposes, Glacier Ridge Elementary has a 250 -foot setback. The O'Brien property at 9635 Hyland Croy has a 450 -foot setback, and the other properties to the south range from 300 feet to 200 feet. Dublin has preserved that setback in the past. There will also be a path immediately next to the road. He does not want his children walking along this road. He lives on this road, which has a 45 -mph speed limit. It is often difficult to exit their driveway. This is a heavily traveled road, and these houses will be next to the road. The area plans, including the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan and the Crossroads Area Plan required some setbacks. The Gorden Property in Dublin provides a 50 -ft. setback from the right-of-way; adjacent to that is a service road, and an additional 100 feet is required on the inside before building is permitted. That plan provides a significant open area -- why was nothing similar required for this development? He is concerned this development will destroy the rural feel driving along Hyland -Croy Road. Commission Questions Ms. Newell inquired if the City Code has setback requirements for this area. At one time, certain City roadways were considered scenic, typically with requirements for 200 -foot setbacks. Does the Community Plan address this? Ms. Husak stated that the speaker referred to The Crossroads Plan. Staff has reviewed that plan, discussed the issue with Union County and verified that The Crossroads Plan does not address homes backing up to Hyland -Croy Road. Many of the properties that were mentioned are not within the City's jurisdiction. All properties on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road are in Jerome Township and were developed as very rural lots. The City's Zoning Code does not require a setback greater than the right-of-way width. Some of the neighborhoods, such as Bishop's Crossing, Bishop's Run and Park Place, which are now 10-15 years old, were built when the City was working on a plan called, "The Road to WOW." That plan, which was never adopted, proposed standards for greater setbacks from Hyland -Croy Road, and in exchange, higher density would be permitted. The 2007 Community Plan provided for the roadway characteristics of a scenic, rural roadway with a setback requirement of 200 feet. The Community Plan was updated in 2013, along with the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan, and that revision eliminated some of the roadway characteristics and setbacks. The current setback requirement is 80-100 feet. What is proposed with this plan is 100 feet, so it is consistent with the Community Plan. The Community Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 29 of 32 Plan is a policy document. Mr. Long is referring to Township documents, which the City of Dublin does not have. She is unsure if the Township's 2018 document has the same language, although that document has not been approved. Ms. Newell referred to Exhibit C-1, which is an EMH&T plan. Running along Hyland -Croy Road, there are a number of dashed lines; what do they denote? Mr. Smith stated that there are existing easements along Hyland -Croy Road, including a gas line. He believes the dashed lines designate those lines. Ms. Newell inquired if there are any easements for future roadway improvements. Mr. Smith responded that there are not. However, they will be dedicating 50 feet of right-of-way along Hyland -Croy Road, pre staffs request, which will result in a total of 100 feet. Mr. McCauley stated that the existing zoning, which includes the commercial development, permitted the development to be closer than 200 feet. He believes a setback of 150 feet was permitted. The new plan will provide 100 feet from the future road right-of-way. Ms. Husak stated that staff has verified the future easement is for gas lines. Mr. Smith stated that he previously served as the Zoning Officer for Jerome Township, so he is familiar with the aforementioned documents. He was present when the Township, City and the County adopted the Crossroads Area Plan. That plan never contemplated land up this far. Its focus area was the area surrounding Costco, the additional piece of industrial land at the intersection of SR161 and US33, and the Jacquemin Farms and Gorden Farms pieces. The different entities were attempting to reach a common ground on that area. He also wrote the Township's Comprehensive Plan in 2009. That plan does not contemplate 200 -foot setbacks from anything. It does address land use, rural development and conservation development. Specific setbacks were not established for any roads. From a Code standpoint, rural residential lots within the Township must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way. From Jerome Township's perspective, additional setback for any new development within the Township is preferred. Of the last four -five past developments, however, where houses backed up to the road, nothing more than 80-100 feet was required. This development would be consistent with the Township's policy. Ms. Call stated that the bikepath is shown in the drawings as continuing along the existing trail that runs adjacent to Glacier Ridge and continuing down to the roundabout. Is there a schedule for phasing in that path along with the development? Mr. McCauley responded that it would be installed when the street paving occurs, or soon thereafter. Ms. Newell stated that one of the previous citizen comments referred to the location of the construction entrance. Has the location of that entrance been determined? Mr. McCauley stated that he does not believe it has, but he does not believe there would be any objection to having it off McKitrick Road. Ms. Fox referred to the condition requiring elimination of the home on Lot 1. Like Mr. Fishman, she does not support dry retention basins. They tend to look unfinished. From an engineering standpoint, what are the options to make it look attractive? That is at the main entrance. She Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 30 of 32 would not be opposed to having an attractive piece of architecture in that location. Otherwise, there would be an unattractive dry basin and a flat field. Ms. Call requested clarification of the reason for staffs recommendation to delete Lot 1. Mr. Ridge stated that staff recommended that it be deleted because it appeared isolated from the remaining lots, is shaped irregularly and is larger than the other lots. Mr. McCauley stated that they could agree to remove the dry basin concept, leaving it as open greenspace with some landscaping. They would work with staff on how to modify the other pond appropriately for the site. However, they do need to have Lot 1 remain. As heard tonight, the neighbors support Lot 1 remaining in the plan. Although it appears irregularly shaped in the plans, when completed, it will be as attractive as the other lots. Therefore, he would request that condition be removed. They have no objection to the remaining conditions. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Supelak indicated that they have no objection to Lot 1 remaining. Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the height of the mounding along Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Ridge responded that it would be three to five feet in height and include trees. Mr. Fishman stated that he would like to see it heavily landscaped, but not with landscaping material, per se. He would prefer pine trees or something that will achieve an opaque screening. Ms. Newell stated that a variety of plantings could achieve that. Mr. Fishman stated that the plan appeared to provide many deciduous trees. He requested that the applicant commit to making the screening opaque — in whatever way that might be achieved. Mr. Smith stated that there would be an opportunity for discussion of landscaping details with the Final Development Plan. They are required to bring back a Final Landscape Plan to the Commission. Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the revised five conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions: 1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the existing storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned, prior to Council review; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names and naming method is appropriate; 3) That the applicant work with staff to clarify HOA membership; 4) That the applicant remove the dry basin and add green space and landscaping within the area, subject to staff approval; and 5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping in the mounding along Hyland Croy Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 31 of 32 Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the four conditions. Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement. Ms. Call moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City Council with the following four conditions: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan are made prior to City Council submittal; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names are approved and indicated appropriately on the plat; and 3) That the applicant revise the Preliminary Plat prior to Council review to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road, as required by Code. 4) That the applicant revise the plat to accurately display the planned 100 -foot right-of-way for Hyland -Croy Road. Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion passed 6-0] RECORD OF DISCUSSION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, July 11, 2019 1 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. PUD — Tartan Ridge Subareas D1, E, & F PIDs: 3900140580000, Yes 4000140580020,4000140581010,3900140580020 19-049CP Concept Plan Proposal: Potential rezoning of 24 acres within the Tartan Ridge development to Absent accommodate the construction of 56 single-family homes targeted Yes toward empty -nesters and associated site improvements. Location: On the east side of Hyland -Croy Road, north of the intersection with Absent McKitrick Road Request: Review and approval of a Concept Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066. Applicant: Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager Contact Information: (614) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/19-049 RESULT: The Commission reviewed and commented on a Concept Plan application for the potential rezoning of 24 acres in the Tartan Ridge development to convert the currently permitted uses of commercial, townhomes, and single-family lots to small, single-family lots for an empty nester market. Most Commissioners supported the change in use, while others were concerned about losing the option of neighborhood serving commercial services. The Commission commented on the dense layout proposed for the site and the lack of integrated open space. The Commission requested the applicant uphold the architectural character and integrity of the established Tartan Ridge neighborhood. MEMBERS PRESENT: Victoria Newell Yes Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Absent William Wilson Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Absent STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Senior Planner/ Manager of Current Planning PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov City of Dublin ON 10. use MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, July il, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Chair Newell called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Newell led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commission members present: Ms. Newell, Ms. Fox, Mr. Supelak, Mr. Fishman and Mr. Wilson Commission members absent: Ms. Kennedy and Ms. Call Staff members present: Ms. Rauch, Ms. Husak and Mr. Hartmann ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS Mr. Fishman moved, Ms. Fox seconded, to accept the documents into the record. Vote: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes. (Motion passed 5-0) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Fishman moved, Mr. Wilson seconded, to approve the June 20, 2019 meeting minutes. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. (Motion passed 5-0) Ms. Newell stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when rezoning and platting of property is under consideration. For those cases, City Council will receive recommendations from the Commission. For other cases, the Commission has the decision-making responsibility, and anyone who wishes to address the Commission on any of the administrative cases must be sworn in. There .are no cases on the consent agenda tonight, and the agenda order is typically determined at the beginning of the meeting by the Chair. CASES 1. Tartan Ridge, Subareas D1, E, & F, 19-049CP, Concept Plan Ms. Newell stated that this application is a request for the potential rezoning of 24 acres within the Tartan Ridge development to accommodate the construction of 56 single-family homes targeted toward empty nesters and associated site improvements. The site is on the east side of Hyland - Croy Road, north of the intersection with McKitrick Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 2 of 10 The Tartan Ridge development is essentially cornplete&', there areew lotus redinina. This particular siubarea was included in the overall development foir Tartan Ridge. The 2005 Tat -,tan Ridge zoning included 68,,000 square feet of commercial use, a fuel station err ed as a conditional use'. and restaurant, retail and office. Fourteen years have passed since that zoning, and no at3plication or Inquiry has been made for any roMmercial devellopinnent with'n !the area,, The other use permitted I'mwed latelly adjacent to the M/I alley -loaded lots was 24 townhouse units,, On th-l^-- northern boundary, the street could be extended Will SiX or more single-family lots pard fl, -ed. The Community Plan was updated after Tartan Ridge was zoned and reflects the uses that were expected at that time, which includes lower density, mixed residential (3-0 units/acre) with a neighborhood retail center. EMRQP.l . A- T�e applicant is proposing to create a new subarea, taking everything that is remaining OUT. OT those three existing subareas and creating a new subarea for main tenance-free, single-family 5ni- homes for empty nesters desiring to downsize but still preferring a highendliving environme. The site layout includes streetSIChat were part of the originall Tartan Ridge Plan aS well as an access point on McKitrick Road to the south. The City 'is working with Union County on a roundabout at McKltrick and Hyland -Croy Roads, which the applicant has incorporated into their plan with the ample setback that is apical of Hyland -Croy Road,, There are public street connections throuqhout the neighborhood. The applicant has provided conceptual drawings of the homes, which will be ranch and 1.5 -story homes to provide primarily first floor living,. Archit c�tu�re There are a ma jobb, of front -loaded garages due t"o the lot sees and widths, although there are possibilities for some side-loaded/courtyard gark-111ges., In the current development text for Teir'L­an Ridge, there are signtricant arch itectural requirements and standards, which are not typical for anly the development texts within the Cilc�. TI"iere is no review criteria for Concept Plan reviews. They are similar to Informal Revtews, and therefore, discussion questions have been provided -for the Common. The applicant is seeking Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 �-',age 3 of 10 9 feedback on the proposal to rezone the site to a new PUD to accommodate the proposed I construction of 56 single-family homes and associated site improvements. Mr. Fishman inquired the size of the sideyard setback. Ms. Husak stated that detail is not yet determined. However, in Tartan Ridge, the smallest setback is 6 feet. Tartan Ridge is divided 'Into estate lots, village lots and more compact lots. Mr. Supelak stated that in the original 2005 ma,113ter plan for Taiftan Ridge, Baronet Boulevard extended through the development and connected to Hyland Croy Road, that roadwayis not shown here. Isthat determined by the City or the applicant? Planning and Zoning Commissio Meeting Minutes of July 11, 201 Page 4 of 10 Planning and Zoning Commissio Meeting Minutes of July 11, 201 Page 5 of 10 1 111pliq Ni ,*,lanning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 tage 6 of 10 CAR Ms. Fox stated that the original Tartan Ridge plan called for a village -type setting. This plan departs from the opportunity to creeat_e that village—type setting and takes another direction. Was any c ideration given to adhering to e e thoriginal concpt? onsl 1 1, 1 1 1 P"Janning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 7 of 10 There was no public commenj Ms. Newell requested that the Commissioners respond to the discussion questions posed by staff,.. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2019 Page 9 of 10 [Ms. Newell noted that Ms. Fox expressed her apologies for departing the meeting eany to artena a AS"pecial City Council meeting.] Mr. Smith stated that they have received beneficial feedback from the Commission. They will review and consider the suggestions made and return with a responsive application that is mutually acceptable., C. Histon"c Dublin — ARS Code Amendments & Historic Dublin Design Gui"deh"ne%m 2. Bridge Street District — Code Amendment & Design Guidelines Mr. Fishman inquired the northern boundary of the Bridge Street District, Ms. Rauch responded that it Is 1-270. Planning and Zoning Commisslo Meeting Minutees of July 11, 201 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Fishman inquired if that would be the boundary on both sides of the riverX Mr. Rauch responded affirmatively, Ms. Husak noted that the Bridge Street District is comprised of 1, 100 acres, approximately 6 percent of the City. Mr. Wilson suggested that it would be helpful to have examples of the neighborhoods in which the Residential Appearance Co:de has been applied. Commissioners could visit those neighborhoods to view them. Ms. Newell suggested that the Residential Appearance Code could be scheduled as an agenda 'topic for the net PZC meeting. The meeting was aojourned at 7:50 p.rn! 5 a r, PlanrWig a ing Commi Depu ler k of Council He 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 A Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Ordinance 14-07 Requesting Approval to Change the Name of Scherers Place to Laser Lane in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam stated that staff is requesting Council postpone this ordinance. Staff had devised a name, but in checking with Franklin County, it was already in use. Staff will bring a proposal back on April 9. Mr. McCash moved to postpone this item until April 9. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 15-07 Accepting the Updated Estimated Average Per Acre Value of Land for Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Mr. Hahn stated there are no changes subsequent to the first reading. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that in Exhibit B, page 2, paragraph 2, line 5, the word "principals" should be "principles." Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 16-07 Rezoning Approximately 189.57 Acres Located North of the Intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, Bordered to the East by Jerome Road and to the North by Brock Road, From R, Rural, To PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Tartan Ridge - 9756 Hyland -Croy Road - Case No. 05-183Z) Ms. Husak stated that this ordinance was introduced at the March 5th Council meeting. This presentation will focus on the changes the applicant has made in response to the discussion at the prior meeting. The plan for this development includes various housing types, large open spaces and a limited commercial area in the southwest corner of the site. The housing consists of seven different single-family home types and 24 townhouse units in four buildings. Active parks are proposed throughout the site and passive open spaces are primarily located along the scenic road setbacks. The neighborhood commercial area proposed consists of 68,500 square feet of space that could be utilized for office, retail and restaurant space. In discussion of the commercial area, Council identified the following issues: (1) the importance of this area to be pedestrian oriented and accessible to bicycles; (2) the proposed location of the gas station; and (3) development text language requiring night sky preservation. Council also discussed the potential viability of the neighborhood commercial area. The applicant has submitted a revised development text that addresses the issues. 1. The conditional use language on page 46 has been revised to include language stating that the gas station/convenience store will be located in the area depicted in the preliminary development plan, which is located along Hyland -Croy Road with a 200 -foot setback. 2. The text has also been revised to require a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces, based on the number of parking spaces provided for vehicles. 3. The language regarding lighting requirements was also changed, deleting a reference to the Dublin Lighting Guidelines to state that night sky preservation is required. Planning will continue to work with the applicant to devise a lighting plan for this location, which is near homes and the Metro Park. That will be finalized during the final development plan phase. The applicant is prepared tonight to address the viability of the neighborhood commercial proposal. At their February 1 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezoning with 11 conditions, which are noted in the Record of Action for that meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held 117 Ben Hale Jr., representative for the applicant stated that Charlie Driscoll, Edwards Land Company, is present to respond to Council's questions. Also present is Robin Lorms, a commercial consultant hired by the applicant to ensure that the proposed commercial area is a viable commercial development. One of the factors Mr. Lorms considered is the amount of available commercial area west of the river. As part of that, he reviewed vacancy rates. Out of 1,300,000 plus square feet, he found 2,000 square feet of vacant space, which translates into an occupancy rate of 99.973%. Essentially, there is 100 percent occupancy of commercial space. Mr. Lorms has accumulated some statistics, which should help Council to understand that this would be a very viable and successful commercial development. Robin Lorms principal with Integrity Resources, Crown Park Court stated that he has been asked to render an opinion regarding the potential viability of a proposed retail development at Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Road. Their practice specializes in retail development, market analysis and market research. One of the first steps they took was to review the occupancy levels of shopping centers west of the Scioto River to determine the supply/demand relationship. They focused on community and neighborhood type of developments, including: Avery Square with Kroger, Perimeter Square with Giant Eagle, the Shoppes at Athenry, Shawnee Square, Northbridge Village Square and Karric Square. During the first round of analysis, all the space was occupied except one store. Subsequently, a bigger space became available in the Perimeter Square and another in Avery Square. The overall market is 98 percent occupied, which is very good. A healthy ratio would be 93-94 percent occupied. They then reviewed some demographic studies within the following polygon: Post Road on the south, Hyland -Croy Road to the west, Brock Road to the north and the Scioto River to the east. Within those borders, there are approximately 26,000 people. A healthy ratio of retail space is around 28 square feet per capita. That calculates to a need for approximately 800,000 square feet of retail space. They then evaluated the content of the shopping centers and discovered that Dublin is far below the recommended commercial space. He described several existing examples of 800,000 square feet of retail. In the western section of the City, there was no retail planned between the existing retail at Avery Road and Post Road and that planned for Jerome Village. That area is experiencing tremendous population growth, and additional growth is planned. His conclusions were that this site is not only viable, it would also enhance the quality of life for the existing developments and those proposed. Mr. Reiner inquired if Mr. Lorms made any observations in regard to the east side of the river. Mr. Lorms responded that he has looked at different submarkets in Franklin county --one is the east side of the river and the Sawmill Corridor. That area has a vacancy rate of 13 percent. However, the Dublin Village Center is included in that database and is a center that is no longer viable. The Village Square is also at risk, maybe a couple of others. When those are eliminated from the equation, the occupancy is in the low 90th percentile. Some of those developments should be subjected to an adaptive re -use study at some point in time. Mr. Keenan stated that although reviewing that particular area may not have been the initial charge to Mr. Lorms, it is interesting to hear his opinion regarding Dublin Village Center. This situation is part of the reason for Council's reticence to approve additional retail development. Mr. Lorms stated that Dublin is a beautiful community; it is well-planned. People in the retail business, especially those from out of town, notice immediately the visibility and signage that H.H. Gregg and Whole Foods have. Those are the necessary fundamentals for retail. The problem with Dublin Village Center is that, although aesthetically it is pleasing, there is no visibility. Mrs. Boring stated that when Michael's was forced to leave that center, they did not want to leave that location. Mr. Keenan responded that he was interested in hearing the views of someone who is well known for their expertise in the area of retail development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council 20 e Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired his views about Perimeter Center, which is virtually full, although it is situated behind gas stations, banks and fast food restaurants. In addition, there is no signage for it on Avery-Muirfield Road. Why is this so successful? Mr. Lorms responded that it is due to the issue pointed out tonight — there is pent-up demand for retail on the western side of the river. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that it is not then entirely a signage -related issue. Mr. Lorms responded that it is part of it. There is an anchor tenant, Giant Eagle, which is a draw to the center. There is also a regular, sustainable patronage of customers who live in that area and shop in that area. The Sawmill Corridor is a regional location, with customers coming from Upper Arlington, Worthington and beyond. Anchor tenants in the Sawmill Corridor demand and receive a lot of visibility and signage. The retail at Avery Road and Post Road is a community center. Mrs. Boring stated that there are many communities that do not have extensive signage, yet they have a draw to regional centers. For example, in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Lowe's store has poor visibility, yet good business volume. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher inquired if Mr. Lorms' formula takes into account the type of commercial development. Presumably, it is not based entirely on square footage and population but dependent upon a business that is of sufficient interest to the residents. Mr. Lorms responded that is absolutely true. It is analogous to the hotel industry. For example, a healthy occupancy rate for hotels is 70 percent. If an interchange study is conducted and the results indicate that the hotels have a 60 percent occupancy, the conclusion could be that there is not enough demand for another hotel. However, if all of those hotels are an older format hotel, three to four newer format hotels could come in and achieve a 90 percent occupancy. It is the same with a retail business. The right retail, right configuration and right mix of tenants can achieve great success in an area with 15 percent vacancy. It is possible to build a new center and achieve 100 percent occupancy because the other retail is not meeting the market demand. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council's concern is with having another center with issues such as the Dublin Village Center. Mr. Hale stated that is a legitimate concern. If this Tartan Ridge center is built, will it take tenants from another center and leave that center empty? Mr. Lorms stated that is a valid concern. If there is a market with 500,000 square feet of space of which 100,000 square feet is vacant, and the trade area can be defined concisely, the vacancy is probably due to over supply. Adding more generic space could present a problem, unless it was for a very unique product or a missing niche. In the subject case, there is no space and everything is full. The simple formula is if the supply is full and the demand is growing, if the space is well done, well designed, and well located in the midst of existing population, then from whom would the new retail extract business? In this case, there is no other retail in the area. Mrs. Boring stated that she does not understand how the Sawmill Road regional retail relates to this discussion. Aside from that, she does not want to see any retail drawn away from the community retail area located at Post and Avery Roads, even though some customers may need to drive more than a few minutes to access it. If three additional retail centers are added to the equation -- Jerome Village, Oak Park and Tartan Ridge -- how do the numbers compare? Mr. Lorms stated that even with three additional retail centers added to the database, with the population growth anticipated, the City will continue to be under -supplied. He clarified that with the Sawmill Road example, he was attempting to respond to the distance factor — the distance between Henderson and Reed roads to Powell retail would equate to the distance between Jerome Village and the Avery/Post Road retail. Mr. Hale stated that the applicant has been working with staff on a final development plan for a portion of this site; that should be completed within a few days. The first phase will be built around the park because it is exceptionally important to the development and extends to the school. A road will be constructed and extended to the school. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 Page Held Kimberly Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, Dublin stated that most of her points are recorded in the public comments section of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes. However, she would like to emphasize the following points: (1) The entryway. It would make more sense to line up the Tartan Ridge entryway to make it fully aligned with Jerome Village. The present location isn't feasible, as there is only 530 feet between the two -- not enough for two left turn lanes. Vehicles will be at risk for a collision. They requested that the plan be revised to address that, but it remains unchanged in the plan before Council. (2) Water. There are drainage tiles throughout the field where they plan to build upon. When they presented their concerns at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the developer indicated that they were aware of the issue and had some plans to address the issue. However, the residents have not seen any plans and are concerned. The developer did indicate that if any of the neighboring properties were impacted in the future with water problems, they would remedy those situations. But the neighbors are not comfortable with that statement. How long would it take before evidence of a problem is seen, and then how much longer to address it? Presently, following a rain, there is a lot of standing water in that field. In addition, part of that water is septic. There are 15 neighboring homes on septic systems and wells, and some of the systems are leaking. There will be some water purification needs. She had heard that the stormwater drain -off is intended to drain into the pond, but it would not be wise to have septic water draining into the ponds. (3) Utilities. No utilities have been planned for the 15 homes in that vicinity, which currently have well and septic systems. They would be interested in tapping into City water/sewer lines. (4) Retail. At the Commission meeting, the residents inquired why the retail is being planned for the southwest corner, rather than the southeast. The neighbors want to preserve the look of Glacier Ridge Metro Park, which is one of natural beauty. Coming over the crest of the road on Hyland -Croy in front of Glacier Ridge, one sees Glacier Ridge on the left and now will see retail on the right. It would be more appropriate to place the retail on Jerome Road. The plans are to widen both Hyland -Croy and Jerome Roads to 80 feet, so they would be able to handle a similar amount of traffic volume. (5) Convenience store. Surely, the Tartan Ridge people are not happy about the proposed convenience store immediately across the street from large, expensive single-family homes. In addition, two other retail centers are already planned for this area. Jerome Village has an entire city planned, with a significant amount of retail. There is no need for retail on this corner immediately across from the Metro Park. The residents want to preserve the natural look of the area. (6) What are the plans to eliminate the "eye sores" — the water towers, construction dumpsters, etc. She noted that the revisions to the retail area seem to indicate that the parking has been changed to make it more parking friendly. That is much appreciated. Mr. Reiner inquired about the leech fields and septic systems. Did the applicant purchase the back portions of the properties? Is that why the leech fields are protruding into the applicant's property? Ms. Clavin responded that her neighbor would be able to respond to that. Greg Theodore, 7651 Brock Road stated that all the stormwater run-off in that area flows to Brock Road, and most of it across his back field. The proposed entry to this development from Brock Road is along the edge of his front yard. The developer plans to take part of his yard for that entryway. Unfortunately, this land is part of the flow path. There are two major retention sites for all of that area along Hyland -Croy Road. Last week, the field was a river. All the leech beds in that area drain into the water flow and into that field — right into the proposed entryway from Brock Road. Mr. Reiner stated that, hopefully, the ground is absorbing it. Mr. Theodore responded that it typically does, but when the ground is frozen, the water coming from the leech beds flows across the ground. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it is her understanding the issues were addressed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, but she would like Mr. Hale to respond, as they seem to be significant. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council e Mr. Hale stated that they had a private meeting with the residents, which their engineer attended. They also had meetings with the Union County Engineer. As a result, the plans for the access road have been lined up with the Jerome Village entryway. Also, they have evaluated the site carefully in context with the surrounding area, and their engineer has identified two inlets that are bringing in the water. He has also calculated the volume of water flow, and the pipes are being sized sufficiently to pick the water up and transport it into the pond system at the same rate as occurs today. The neighborhood meeting was very beneficial. The residents were able to sensitize the developer to some things they believed were occurring on their properties. Their engineer has preliminarily reviewed that drainage and has assured the developer and the residents that the pipes will be sized sufficiently to remove the water at a reasonable rate. In compliance with the Dublin Code, they will also clean the stormwater before it is released from their site. Mr. Reiner stated that this is a tiled farm field, which appears to have functioned well for the farmers. Does the developer intend to intercept that water along the property line with a swale system? Mr. Hale responded that their engineers have identified two inlets that are the source of the problem, and according to the topography maps, they appear to be the only cause. However, the neighbors have stated that they believe the water is coming from more than those two inlets. Therefore, the developer has agreed to investigate that question further. Regardless, there will be sufficient storage on the site to hold that water, and they believe they have sized the pipes sufficiently to remove the water. If not, they will increase their size. Although their preliminary development plan indicates that they will be able to handle the water runoff, they are required to complete a full stormwater review in conjunction with the final development plan. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher referred to the neighbors' request to tap in to the City water and sewer lines. Will this be set up so that they can tap in, if they so choose? Mr. Hale responded that with the water tank located in this area, there is sufficient capacity. They have informed the neighbors that the first step for them would be to annex to the City of Dublin. They have offered to facilitate that for the residents at no cost. If all the neighbors would agree to the annexation, the developer will take care of the costs of the annexation application on a one-time only basis. If annexed, they would be able to tap into the City's water and sewer lines. Mr. Reiner inquired if the developer has addressed the effluent issue. The water is "sheeting" toward this new subdivision and it is carrying effluent. How would the City's water purification requirements address the effluent? Mr. Hale stated that there are some water issues on the individual properties. They anticipate the problems will improve with the over -sized pipes. Presently, some of the water is being blocked from draining. Sheet flowing is a sign of a back-up. Hopefully, their septic systems are functioning, but the residents would be welcome to tap in upon annexation. However, their studies do not indicate that they are receiving much effluent. Most of the houses are set far back from their property lines. In addition, there are intervening ponds that help to clean it. Mr. Reiner stated that the stormwater management of this plan is extremely important. When these houses are constructed, the developer should pay particular attention to the plans. Council does not want to have the residents coming to the City in 5-7 years with complaints of water ponding in their yards. Mr. Hale agreed. However, there are clearly broken tiles on the site that appear to have been broken for some period of time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the Oak Park retail will be comprised of small shops, similar to the plans for this development. She is not aware of any big box type retail planned in Jerome Village. Perhaps that is located on a site much further south, where a property owner is interested in pursuing zoning for big box retail through Jerome Township. Mr. Hale responded that another big box retail development has been zoned to the west of US 33, north of Post Road on the Skilken property. Jerome Village has a portion of big box retail in addition to the neighborhood retail, but it is a long distance from the Tartan Ridge development. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher stated that she did not have the map in her materials that shows the driveway realignment. Ms. Husak stated that Council received the same packet that was provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to the preliminary development plan. The plan that Mr. Hale referred to was shared with Planning staff in conjunction with the final development plan that they have been working on. It is not part of these materials. Ms. Husak added that the realignment was addressed by Condition #7 in the Record of Action, regarding "access coordination." Mr. McCash requested clarification regarding the phasing of Subarea F. The intention is to create some sort of architectural edge for Subarea E, the other townhome component. However, as it reads, the gas station and the coffee shop could be built there and it would create the necessary architectural edge. Or is the intent actually to develop the two buildings that are closer to the entry? Mr. Hale stated that it is the intent. It would be unusual to build it all at one time, unless there were tenants, but most of the infrastructure would be constructed up front. Mr. McCash stated that he recognizes that, but the text reads that the gas station, coffee shop and other components on the northeast corner would be built, but the adjoining Subarea E retail may not be built for several years down the road. At that point in time, there could be issues with the property owners when that is submitted for final development plan approval. The intention was to build the retail along with the residential structures, but that is not reflected in the text on page 50, paragraph M. The coffee shop and car wash have no direct connection to any of the residential components there from a buffering standpoint, Mr. Hale stated that what they were trying to convey is that by committing to 32,500 square feet, they were making a substantial commitment for the first phase. The question is in regard to how much architecture is necessary to make it a reality for the residents; 32,500 square feet of building development should be sufficient. Mr. McCash noted they could then have a CVS and a gas station. He noted that the concern is to avoid having the retail back up against the residential area, such as the "Shoppes at Athenry" situation. Mr. Hale responded that he discussed that situation with Mr. Driscoll, and he has indicated that he would be willing to agree that the townhomes would not be constructed until the first phase of the commercial component has been built. Mrs. Boring inquired about the square footage of the Shoppes at River Ridge. Ms. Husak responded that it is 105,000 square feet. Mrs. Boring inquired the square footage of the Mary Kelley's area. Ms. Husak responded that it is approximately 40,000 square feet, which includes the UDF and the daycare center. Mrs. Boring inquired the number of miles between the Jerome Village shopping center and the proposed retail center. Ms. Husak responded that they are approximately five miles apart. Mr. Hale noted that the Union County Engineer has indicated that the first step for them is to build a roundabout at Brock Road and Hyland Croy and they will build Jerome Road to the north. They will initiate the development on the south end. Mrs. Boring inquired the distance between this shopping center and Oak Park. Ms. Husak responded that it is approximately one mile apart. Mr. Reiner inquired if this development is essentially what Council observed in the field trip to Franklin, Tennessee. Ms. Husak responded that much of the development standards for the Westhaven development in Franklin were developer driven. Staff consulted the Westhaven booklets to determine what they did to achieve those architectural results, but the booklets did not include much detail. These development standards, on the other hand, have been meticulously created to require architectural detail to a level not previously seen. It should achieve the same results that were observed in Franklin. Mrs. Boring inquired if there are alleys in this development. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Mrs. Boring stated that Ms. Salay is not present this evening, but at the last meeting she had inquired about the landscaping requirements for alleys to achieve the results observed in Franklin. Ms. Husak stated that staff noted the concerns expressed by Council on that field trip, and they attempted to address those details thoroughly in the final development plan — fencing locations, mailbox locations, how areas are landscaped, the length of driveways, etc. Mrs. Boring stated that if those requirements are not included in the development text, they may not occur. For example, if it is not stated that the alleyways must achieve a certain landscaping level, it will not occur. Mr. Hale suggested that could be added as a condition. Mrs. Boring requested appropriate language for such a condition. Mr. Hale suggested that it could state that the alley design, landscaping and fencing be enhanced and subject to staff and Planning Commission's final review. Mr. Keenan stated that he had received several inquiries about the service station, specifically, the screening of the gas pumps. Mr. Hale responded that the service station would be totally interior to the site with a 200 -foot setback from McKitrick Road. There is a substantial landscaped island in that location, and there are trees along the street. This use will be exceptionally well landscaped, but the most effective screening is the fact that it is interior to the site. In addition, this is a small, six -pump operation. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is very supportive of this plan. He is hopeful that the architectural style will be a "break through" for this community and Central Ohio. However, the retail component does concern him. He requested clarification of Mr. McCash's concern regarding a CVS store on the corner. Mr. McCash responded that his earlier understanding was that the corner building would have a retail component of a coffee shop, but he realizes it is more of a size appropriate for a CVS. Mr. Hale responded Mr. McCash is recalling a building of approximately 10,000 square feet that would have a lake view. Mr. McCash stated that his recollection was that the corner building was to be a coffee shop, as he specifically expressed a concern that the corner building not be a pharmacy or gas station. It seems that will now occur. Vice Mayor Lecklider states that he wants to be certain he understands the text. The text precludes drive-throughs for a restaurant, but does not preclude a drive-through in connection with a pharmacy or a dry cleaner. Therefore, the text does permit a major pharmacy on this corner, including a drive-through. Mr. Hale responded that is correct. However, the drive-through component would require a conditional use. It is a prohibited use for a restaurant and therefore, restaurant drive-throughs. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that at any other location he would be less opposed to a pharmacy location, but there is a beautiful Metro Park located immediately to the west of this site. The image of a major retail pharmacy on that southwest corner with a small gas station to the interior does not seem to complement the park, in which the City has made a very substantial investment. Regardless of what type of architecture is used or how well it is landscaped, he does not like this component of the plan. Mr. McCash stated that these pharmacy buildings typically have no windows, so it will be yet another building with black or white spandoglass windows. It defeats the architectural attempts. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he observes other locations in the vicinity where the residents would have easy access to gasoline. He believes there is a gas station at US 33 and SR 42. The proposed interchange at Mitchell -DeWitt provides another opportunity for a gas station. In summary, there are several other options for gas stations, and a gas station in this location does not fit the character of the area. Ms. Husak stated that it is consistent with the Land Use Principles, regarding "providing neighborhood services in convenient locations." They had heard from some neighbors that there was a need for a gas station in this area. The retail space on the corner could He 1 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, 2007 Page be a pharmacy or a small-scale grocery store, but 20,000 square feet is the maximum area any tenant can have in this center. Different uses could be accommodated there. Mr. Hale stated that they would like to believe it will be a mix of uses that people want and will come to the center to use. This is a small, crossroads type of village. It is a neighborhood shopping center, and it has to have some destinations in order to be successful. They are interested in securing a small grocery store for this center, and it may be located on the corner. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he does not disagree that pharmacies, gas stations, and grocery stores are necessities of life, and he could likely support them in any location other than across from the Metro Park. Mr. Hale stated that for both the residential and commercial architecture for this rezoning, they retained an extraordinarily talented architect, Brian Jones. Mr. Jones has been an integral part of this effort, and he has created some unique designs. He is out of town and could not be present tonight. In terms of the residential architecture, Mr. Hale noted that he has never been involved in a rezoning with this level of architectural commitment for both the commercial and residential areas. When they return with the final development plan, they are expected to bring extraordinary architecture as depicted in the renderings shown tonight. Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that what Mr. Hale is showing tonight is the commercial architecture. Mr. Hale responded that the same architect is doing both portions of the project. He then pointed out the various portions shown on the renderings. Mrs. Boring stated that she is also struggling with the need for grocery or gas stations in this location. She has had no e-mails from residents expressing the need for such facilities in this area. Her desire for the area across from Glacier Ridge Metro Park is not for what is being proposed in the commercial portions. Previously, Council had discussed their desire for a rural look in this area to complement the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. She is hesitant about the gas station portion of the proposal. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if Council Members have any response to Mrs. Boring's comments. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher responded that she is relying upon this extraordinary architecture presented throughout this process. Her expectation is that the commercial will be something very different from what has been built previously in Dublin and that it will complement the area in question. While she does not disagree philosophically with the comments about the gas station, she personally has concerns about the distance people must drive from some areas of Dublin to access a gas station. Therefore, she is hopeful that, based upon what has been shown in the renderings, this will meet Council's expectations. Mrs. Boring stated that the drawback is that signage is needed at a gas station to inform the consumers of the prices. While the architecture and the landscaping may be extraordinary, a sign is needed for a gas station. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she does not recall signage displayed on Avery- Muirfield Road for the BP and Shell stations. Vice Mayor Lecklider responded that BP actually does display the price on Avery- Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash noted that the gas station component is a conditional use in this proposed plan; it is not a permitted use. He has less concern with it, due to the fact that it is a conditional use; further, because of the setbacks, there should not be an issue with the signage. From the architectural standpoint, he is more concerned with the free-standing outbuilding on the end versus having a more integrated component within the entire center. He remains concerned with the drive aisle that runs through it, separating it and making it a free-standing structure. His concern is not with a pharmacy use, but with its location. Mr. Hale stated that somewhere on this row, a break is needed in the building to penetrate to the parking lot. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that location. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 19, Held 91 e Mr. McCash suggested that the break be closer to the main entry with some screening. This structure should be more part of the fagade and streetscape. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has asked the applicant to consider reconfiguring this commercial area to make more of a downtown street, with parking in the interior and no parking on the Hyland -Croy side, and making the drug store be integrated as part of the focal point. A similar area was visited in North Carolina, and he has provided the applicant with that concept — with a goal of having it integrated into a single unit, as a small downtown setting. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked how the drive-through will be accommodated. Mr. Langworthy responded that it is not connected as a building, it just appears connected as a center. They have not settled on the location for a drive-through at this time. By the time the redesign is done, there will likely be some other reconfiguration for the drive-through. It will be part of the final development plan. Mr. Langworthy summarized that staff believes the concern about integrating the center can be addressed. Mr. Hale added that Council can certainly add a condition regarding integration of the buildings. Mr. McCash noted that he would prefer it be part of a multi -tenant building versus a free standing, outbuilding piece. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked staff if a drive-through can be created that would not be visible from Hyland -Croy or the roadway to the south, that is virtually entirely internal. Mr. Langworthy responded that this is possible. There is no reason for it to be visible from the road. Even if it were on the roadside, it would be difficult to identify it as a drive- through because of the setback and landscaping. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the 200 -foot setback is not as large as some people may envision. Mr. Langworthy agreed, noting it must be supplemented with landscaping. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if a car wash is a prohibited use. Mr. Hale responded it is not a permitted use. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked that the applicant list the car wash use as a prohibited use. Mr. Hale agreed to do so. Mr. McCash added that a car wash does not fall under the definition of "outdoor service facility." This issue has come up with previous rezonings. Mr. Hale added that this is a small gas station comprised of three double pumps. Mr. Reiner agreed with a previous comment regarding the need to drive a distance to access gas stations. If the mission is to build future town centers that are pedestrian friendly and move traffic off of the roads, it is important that this center include a gas station to serve the nearby residents. Mr. Reiner noted that the Franklin project was developer driven and has fabulous architecture and tight controls. One thing that impressed him in Franklin was the frontal elevations, with shadow patterns and relief on the structures. In this development, it appears that vinyl and PVC components are permitted. In view of Council and Planning Commission's mission for high quality, was there any discussion of this architectural detail at the Commission hearings? Ms. Husak responded that there was discussion about the regulation of the architecture internal to this development by an architectural review committee, similar to what has been done successfully with Tartan West. There was also mention of the City having this book as a guideline for reviewing elevations as they are submitted. Mr. Hale noted that their architect provided pictures in the book about the right and wrong way to do various architectural details for the development and massing elements. There is also a section regarding gates, hedges and walkways. They have provided guidelines for layering the various levels of architecture and landscaping. To the extent possible, they have demonstrated all of this in the guidebook for the development. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher noted that Ms. Clavin asked about the dumpsters and how they will be screened. Dublin has strict guidelines about these and staff can review the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age requirements with her. The applicant will be held accountable to the Code in this regard. There are also Codes about permitted hours for trash pick-up. Mrs. Boring asked about page 46, under 3(c), Conditional Uses, where the language is ambiguous. It notes, "gasoline service station, provided that no more than eight (8) fueling positions shall be permitted." Other language states, "In the event that a gas station is allowed as a conditional use ...." This needs to be clarified to denote that a gas station needs approval as a conditional use. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher suggested that a motion be formulated to address the issues regarding the alley landscaping, prohibiting the car wash use, and addressing the integrated streetscape issue. Mrs. Boring stated that her intention in regard to the gas station is to limit it to four double pumps, but eliminate the language "shall be allowed" in the text and clarify that it is a conditional use. Mr. McCash moved to approve Ordinance 16-07 with the conditions that the text language be revised to eliminate the language "shall be permitted" from the conditional use section in Subarea F; that enhancement of the alleys with landscaping be addressed as part of the final development plan approval process; that at the final development plan stage, further consideration be given to the layout of the neighborhood commercial area, such as integrating buildings versus free-standing single -use buildings and creating a town center with a streetscape; and that the list of prohibited uses in Subarea F be revised to include car washes. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Mr. Hale indicated that the applicant is in agreement with the additional conditions. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mrs. Boring asked as a matter of record why a member abstained from voting. Mr. Smith responded that it is the Chair's discretion to ask for the reason for the abstention. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked Mr. Reiner to indicate for the record his reason for abstention. Mr. Reiner responded that he believes that one of the companies he owns may have dealings with one of the investors in this project and so he chose to abtain. He is not certain of this, but abstained for this reason. Mr. Hale added that Mr. Edwards is an investor in this development, and Mr. Edwards is also an investor in separate entities — primarily apartment entities. Mr. Reiner has partial ownership in these. Mr. McCash noted he is confused, as Mr. Reiner participated in this discussion. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher asked the Law Director for his opinion, given the fact that Mr. Reiner participated in the discussion. Mr. Smith stated that if a Council Member believes he or she has a conflict, it should be set forth at the outset and the member should ask to be excused from the deliberations. If a member has a conflict, they should not try to influence the vote or the content of the project. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 17-07 Amending Sections 153.002, 153.071, 153.072, and 153.210 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding Residential Driveways. (Case No. 06-133ADM) Mr. Keenan introduced the ordinance. Judson Rex, Planner stated that this ordinance is related to the regulations regarding residential driveways. The purpose is to establish clear guidelines for the design and placement of driveways within the City's residential neighborhoods. The staff report indicates that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance both in November of 2006 and in February of 2007. At the November work session, the Commission provided input in response to several specific questions from staff. This 1 L7 1 Hel RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council age Mr. Hammersmith responded that it is a public street. Mr. McCash inquired what other businesses are located on this street. This business is called LSP Technologies. Would the City essentially be naming a street after one business? Mr. Hammersmith responded that the City tries to avoid such situations. LSP Technologies is the only business addressed off this street. The other two businesses — the former administration building for Washington Township and the property to the west are addressed off Shier Rings Road. Mrs. Boring stated that most of the street names in Dublin have either historical significance or are Irish -based. "Laser Lane" doesn't seem appropriate. Mr. McCash inquired about the focus of LSP Technologies' business. Mr. Hammersmith responded that he believes it relates to laser technology. Mr. McCash suggested that the City identify a name that is Irish and unique, remaining consistent with Dublin's policy for public streets. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be preferable not to use a name directly related to the industry that is presently located on the street. Mr. McCash agreed, as this is a public street. Mr. Hammersmith stated that staff would research an appropriate name. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 15-07 Accepting the Updated Estimated Average Per Acre Value of Land for Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the legislation. Mr. Hahn stated that the City Code requires that the estimated average per acre value of land for park fees must be updated every two years, based upon the recommendation of a qualified land appraiser. The appraiser has determined the raw land value to be $41,500, identical to the per acre value established for years 2005-2006. The appraiser attributes the lack of value increase to the weak housing market. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that he is surprised that the City's land value has not increased, particularly in view of the $380,000 price Dublin recently paid for slightly more than one acre of land along Tuttle Crossing Boulevard. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. Ordinance 16-07 Rezoning Approximately 189.57 Acres Located North of the Intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, from R, Rural District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road ) Ms. Husak stated this is a rezoning application for 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. This requests a change in zoning from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows for a development of 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space and 69.14 acres of open space. On February 1, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning with 11 conditions. The proposed development will be located north of the existing Tartan West neighborhood and the recently approved Oak Park development. To the west is Glacier Ridge Metro Park. The concept He 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, 2007 Page 7 plan for this development under the name of Bantry Green was reviewed by Council in November 2005, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed proposals for the site throughout 2006. The Commission discussed a more neutral housing variety, a high-quality four-sided architecture, and the proposed location of the retail area. The site is heavily wooded and includes streams and ponds. The existing natural features have been incorporated into open spaces and park areas. There are seven subareas, each of which is described in the development text. One interesting restriction is that all garage door orientations must be away from major roads and open spaces. The text also provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department to be located in an area north of Glacier Ridge Elementary School. The text also sets standards for the open areas around the development, including gates and gate posts at the front of the homes and brick walkways from the front door of the homes to the public sidewalk. A hedgerow is proposed along the front of all the units. Ms. Husak described the open space characteristics. The Planning Commission recommended that in the Final Development Plan, additional open space be incorporated into Subarea D2 to connect the north and south open space areas. She then reviewed plans for a retail/commercial component in the development, which will be located at the corner of Hyland Croy and McKitrick Roads. She noted that this plan encourages multigenerational living and interaction by offering various housing types and public gathering spaces. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the Planning Commission's condition regarding pedestrian connectivity. Ms. Husak responded that the condition specifies that the retail/commercial area be redesigned to provide on -street parking in order that the area will be more walkable. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired about the gas station location on the development plan. Ms. Husak stated the gas station/convenience store will be located within the commercial area in the southwest area of the development near the McKitrick/Hyland-Croy intersection. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired regarding the size of the setback from McKitrick Road. Ms. Husak responded that it is 200 feet. Ms. Salay noted that this is not the typical gas station layout, as it will be set back from the road 200 feet, will not be located on a street corner and will be obscured by landscaping. Mr. McCash stated that the pumps will also be internally oriented behind the building. Ms. Salay noted that the gas station is a conditional use. She requested clarification of the meaning and what criteria must be met before it could be approved for this neighborhood. Ms. Readier responded that she did not have the review criteria at hand, but there are approximately ten criteria that a conditional use must meet before approval is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The conditional use criteria centers around the impact that the use will have on the surrounding properties. Thai needs to be mitigated in order to obtain conditional use approval. Mrs. Boring stated that when a conditional use is included in the text, it can imply it is a conditional use that will be permitted with the development. How can this implication be avoided? Ms. Readier noted that it was moved out of the permitted uses. Ms. Husak added that page 46, #3 -- Conditional Uses, clarifies that issue. LJ 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Held Mr. McCash stated that the argument exists regarding the legal parameters of a conditional use. Is it a permitted use subject to certain criteria, or is it not a permitted use whatsoever? Ms. Readler responded that a conditional use is not a use as of right. The criteria must be satisfied before obtaining approval. It is a contemplated use upon which restrictions can be placed. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated that the gas station is a conditional use within a fairly large subarea. If this conditional use is ultimately approved, what guarantee is there that it will be located on the site as presented tonight? Ms. Husak responded that any subsequent application for this use would have to adhere to a final development plan which must be approved by the Planning Commission. Subsequent development must meet the preliminary development plan, which specifies this location. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revisit the design of the retail to make it more pedestrian friendly. Therefore, the configuration of that subarea could potentially change. Ms. Husak responded that can occur only minimally in the areas along the front. Parallel parking versus pull -in parking is preferred in that location, and some of the parking would be relocated to interior parking lots. Vice Mayor Lecklider inquired if Council were to approve this preliminary development plan, is it with the absolute understanding that the final development plan will appear virtually identical to this, or it will not be approved? Ms. Husak responded that she would be hesitant to use the term "identical." The preliminary plan shows general design intent, while the final development plan permits small changes. However, it is not expected that the gas station would be located elsewhere on the site. Ms. Salay noted that it still remains as a conditional use. Mrs. Boring inquired if there is data that specifies the number of households needed to justify a retail use. How far apart in terms of distance are the two shopping areas? It is possible to connect two neighborhoods with the City's bikepath system. Ms. Husak responded that she does not have that information. Mrs. Boring stated that she is concerned that there will be too many square feet of retail in this area across from the park. Is there a threshold number that is used as a guideline for determining the need for retail development? Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that information be provided at the second reading on March 19. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representative for the applicant stated that they have retained a retail consultant to evaluate this area. They will request that he attend the March 19 meeting to respond to Council's questions. In regard to Mrs. Boring's comment about conditional uses, in the previous application she makes reference to, there was a special provision that permitted two drive throughs. This application is for a straight conditional use minus that additional language. The applicant expects to build only what is indicated in this plan. Ms. Salay stated that is possible for bicyclists to travel to the shopping center safely, but when they reach their destination, they have a difficult time navigating within the shopping area. There often is significant conflict between bicycles and vehicles. She requested that staff pay special attention to the bike trail system connection; review ways to move the bicyclists and pedestrians from both outside and inside the neighborhood into the shopping center safely; and include convenient places for bicycles to be parked. Mrs. Boring agreed. 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, Held FIE age Mrs. Salay noted that she agrees with the request for parallel parking; it is more pedestrian friendly and presents a better fagade to the public. The plan provides for four-sided architecture on all the homes. She is impressed by the attractive and interesting architecture proposed. How will the architecture be reviewed — internally by City staff or by an architecture review committee? Ms. Husak responded that it will be reviewed by both. An internal architecture review committee (ARC) is proposed, similar to that at the Tartan West development, which works very well. That review occurs before the City receives the building permit application. The City will also have detailed development text regarding the architectural requirements. The commercial development will also be reviewed by the ARC, but all the commercial architecture will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission with the final development plan. Ms. Salay inquired how the hedgerow in front of the homes will appear. Ms. Husak responded that the development text describes the intent and character the hedgerow will take. It will serve as a low wall or fence of greenery throughout the neighborhood. The final development plan will contain more detail. Ms. Salay inquired if the proposed height of it is stated in the text. Ms. Husak responded that information is not provided. Ms. Salay inquired if all the open space is public open space. Ms. Husak stated that the open spaces will be public. Those depicted on the plan in dark green will be city parks; those in light green will be public, but may be maintained by the homeowner association. Those details will also be addressed in the final development plan. Ms. Salay stated that in the past, the City has encountered some issues with forced and funded homeowner associations versus voluntary homeowner associations regarding maintenance of public greenspace. Is staff comfortable with the text in place that these areas will be maintained to the City's standards? Ms. Husak responded that staff is exploring some landscaping options that are more meadow -like and less likely to require intense maintenance. Ms. Salay advised caution with that option as people have differing viewpoints about the appearance of meadow areas. Ms. Salay inquired about the alleyways. Last year, Council visited a community in Franklin, Tennessee that had alleyways that were well maintained. They were so beautifully landscaped that, if not for the garage doors, they could not be distinguished as alleyways. Lovely gardens were in view, and the use of fencing and landscaping was such that it did not appear to be the back yards of homes. She requested that future alleyways incorporated in development plans be similar to Westhaven alleys. She would like to ensure that heavy landscaping is utilized here. She requested that Mr. Hale provide information on the applicant's ideas for the alleyways. She appreciates the level of architectural detail included in this plan, such as the shutters and rooflines. Mr. McCash stated that Condition #5 indicates that the text is to be modified, but the modified text has not been provided. Will it be provided for the public hearing on the 19th? Ms. Husak responded that the modification in the text has been made and will be provided for the March 19th hearing. Mr. McCash inquired about Condition #11, which references the Dublin Lighting Guidelines as the standard. He does not want to see those guidelines used for this. Ms. Husak responded that Planning staff decided to keep the language referring to the Guidelines because it has some provisions regarding the cut-off fixtures that they do want to include. Mr. McCash stated that if there is a future need to refer to the development text for this site, the Dublin Lighting Guidelines would then be part of it. He requested that the reference be removed. It would be sufficient to simply require cut-off fixtures. Ms. Husak agreed to revise the condition. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the minutes from the Commission meeting indicated that the Planning Commission expected this change to have been made. 1 iJ 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council March 5, 2007 Page Ms. Husak responded that staff believed there were other provisions in the Lighting Guidelines that would apply to this development. Staff will make the change as requested. Mr. McCash stated that cut-off fixtures are covered within Night Sky Preservation Guidelines. Tempe, Phoenix and other communities have those in place. He suggested that those guidelines be adopted to address the night sky preservation components, and then select the particular zone that would work in this plan. Ms. Husak agreed to do so. Vice Mayor Lecklider complimented the Planning Commission for adding this particular condition. Although it is very appropriate with this development, it would be desirable to include it with all the new developments. He is not sure, however, how this condition will be met by the gas station. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher inquired the timeframe for development of Tartan Ridge. Ms. Husak responded that the applicant is preparing a final development plan for phase 1, from Jerome Road westward, for submission to the Planning Department in April. Staff is working with Union County on the traffic study, traffic improvements, and cost-sharing issues. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked about the city/county's timeframe for the infrastructure improvements, as the developer cannot move forward until these are underway. Ms. Husak responded that the issues were addressed in a meeting last week, and a letter of understanding is being finalized. Those issues will be resolved before the final development plan is submitted to the Planning Commission, by mid to the end of May. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what percentage of the residential development will be completed before the commercial development is begun. Ms. Husak responded that at a minimum, the first phase -- which includes 90 lots -- will be completed. The first phase comprises under 50 percent of the residential component. She requested that the applicant provide additional clarification. Ms. Salay requested that every potential homebuyer in this development be made aware of the commercial portion as well as the potential fire department substation. She requested that the applicant describe how this will be done. Mr. Hale responded that all of the developer's sales literature will contain the site plan, which depicts the commercial component. In response to the question of the timing of construction of the commercial component, there are some contributing factors. The Nationwide development north of this site will begin later this year, and as part of phase 1 with that development, Hyland -Croy Road will be extended north to US Route 42. At the same time, Phase 1 of Tartan Ridge will occur — from Manley Road, past the school and ending at Hyland -Croy Road. Phase 1 will not be at the point this year for the commercial component to begin, but the commercial developers anticipate doing so in 2008. Mrs. Boring stated that although the sales literature can provide information on the anticipated commercial component, it is preferable for neighborhood awareness that the retail construction be underway as soon as possible. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTIONS Resolution 15-07 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with TechColumbus. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam requested that this resolution be postponed to the March 19 meeting. Staff is still working on the agreement. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4301671236 Phone: 614.410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr, and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Page 1 of 2 J_A_ o7 '3.- 5._-07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road (Continued) 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No - Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 — 0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 3 of 11 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Gerber said the Commission reviewed this case at the last meeting, on January 18, and it was coming back for review of the revised list of uses as it related to retail and commercial. He asked for a progress report with respect to parking in the retail area. Claudia Husak presented updates to this case and slides. She said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning for 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the applicant was asked by the Commission to revise the text to make changes to the permitted and conditional uses in the neighborhood commercial area, and to address any inconsistencies in the text. Ms. Husak said this has allowed two conditions to be eliminated from this case, and the presentation will focus on the neighborhood commercial area only, as all other aspects have been discussed previously. Ms. Husak said that Planning has met with the applicants in order to address concerns and the text has been revised in terms of the permitted uses and refers to the permitted uses in three sections of the Zoning Code: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional, NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and CC, Community Commercial Districts. She said a revised booklet had been provided to the Commissioners. Ms. Husak said the text also includes language that specifies prohibited uses which would be inappropriate in such a neighborhood setting and language that speaks to the intent of this area as a local neighborhood serving area which will help to determine whether a particular use is appropriate or not. Ms. Husak said the Conditional Use section of the text has been updated, based on previous discussion and Planning believes that the changes will ensure that this area is developed in a manner that is conducive to a neighborhood serving commercial area. She said based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the review criteria for a rezoning and preliminary development plan, and with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for the site. Ms. Husak said in addition to the modifications stated in Conditions 9 and 10 listed in the Planning Report, this proposal will meet all the Land Use Principles and will advance the general planning intent of the area. She said the Tartan Ridge development is unique and attractive, and the applicant has worked with Planning and Engineering to address issues and concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in northwest Dublin, and Planning recommends approval with the ten conditions as detailed in the Planning Report: 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 4 of 11 DRAFT Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said the Shamrock Crossing development which City Council recently approved, had the same use issue, and they handled that the same way. He said Council did not like to see all those uses listed, so they have taken out the more objectionable uses and placed the Code sections there so that there are not three pages of uses. Mr. Gerber noted that there were many people in the audience and asked if anyone wished to speak to the issues before the Commission. [No response.] Ms. Jones said she was appreciative of the update in the text. She said the uses prohibited in the text were the items she was looking to be prohibited. She said the essence of everything discussed at the last meeting had been captured regarding targeting this to neighborhood services versus more regional serving uses. She noted that the Conditional Use portion was better defined. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Ms. Jones that the list requested has been submitted. Mr. Gerber referred to Condition 8, and asked if Ms. Husak had discussed it further with the applicant since the last meeting. Ms. Husak said Planning had discussed with the applicants what the vision for that area was, and she thought the applicant was working through how it can be accommodated. Mr. Hale said everybody is interested in having activity in front of that building, and they do not want people to have to go all the way around the building to come back and park. He said if parking is done that way, there might have to be roundabouts at the ends so people can come back and get a space. Mr. Hale said they also thought there might be walls or other treatment that might allow some angular or head -in parking on one side of the street. He said they thought there were a variety of issues that need to be worked through, and they feel like the time to do that is when they get into engineering, and they come in with the final development plan because the outstanding issues are on both sides and they want to explore them fully. He said they understand that when they come back for final development plan approval, the Commission has the right to say that they want all parallel parking, and if so, they will abide by it. However, they want to explore other options with Planning to make sure that they are doing the absolute right thing. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale had any problem with Condition 8 at this point. Mr. Hale indicated he did not. Mr. Hale said the only other issue they had was that they have a couple of items that they have to do before they can do a final development plan. He said their first phase is 32 lots off Jerome Road and they have to do a turn lane there and would like to be able to process that final development plan prior to resolving the issue how they are going to share costs on other items. Mr. Saneholtz deferred to staff on the timing matters. Ms. Husak said Planning would be comfortable to add: "...prior to the approval of the final development plan" to Conditions 1 and 6. However, she said for Condition 2, she would refer to Engineering as the traffic study has to be approved by the City of Dublin as well as the Union County Engineer. Aaron Stanford said one of the reasons why Engineering included that was so Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 5 of 11 �•. that the Planning Report for the final development plan would be able to explain the traffic improvements and how they work with Union County. He said he thought they still had the ability to do that if it were based on an approval, but they were trying to be able to have all the information laid out so that it could be detailed in the Planning Report. Mr. Hale agreed to submit it. He said it would give them the opportunity to work through issues with staff while they are negotiating other items. Mr. Gerber agreed to amend Conditions 1, 2, and 6 to replacing "prior to submitting" with "prior to final development plan approval." Mr. McCash said he was concerned with some commercial uses being this close to the Metra Park. However, he said there was a need for those types of services in this area. He said because they are close to the Metro Park and on the outskirts of Dublin in the rural areas, he did not think the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines are appropriate for this area. He suggested making it a condition that provisions for night sky preservation and protection be considered instead of following the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines. Mr. McCash suggested Condition 11: That in lieu of the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines that staff work with the applicant on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale said he had done that before and agreed there were always things that could be done. Mr. Saneholtz said some of the uses he had concern with were auto repair and auto sales. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said they specifically excluded automobile sales. He said auto - oriented uses were conditional uses in these districts, therefore they would not be permitted. Ms. Jones noted that the auto -oriented uses were listed on page 44 under number 11. Mr. Saneholtz noted the text read: Miscellaneous repair shops and related services. He said his concern was that if they do have a fuel facility at this location, knowing that it is a conditional use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian -use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 6 of 11 DRAFT use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian -use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have connectivity to this area. Ms. Husak said she was not sure how far along the design of Hyland - Croy Road was. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there could be a condition that would anticipate that additional need. He said it was not a question of if it is going to happen — it is just a question of timing. Mr. Fishman said that was an excellent point, but he was concerned who would pay for a tunnel. He said the City had put in several tunnels after the fact and they were expensive. He questioned whether or not a condition could be added or was needed since the road was not yet engineered. Mr. Hale said no one knows today what the ultimate improvement will be in the future. Mr. Walter said he wondered what the applicant's responsibility was to improvements, based upon growth outside their control. He said he saw there is a pedestrian flow that will happen from Tartan, across through this development, to the park, and he did not think they could tell the developer that because other parcels around are going to develop and their parcel is the natural flow between the use we are trying to get, that they should be unduly burdened with the cost of that. However, he said he did take Mr. Saneholtz's point seriously that the developers bear some responsibility for providing some level of contribution. He said they should have staff consider that. Mr. Hale said there will be negotiation and part of that will be they will have to write a check for Brand Road because of those planned improvements and what their share is. Mr. Gerber said safety and related cost issues will be discussed at City Council. He said the minutes will reflect the Commission discussion. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 7 of 11 Mr. McCash said Council had wrestled with as far as what future needs were and how much to put on a particular developer rather than balancing it out and taking it out of the tax dollar component. Ms. Jones asked if the language in Condition 1 lent to that also: "that they had to resolve their cost-sharing arrangement prior..." She asked if "pedestrian ways" could be added so that Council could resolve it, or should it be left to go to the next level. Mr. Saneholtz said he believed that one of the current principles was "pedestrian accessibility to and from the site." He said he was in favor of adding some pedestrian language as well. Mr. Walter and Mr. Fishman agreed that would be a great solution. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with the issues being raised, however he interpreted that the word "streets" addressed all these issues. Motion and Vote: Mr. Gerber moved to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near 1-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale agreed to the above 11 conditions. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) PLANNING AND ZONING'COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 18, 2007 CITY OF DUBLIN - land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -fangs Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone: 614-4104600 fox: 614-410-4747 Web Site: www-dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text. *Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia Husak, AICP Planner Cr -)3-07 3-5-D7 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 2 of 23 Mr. Gunde said that was the ex ion for February be e a work session ha ready been sch ed instead of the sec d meeting. He said n regular cases are sche ed for the secon ebruary meeting. Mr. Gerber moved for pproval of the Decem r 7, 2006 meeting =.;iMr. es as presented. Mr. Zimmerman secon d and the vote was as flows: Mr. Walter, y Saneholtz, yes; Jones, yes; Mr. immerman, yes; and . Gerber, yes. (Approv -0.) Mr. Ge er noted that the applic is for Case 1 had cons ted to the conditions. o one pulled the nsent item.] He ann ced that the cases w d be heard in the ord of the published 1. Final D,cv6lopment Plan/Final YIdt 06-109FDP/FP — N uad, Subarea 2 — W ndotte W0949', Sections 6 and 7 — L s 157 through 183 — andotte Woods Boule rd Mr. erber swore in thea icants' representative enell Sniechowski, D. Zande and sociates, who agreed to a following three condi 'ons as listed in the Pl g report: 1) That the lands pe plans indicate the ect species of street trees for this area and that PI ; and 3) t the scale on the pl,*for Section 7 be correct otion and Vote: Mr. Gerber mov:rina r approval of this Fina evelopment Plan/Fina lat because the complies =tin l Development Pl and Final Plat criteria, the applicable dev standards the Northeast Qua UD text, with the t e conditions listed ab Zimmerpffin seconded the motio , and the vote was as yes r. Walter, abstain; Mr immerman, yes; and alter explained that h abstained because he orf relationship. Mr. c) ws: Mr. Saneholtz, y , Ms. Jones, Gerber, yes. (Appr ed 4-0-1.) Mr. d with the appli t through a client 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05-183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Claudia Husak said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads for a planned unit development that includes 246 single-family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and 69 acres of open space. She presented a slide of an aerial context map which showed the proposed development and the surrounding area. She said Tartan West was south of the site and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park is to the west. Ms. Husak said further to the south is the recently approved Oak Park Development. Ms. Husak said this case was presented to the Commission under the name, Bantry Greene in June 2006, and the Commission discussed the need for more housing variety in that plan, as well as a need for high-quality architecture, and the proposed location of the retail area. Adjacent Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 3 of 23 residents also voiced concerns regarding the utility connections, increased traffic, and the retail area. She said this case was tabled at that meeting at the applicant's request. Ms. Husak said the plans have been significantly revised. Ms. Husak said small portions of the site are heavily wooded and there are three streams and two ponds currently on the site. She presented slides which showed different views of the site. She showed a proposed site plan for the development which illustrated the proposed layout of the lots, the road network, the commercial area in the south, and the open space areas. Ms. Husak said the housing consists of seven different single-family lot types and 24 townhouses which would be located in four buildings. She said active parks are proposed throughout the site, as well as passive open space located mainly along the boundaries of the site in the 200 -foot setback. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the proposed seven subareas as well as the permitted lot types in those subareas. Ms. Husak said the proposed development text describes each subarea in detail and provides development standards for each. She said it also places restrictions on garage orientation to orient them away from open spaces and parks. She said the text provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department to be located in the area north of the elementary school. Ms. Husak said the area is currently shown as open space on the plan, and it is expected to be dedicated to the City at the final development plan stage. She said the fire department has identified the need for a small substation in this area to better serve the northwest area of the City and the City will continue working with the fire department, should they choose to use this location for their substation. Ms. Husak said the proposed architecture was outlined in the development text which included standards intended to create a variety of architectural combinations. She said several architectural styles are described in the text and high-quality; four-sided architecture will be required throughout the development. Ms. Husak presented a graphic which showed the proposed open spaces within the development. She said the text distinguishes neighborhood parks, rural open spaces, and the boulevard green in the description of open spaces and provides the design intended for each of those. She said existing trees and ponds will be incorporated into the parks and the open spaces and unique and different landscaping techniques are encouraged. Ms. Husak said Planning has identified an opportunity for better connections between the open spaces in this development. She said while the open space connections are very well designed along the parks in the north and southern section there is an opportunity where a defined connection between the two areas could be established. Ms. Husak said the final development plan for this project should incorporate additional public open space in the front of lots in Subarea D2 as required by Condition 12 in the Planning report. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the layout design for the proposed neighborhood commercial area which includes retail, restaurant, and office uses at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the preliminary plan shows several building footprints along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage and the main entry into the site. A drugstore with a drive-thru is shown on the south, as well as a gas station with a convenience store along McKitrick Road. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 4 of 23 Ms. Husak said the text contains a typo for the setbacks, but the applicant is aware of that and it will be corrected. Ms. Husak said while the plan for the entire development successfully creates a place for multi- generational living and social interaction by offering a variety of housing types as well as passive and active open spaces and recreational opportunities that are conveniently located in the proximity to neighborhood services, Planning has identified areas in the neighborhood commercial portion where the function of the street network can be improved to better serve the neighborhood and provide additional opportunities to walk in this neighborhood. She said the proposed neighborhood commercial area incorporates typical suburban design elements such as pull -in parking which is auto -oriented and drive aisles in front of the buildings. She said this area should be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape by providing parallel on - street parking that takes advantage of the residential proximity and eliminates pavement in this general area. Ms. Husak said based on the evaluation of the proposal according to the review criteria for the preliminary development plan, Planning is confident that with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for this site and will also advance the general planning intent of this area. She said in addition, Planning has also determined that with the modifications listed in Conditions 11 and 12, the proposal will meet all land use principles. Ms. Husak said the Tartan Ridge development is a unique and attractive project and the applicant has worked with extensively with Planning and Engineering to work through issues and address concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in this northwest portion of the City. She said Planning recommends approval of this preliminary development plan with the 12 conditions as listed in the Planning report: 1) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering in resolution of cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights-of-way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I-270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No -Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That discrepancies between the text and the plans regarding garage orientation and front Build -Zones be revised to accurately reflect the intended restrictions, subject to Planning approval; 7) That the text be modified include the signage provisions as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 5 of 23 8) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 9) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 10) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian -friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 11) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; and 12) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D-2. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said that in June, he had said that his client felt that the residential part of this proposal was on the wrong track, and he asked that it be tabled and said they would come back with something very different. He said this is very different from that previous application because many things have happened. He said his former client, M/I Homes no longer owned the property, and Edwards Land Company is the developer of this site. He said this was a very different program because these houses will be built by a number of builders and many of them will be custom houses. Mr. Hale said they looked at the street plan numerous times with the input of Planning and made the appropriate revisions. He said they clearly heard from the Commission at the previous meeting, that they needed high-quality architecture. He said that Brian Jones, their architect, came up with a very innovative solution with six or seven different kinds of houses that have the things that are needed to make the house look right. Mr. Hale said that Mr. Jones did a series of massing drawings which show how the houses should be massed so when an architect designs one, he has the massing drawings. He said they also show how to transition from one material to the other. Mr. Hale said it shows examples how to do gates, front doors, and shutters that are appropriate for the window sizes. He said all the standards and drawings are legal commitments that are in the zoning and it has to be done that way. He said the commercial architecture has to be done that way as well. Mr. Hale said the process, because of multiple builders, will have an architectural review committee. He said they will go through architectural review with the builders to make sure the house is in compliance with this drawing and then they will file a building permit and the City will review it. Mr. Hale said when the City reviews the permit, they will use this book to judge whether or not they followed the criteria in terms of architecture and massing, front door treatment and general surroundings. Mr. Hale said it was hard to look at drawing and understand the scale. He said one of the comparable developments was the Shoppes of Athenry where there is a UDF on the corner, Mary Kelley's, a day care, and an office building which equals 50,000 square feet. Mr. Hale discussed the available retail square footage and vacancies of the submarket, which provided all the retail needs on the west side of the river except for Tuttle Mall. He said that on this side of the City, there is a very healthy commercial base. Mr. Hale said this commercial is really a quality of life thing. It will keep people from being forced to drive four miles to get their prescriptions, to go to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 6 of 23 a small restaurant, to go to a coffee shop, or to pick up their laundry. He said they have taken the units that are more dense (townhouses and alley lots) and brought them down around the center so that it functions like a little town. Mr. Hale said that Pete Edwards and Charlie Driscoll took a very strong look at Dublin, Ohio and the Dublin school system and one of the things they found was that in Ballantrae, which is in the Hilliard school district, most people who bought at Ballantrae were not moving there from the Dublin school district. He said they believed that there is a very substantial move -up market in Dublin. He said they are talking here about housing that will range in price from $400,000 to $900,000. Mr. Hale said they have been very careful with garages and tried to not have front facing garages on any of the major streets or open spaces. Anne Wanner, The Edge Group, thanked Ms. Husak for the pre -submittal process and said Ms. Husak did a great job and kept them on track and provided great input along with a couple of other planners. Ms. Wanner said the comments and input were all very timely. She said a good job was done on the staff report and thanked Ms. Husak for that as well. Ms. Wanner said there was definitely an underserved market here — a price point between $400,000 and $800,000 and above. She said people come to Dublin to move up and there is nowhere to go. She said the other part of the design intent was that they wanted to blend new urbanism principles with suburban conservation design. She said at times, the conservation design principles now in place are challenging and they wanted to combine them with some of the newer ideas that are coming about in planning. Ms. Wanner said they also wanted to facilitate some of the comments heard before — that the residential and the commercial pieces were not integrated. Ms. Wanner presented an overall regional map which showed what was happening around Tartan Ridge. She said Jerome Village is to the north and will have approximately 2,000 homes. She said Oak Park, previously approved, as well as the ongoing development, Tartan West are located nearby. Ms. Wanner said this large amount of development will need service facilities in this area. She said the vision and inspiration of Tartan Ridge was more important. She said included in the booklet distributed was a variety of imagery, and a perspective views of what Tartan Ridge is going to look like. Ms. Wanner said when their design team first met they wanted to look at other timeless subdivision designs for inspiration. She said Frederick L. Olmstead, known as the grandfather of landscape architecture was also a land planner and he planned subdivision designs in Chicago known as Riverside, Druid Hills in Atlanta, and Forest Hills, in New York. She said in looking at his designs, they saw very interesting organic forms as patterns that they wanted to emulate. She said they visited the site several times. She said the topography of the site was not common in Dublin. She said they wanted to design with nature and use these organic forms. She said they wanted to create a place where people wanted to live. Ms. Wanner said they compared contemporary subdivision design to some of the older subdivisions of Bexley and Upper Arlington. She said they found that there is an inherent conflict with contemporary suburban design which lies in where the driveway is located versus where the pedestrian space or people space is located. She said people live in their driveways by playing in them or socializing in them. Ms. Wanner said the older neighborhoods separate their people space from their auto -oriented space by creating elements that separate the spaces such as gateposts and gates which were an extension of the house and socialization space for the home. She said they wanted to create that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 7 of 23 Ms. Wanner said people spaces in Dublin had people spaces such as gates and doors. She said they have open spaces that are oriented towards people. She said they wanted to create that. She quoted Fredrick Law Olmsted which she said she thought was very appropriate for their vision: What improvements have you here that tend to insure permanent helpfulness and permanent rural beauty? " She said that was exactly what they wanted to create — permanent beauty here. Ms. Wanner said the other layer they wanted was architectural styles. She said the six architectural styles in the book do not alone create spaces. She said they create an element of how people live. Ms. Wanner said architectural elements, special attention to front doors, windows, shutters, proportion of these elements, are very crucial in space -making. She said gates, gateposts, and hedges are on every lot. Ms. Wanner said brick and stone piers, stone walls, brick sidewalks all create the socialization space that changes how people live and they want to create that. Ms. Wanner said the open space plan is very complete with different types of spaces. She said they have Dunlevin Park, which preserves a very substantial pond. She said keeping the elements on the site is part of the space -making. She presented a slide showing the Lahinch Park site where the large trees shown will be preserved. She said the open spaces will be connected through the use of lush boulevards and sweeping views of vistas. Ms. Wanner presented a development plan showing how the lots were connected. She said there are cottage lots closer to the village area that connects to some of the estate lots towards the north of the area. She said garage orientation is an important piece of how people relate to their neighbors and they wanted to prohibit street -oriented garages, moving the garage back, out of public space and make it a private area. Ms. Wanner presented a slide of a perspective view and some elevations of the village center. She said setbacks are small so that people are not oriented towards one another, but towards the street. She said it slowed traffic and created a village pedestrian feel. Ms. Wanner said an important goal of this project was to meet Dublin's Ten Land Use Principles which have been implemented as part of the Community Plan Update. She said they feel that they have not only met the principles, but exceeded them through the elements they have created, through the additional architectural design standards they have, and through the land use plan. She said they want to create a legacy — timeless landscape architecture and timeless land planning. Brian Jones said as they wanted to make sure that the Olmsteadian vision of trying to create a place that really celebrates the landscape architecture and the planning held through. He said a lesson in studying great places, is that architecture in those places often becomes the background. He said in becoming the background, it often is about what you do not do versus what you do. Mr. Jones said they were striving for diversity within a very limited palette of stylistic expressions. He said the overall architecture of this place is being established by the village center and the commercial piece. He said in that piece, they are really trying to drive their stylistic cues from the things that have occurred throughout Dublin, as well as the Midwest, and really looking to the late 19th to 20th Century for those expressions. He said the architecture of that commercial area leads into the architecture of the residences. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 8 of 23 Mr. Jones said they were committed to looking at criteria that qualified massing, that dealt with fenestration or the way that windows are used around the building, and also a cogent idea about how materials are used and developed which they thought expressed a commitment that is quite uncommon. He said as they looked at the overall connectivity and the scale, this was not really a typical suburban solution and they feel that the commercial has integrated to the residential in a way that will be quite a great example in this region. Mr. Hale said there had been meetings with the neighbors along Hyland -Croy Road and the Muirfield Civic Action group prior to this meeting. Mr. Gerber invited those in the audience who wished to speak, to come forth, state their name for the record. He said comments would be limited to three minutes. Kim Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, presented a slide showing the proposed entry road on Brock Road. She said it did not now match with the entry road into Jerome Village. She said it was approximately 530 feet away. She said it did not seem to be a logical place for the entry road. She suggested that the entry be lined up with Jerome Village. Ms. Clavin said while doing that, the homeowner will be relieved from having property taken. She said also, trees might possibly have to be removed in the action. Ms. Gavin said she saw no improvements in the retail traffic mentioned as a resident concern. She said Hyland -Croy Road was a big traffic area and this development will have an impact on it, therefore it would be the developer's responsibility to fix the roads because they are causing the traffic impact. Ms. Clavin said the residents asked for a major thoroughfare through the development to relieve traffic, and that did not happen. She said the retail was a big concern and she thought the City agreed that they wanted to keep the Glacier Ridge look to be the natural setting. She asked why not put the retail on the southeast corner where it was away from Glacier Ridge. Mr. Gerber asked about the traffic flow Ms. Clavin mentioned. Ms. Clavin said it was the traffic flow between the two developments, Jerome Village and Tartan Ridge. Ms. Clavin said there is also a concern about drainage. She said they have not been approached with what the solution would be. She said there are drainage tiles and they are planning to build on top of them. Mr. Gerber recalled that the phone numbers and addresses of interested residents were taken so that they could be contacted, and asked if they had been notified of any meeting. Ms. Clavin said she received a notice from the developers last Wednesday or Thursday for a meeting on a Monday, and it was a holiday weekend. She said they had four days' notice and a holiday weekend. However, she said the developer made a good effort to contact everyone on the list. Marni Spears, a Hyland -Croy Road resident, said she was approached by the developer the week prior to Christmas to get the neighbors together. She said she appreciated the Commission upholding the standards for the building behind her home, north, next to the water tower. She said if they had to list concerns, it would be the drainage. She said she had not been contacted in six months. She said she had to disconnect two of her downspouts because they were coming up as fire hydrants, as she was the home closest to the field, and was getting the backflow from the section. Ms. Spears said they met with the developers on this past Monday night and reviewed Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 9 of 23 the plats. She said they were told that had been inspected by their engineer, but they were not aware of the creek beds, the boulders placed, etc. Ms. Spears said their second concern was the retail. She said she thought several Commissioners agreed that where the retail was proposed, it was a very hazardous intersection. She said it was very elevated and with the Metro Park having the retail there did not work with the crosswalk. Ms. Spears said traffic concerns were that they would have additional traffic and gas, beer, food, and restaurant deliveries. She said they were told that although the Commission had requested that the proposed homes' quality be increased, that the Commission had also demanded an increase in the number of home builders proposed. Ms. Spears said they originally were told 25 developers would be in Tartan Ridge, and tonight they heard 13. Ms. Spears said she was also there on behalf of Debbie Toddwell, a resident south of her, and also Jan Moony Paul, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road. Eric Cook, 10150 Hyland -Croy Road, said most of the residents on Hyland -Croy agreed with Ms. Spears' summary of their concerns. Mr. Cook said when a development of this size comes into an area, it is important to remember that there is an existing community already there and no one has mentioned that. He said the traffic affects them, their water tiles, septic systems, and wells. He asked that the developer address that. He said "integrating" the existing community has not been mentioned. Sue Hagar, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road, said this was the third time she had addressed the Commission, and she still was against the retail. She agreed with the concerns of Ms. Spears, Mr. Cook, and Ms. Clavin. She was also concerned that the retail might not be sustainable with that proposed at Jerome Village and a mall in the township. She said the retail could be dressed up to look nice, but it was still retail. She said on that corner, there is the Metro Park and it is a dangerous intersection. She said retail did not fit on that corner with the traffic concerns, extra gas trucks to fill up the eight -pump gas station, and food trucks to supply the UDF. Mr. Gerber recalled seeing Ms. Hagar at previous meetings and asking that staff take her address. He asked if she had been contacted, and how many times. Ms. Hagar said she was contacted one week before Christmas for a meeting the week of Christmas which was not convenient for the neighbors. Mr. Gerber said with respect to the water problems, had the City contacted them previously to discuss them. Ms. Hagar said she had not. However, she said there were discussions and concerns about water problems on Monday at the meeting with the developer's new engineer. Mr. Saneholtz said several times he had heard testimony on this property along the lines of the convenience factor of having this retail and gas, etc. close to the residents and how beneficial it would be. He asked Ms. Hagar if she saw a benefit to her fellow neighbors having the convenience factor. Ms. Hagar said they found Perimeter Loop is just three miles from the neighborhood and it supplies them with groceries, gas, hardwares, etc. She said retail had been approved caddy -comer to the high school, and there will be retail with the new Jerome Village to the north. She said she thought it was sad if they could not drive three miles to get groceries or Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 10 of 23 gasoline because it would be a lazy environment where they live. She said she had not missed not having retail. Cynthia Reed, 5208 Aryshire Drive, a Dublin resident since 1986 said she -did not intend to speak but she did not see Robert Fathman here as the representative of the Civic Action Committee of Muirfield North. She said the reason they chose not to speak was because they have since 2003 met with City representatives, Gary Gunderman and Claudia Husak, and all the representatives at the area meetings for the Community Plan. She said they had expressed great concern about any commercial business along Jerome Road. She said there are 2,400 homes planned in the new Jerome Village which is going to be out of Dublin's jurisdiction and control. Ms. Reed said it will add a lot of traffic to that area, which helped them when Tartan West was formed to help create the single -lane roundabout at the Glick/Avery/Jerome Road intersection in anticipation of this new growth to come. Ms. Reed said now, they have a chance here, at this corner to help have a say in how this develops and help alleviate some of the traffic pattern. She said Jerome Road thus far has not been improved to handle any kind of commercial traffic. She said there is the potential also of ODOT bringing down McKitrick Road further west up Hyland -Croy Road, bringing in a potential exit there. Ms. Reed said it has been the opinion of the Citizens for Responsible Zoning (C4RZ) that there would beno opposition from them as long as the commercial development stayed on the Hyland-Croy/McKitrick Road side, simply because that would be less traffic coming into the round -about where there is an elementary and middle school currently. Ms. Reed said she felt for the residents who had water, sewer, and drainage problems and hoped that the City would help them with those issues. She said her group has had no opposition to the commercial because the City and Ms. Husak have been wonderful in notifying them about anything developing in this area. She said Mr. Hale had been very forthright, and Aaron Underhill has contacted them to let them know of any development in this area. She said he worked with Ms. Husak and Mr. Gunderman to try to meet with the majority of the residents' concerns. She said they had worked hard to keep the traffic minimal on Jerome Road and tried to shift it over to the Hyland -Croy Road site that is being approved. Larry Hopper, 7400 Brock Road, said the extension of Hyland -Croy Road through the Jerome development will be a total thoroughfare, so flipping those two roads made no sense because it would create another thoroughfare in an area that would be highly trafficked anyway. He did not see that it was a necessary item to be moving the road. Mr. Hale said the Brock Road entry concern had been conditioned that they work with staff to coordinate. He said it was true that it could be flipped, if that was were the traffic engineers think it should be, but they have submitted a traffic report and addressed many of these issues and the traffic report has been provided to Dublin staff and Union County and they have committed to coordinate with those entities. He said it may very well line up if that is what the governmental bodies think it should do. Mr. Hale said that with this application, they had filed a preliminary drainage system and they were aware that they have the duty to retain the water that they put on this piece and not to burden those down steam. He said there are ponds on the site to do that. He said they do not have to detain the water, but they have to clean it. He said the concerns are being addressed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 11 of 23 Diane Marin, EMH&T, said she had been involved in the drainage patterns for this site under M/I Homes. However, she said she had not attended any public meetings. She said there are about 28 acres needing to be picked up from the Hyland -Croy area homes and traveling north to Brock Road. She said she had walked the site. Ms. Marin said the 24 -inch culvert was not blocked by the boulders in front of it. She said a drainage swale came down through the project. She said they will do the standard procedure which is picking up that drainage, getting it through their system, cleaning it, and making sure that they do not exceed the flows that go offsite, north' of them. Mr. Hale said regarding the discussion about the comer of McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads, they had done a very extensive traffic study and the City has asked them in the study to look at every intersection in the area, which they have done. He said they understand that they have some very substantial obligations. All the entries have to have turn lanes, they have looked at what their contributions will be, and they are meeting with the City to come up with a program of when- intersections get approved to the Year 2017, which is considered build -out and Jerome Village is supposed to be finished by then. He said when doing the study, they looked at build- out and level of service. Mr. Hale said they thought this commercial has been consistently been shown at many Community Plan meetings as being important to the City because people needed to be out in the community to service it. He said it was appropriately designed from a land planning point of view and from the building architecture and this was an important part of the overall theme of this development. Mr. Gerber asked that Ms. Husak address the residents' concerns. He said he got the impression that they had been contacted, but some felt that they had not been involved. He said going forward; he wanted to be vigilant with that. Mr. Gerber explained that at this stage, the Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council to either support this application or deny it. He said it will then go to City Council, and everyone will have ample opportunity to speak before City Council, and before the Commission a third time. He asked Ms. Husak to give more information about what she had discussed with the applicant and what she envisioned. Mr. Gerber said he saw some conditions that asked for some flexibility and to work things out consistent with staff recommendations. Ms. Husak said this project started after June of last year and it picked up in more earnest in October 2006 when Planning, Engineering and the applicant met on a biweekly basis reviewing concepts for an entire redesign for this development. The applicant is well aware that there are concerns from the neighboring residents. She said as soon as they felt they were ready to have a plan that was pretty close to the plan that they are presenting tonight they did contact those neighbors and it happened to unfortunately be during the holiday season, so that made it more difficult to get together. She said the traffic is as Mr. Hale stated, there is a substantial traffic study that staff as well as Union County staff is reviewing. There are multiple jurisdictions in place here for traffic and utilities and it is challenging as to who is in charge of fixing what problems. She said the applicant is committed to make major traffic improvements around their immediate site as well as the larger area and there were several intersections they had to study. She said it is true that the Hyland -Croy Road area is going to be improved and it is somewhere in the area of a four -lane road going north to Jerome Village. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 12 of 23 Ms. Husak said the access point on Brock Road to the north is being discussed in the Planning Report and Condition 9 speaks to that. She said the condition requires that those access points at the veiy least have to be coordinated. That could mean that they line up, but it is the Township and the Union County Engineer who has to sign off on it as well. Mr. Gerber asked if it was necessary to tie this down at the rezoning/preliminary stage, or was it a "floating target" everybody knows where we need to get and it would be handled at the final stage. Ms. Husak said that was correct and Jennifer Readler agreed. Mr. Gerber recalled that there were water problems in Ballantrae, and asked if staff felt like they could find some solutions here. Ms. Husak said this application would not be before the Commission if Planning did not feel they were on top of it. Mr. Gerber recalled that when this was an M/I project, Mr. Hale made a representation before the Commission, and he was sure he would do so again tonight, that whatever it takes, they will satisfy each and every adjoining landowner in their concerns with respect to water. Mr. Hale replied that there were two water issues. He said with the stormwater concern, they understand what their obligations are and he thought the stormwater, because of farming practices, is being held up and they have sized their pipes preliminarily, they have completed the hydrology studies. He said they are going to pick up that water, clean it, and put it off the property. He said if the residents will allow them, pre -development to test their wells, if the wells degenerate, they will fix them. Mr. Gerber noted that there were conditions that spoke to those issues. He urged every interested resident to give their name, address, and phone number to Flora Rogers or Claudia Husak so that she could share them with the applicant. He said they work as a community when they all talk to one another. Mr. Gerber said he thought the biggest issue tonight was the need for residential/retail components as discussed at the Community Plan Joint Work Sessions. He said before this application can continue, the Commissioners needed to discuss amongst themselves how they feel about the retail/commercial component of this. He said he could not see walking through the architecture, other setbacks, etc. if they cannot have some sort of understanding with respect to that. Kevin Walter recalled that he had suggested moving the retail to the other corner. He said he had visited the site several times. He said he was glad to hear the applicant say that the site had topography. He said the three unique things about the site are topography, substantial landscape elements, and water features which are being preserved. He said he drove through the site to try to imagine what the retail component would look like on the corner. He said looking east, it was not a very attractive corner and there is nothing there that would be displaced. He posed the question could they integrate that into what is going on around it. Mr. Walter said when he saw the renderings, he. was not sure about uses, etc., but the concept of retail is supported on that corner, and they have said it during the Community Plan Work Sessions. He said he was further in support of having a retail component of some type in that area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 13 of 23 Mr. Gerber agreed that a lot of discussion with Council had been with respect to the retail component that as we build out the hospital, all the medical facilities around Perimeter Drive and existing and anticipated housing, etc. in that area, they want to keep people closer to home. Mr. Walter said he did not think this was an excessive amount of retail, but he questioned some of the uses which can be discussed later. Rayna Jones said generally speaking, she was in favor of the development. She said she was very comfortable, now that they have come a long way in their discussions as a group and with Council as to what the uses would be in this area. She said originally, she would have liked to keep this area much more of a rural area, but she saw with the development signs, as they have decided to put the Community Plan together and what is going on in the area and improvements in roadways, and she thought the consensus is that they have opened the door to new development in this area, and as part of that body, she could see that they were going in that direction. Ms. Jones said the design of the overall site is very positive. She said she liked Brian Jones' work and the tone and design. Ms. Jones said her number one concern was water, and that it sounded as though staff was on top of that. She said it had to be addressed very firmly. She said she was not a huge fan of a lot of retail here. Ms. Jones said she thought some may be necessary as this area begins to develop. She said she preferred it not near the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, because she wanted to preserve those vistas. Ms. Jones said she would love to see very restricted retail uses so that it does not become a fast-food drive-in type environment. She did not want anything that would infringe on the enjoyment of the park. She said she was against anything that would travel across the road and interfere with the park which was a priceless gem in our community. Ms. Jones said generally speaking, as far as rezoning and beginning this process, she was fine. Ted Saneholtz asked if the 200 -foot setbacks on McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads were met at the corner. Ms. Husak said the current plan shows the 200 -foot setbacks. She said however, there is a discussion about a new right-of-way acquisition on Hyland -Croy Road and there may be some small deviations (20 feet) where those issues will have to be resolved because the projected right-of-way for Hyland -Croy Road was 80 feet, and it is now 120 feet. Mr. Saneholtz asked what the Hyland -Croy Road area would potentially look like. He said a meandered four -lane road was previously discussed. He said he understood it was a preliminary discussion. Ms. Husak said she believed that an Emerald Parkway design was also one that had come up many times when the discussion was about what Hyland -Croy Road could look like. She said Emerald Parkway is a good example of a Dublinized road. Mr. Saneholtz said when he looked at Hyland -Croy now, it was hard for him to accept retail on the corner, but if he thought about what the future holds potentially for that area and intersection, he has a lot less resistance to retail on that corner. He said he was not sure that he accepted all the details of the present plan, but he was not nearly as adamantly against some form of retail/commercial on the comer as he once was, having had the opportunity to envision what Hyland -Croy might evolve into in the future. Ms. Husak agreed that increased development in this area will change it dramatically. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 14 of 23 Todd Zimmerman said he approved of the retail issue on that base. He said it was in the right location from a future traffic standpoint and that it was in a good service location from the east. He said it will draw more people there and keep people from using Avery Road and Perimeter Road. Mr. Saneholtz said his over-riding concern about putting retail here is its long-term viability as a functioning successful retail corner in light of the extensive (700,000 square feet of commercial and retail) just two miles north. He said Oak Park has recently been approved and there will be an interchange at McKitrick Road and US 33. He said his real concern for the community as a whole is that the center becomes not viable and not vibrant and that in 15 years, they regret it after things have developed around it over time. He said that was his major reservation. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that the Shoppes at Athenry center on Avery Road was vibrant and used. He predicted that someday this will look and be like that. Mr. Gerber said he sensed they had enough support for another one of these concepts, but they seemed to latch onto things in Dublin. He said they get a good idea and all of a sudden; every project has to be the same with the same brick color, etc. He said they needed to get more creative down the road. He said if they are to support retail here he did not think there should be more. He said they had to make sure that the retail here works. Mr. Gerber said retail in some neighborhoods has not worked. He thought it had been a failure of design and that it had also been a failure of the landlord to attract suitable retailers with suitable uses. Mr. Gerber said he thought it was beholding on all of the Commissioners to help in that process to make these people successful and to make these vibrant centers. He said the concept only works if the locals utilize the center. Mr. Saneholtz said that brought up a concept for consideration. He asked Mr. Jones if there was a way to make the 19,400 -square -foot structure and all the structures that are anticipated to be retail, more adaptive to other uses, if in the future office use might be the actual dominant need in this little pod because of the tremendous retail to the north. He asked if there was any way to look at the architecture and the design in such a way to make it not look like they took retail and put offices in it, but something that can function both ways. Mr. Jones said he thought you cannot separate the fact that this really is about place making and they do have the Stavroff Company that has been in the community for a long time and have had that vision. He said when looking at the long-term viability in this place making, it really has much to do with the viability of these buildings becoming something else over a period of time. He said the commitment to quality material and to the architectural design is going to provide for that vitality. He stressed that this is a delicately -scaled project, and if they compared other things that seemed to be like it, and put them side-by-side, it is diminutive in its scale and character. He said the setbacks have increased and it will have a great feel in relationship to the park across the street and will provide that kind of place that is going to be very viable in the next 20-30 years as a special place. Mr. Jones said its scale will dominate its success over what is occurring to the north. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Gerber said they had to make sure that the retail was integrated. He said it is on Dublin's northern border and gateway features, etc. are wanted. He said with the retail, this seemed like where City Council wants to go and where the Joint Work Sessions have gone. He said if it could be done within the parameters that it has to fit, it sounded like all the Commissioners were supportive. He said it was now time for them to do what they normally do at rezonings/preliminary plans and review the text. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was any economic barrier to it being somehow evolving into office. He said he assumed that retail would command a higher square footage rental than office space and that was part of his concern about the viability of retail here if. in fact it becomes expensive and we have very near by, inexpensive retail space. He said that was part of the challenge of this particular site. Mr. Gerber said he heard the applicant say if there was a conversion to occur, that they could sustain that from economics and from an architectural aesthetic standpoint it fits as well. He said if it was the pleasure of the Commission that retail can work there and it is consistent with what they have been doing, then he recommended that they stay on retail and address the condition on parking, and then review the text, and then cover architecture, setbacks, etc. He asked Ms. Husak what Planning's thinking was in regards to parking. Ms. Husak said Planning has reviewed this site plan and particularly how it functions with the remainder of the development. She said the text states the intention of this is to be a neighborhood commercial area. She said Planning is concerned that some design features are more suburban where parking is in front of buildings, signalizing where you can park rather than encouraging walking around in front of the buildings, drawing on the fact that there is a lot of people living in the vicinity that could conceivably walk and use those uses. Ms. Husak said therefore, the idea that Planning has in this area is to have it function more as a street with parallel parking and on -street parking. She said now, it is shown as pull -in parking in front of those buildings. Mr. Gerber asked if Ms. Husak felt there was ample parking for that. Ms. Husak said that was one of the good things about a neighborhood commercial center or mixed-use development where uses have offsetting hours and there are people there that could walk. Mr. Gerber said that they wanted to encourage neighbors to walk. Mr. Saneholtz said the proposed parking was approximately one space for every 240 square feet. He asked if Code was every 150 square feet. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale objected to Planning's suggestion for parking. Ms. Wanner said one of the key issues with this retail is the viability. She said the parking numbers included in the text are key. She said they need to create enough parking for this retail center. She said they understand that Planning staff is trying to minimize the parking, however this is not a good option to keep the center viable. Ms. Wanner said they had addressed the parallel parking next to the buildings where it is most important to be able to create that people space. Mr. Walter said conservation design has only been mentioned briefly tonight. He said in the Community Plan, they said not only that there would be retail in this space, but this entire Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 16 of 23 property would be in a conservation design zone. He said he struggled with coming up the hill and seeing cars parked into a small parking space. He said it was an important vista because it was the crest as you come up the hill. Mr. Walter said he was not supporting making it look like a car dealership. Mr. Gerber confirmed that Ms. Husak had looked at this plan and that there was ample parking and that it will work. Ms. Husak agreed. Steve Langworthy said Planning was trying to have this development live up to what it says it is, a neighborhood center and not a suburban shopping center. He said the view aspect of that was important in that it helps establish the character of that center right from the road. He said he thought Mr. Walter's point about that was crucial, which was that that dominant view be of building, rather than automobiles as might be seen in a traditional suburban shopping center. Mr. Langworthy said if the parking ratio is not adequate for their needs; it may be that they need to shift the design around to get more parking in another area of the site that is not as visible from the road. He suggested it could be further interior to the site or some of the interior spaces or buildings could be moved around to accommodate those other parking pods. He said if parking numbers are a concern, he thought there was a way that can be addressed. Mr. Walter said on the west side there are very heavily wooded areas, and on Hyland -Croy Road to the south, there is the appearance of a grape vineyard, and something comparable is needed that fits with the area. He said retail could be done if it is done correctly. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not see frontage landscaping such as walls and hedges other than internal addressed in the text. He asked about the periphery and along the road with laid stone walls to Dublinize this whole neighborhood. Mr. Langworthy said those were details that they could deal with, but one of the disadvantages of this area is when water is put up front, water does not block views very well. There is not a lot of room to make dense landscaping to make it function like they would like. He said in order to make that neighborhood feel again, they have to minimize the vehicles. Mr. Walter said that Planning said it parked fine and the applicant said they wanted more parking. Mr. Hale said they thought Planning was saying that maybe they should reduce the parking on the site. He said they thought that one parked car per 240 square feet is adequate, but less than that is not adequate. Mr. Hale said the only issue was the arrangement of the parking. He said they thought there should be parallel parking and maybe some angled parking to get more out front. He said they thought there were walls and fences in front. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with comments made with respect that this needs to fit in and that the City does not want another strip center. He said he understood from Ms. Husak that they can do other things and provide the needed parking. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber clarified that Condition 10 stated they should work together and the Commission will see it at the final. He said they also could from there get into hedges, walls, etc. Ms. Wanner said the parking scenario presented tonight is identical to what they had done at Oak Park that was approved about a month ago. She said they have 200 feet of the setback, which is ample room to provide mounding and landscaping. She said part of their theming was stone walls. Ms. Wanner said they wanted to put some of that theming along Hyland -Croy Road with Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 17 of 23 trees, shrubs and stone walls which will more than screen those cars. Ms. Wanner said however, it is the cars in front of the retail center that is the viability issue for them. She said being able to screen them is wonderful, but it is having that critical mass of cars in front of the store that is critical to them for the viability of the center. Mr. Langworthy asked whether there were entry doors only on the Hyland -Croy Road side and there is no pedestrian access to the other side. Ms. Wanner said there was pedestrian access on both sides. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that access to the building was not being cut off with parking. Mr. Walter said he was hearing the applicant say that if they do not have parking in the way it is configured, the center is not viable therefore; they do not want to move forward. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Wanner said they believed it was configured appropriately. Mr. Gerber asked if the applicant was saying that the recommendation of staff to the Commission as contained in Condition 10 is unworkable. Mr. Hale and Ms. Wanner said no, it was not unworkable. Mr. Hale said his belief was that Planning thought they had head -in parking on two sides of the street. He said their drawing shows parallel parking on one side and either angled or head -in parking on the other side. He said they were happy to work out the details out with staff before they come back with the final development plan. Mr. Hale said they were convinced that there needs to be parking in front of the buildings along the street. He said the buildings were two- sided and there was signage on both sides. He said that ninety percent of the parking is in the center. Mr. Gerber read aloud Condition 10: That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval. He said he interpreted that as it was the goal of staff and he heard loudly of the Commission that we want this to be integrated into the community and they do not want it to look like a strip center. He said he also heard from Mr. Hale that they could work with that as long as they had certain requirements. Mr. Gerber suggested that they go work on it and let them move forward. Mr. Hale said he agreed to Condition 10. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Hale what uses he envisioned. Mr. Hale said they had similar discussions at City Council. He said there were two things they could do like the SR 161/Shamrock project, they could come up with an alternate list that is half this long. He said another thing they could do is say those uses are allowed in a CC, Community Commercial District, except for... Mr. Gerber said this was a planned district, and so they were not talking about Code issues. Ms. Jones said there were many uses listed that she would not consider neighborhood retail services like antique stores and secondary stores. Mr. Gerber said he was most concerned with this because he was sure the houses would be built before the retail and commercial. He said every potential home buyer will have to be told what is coming so that they will have a full awareness. He said someday, a gas station will be warranted in this area, but wondered if it could be deemed a conditional use. Ms. Readler said the gasoline station could be moved to a conditional use section and this list of uses. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 18 of 23 Ms. Jones objected to the conditional use: Drive-thru services in association with any permitted use in Subarea F. She said the only type of drive-thru service she could imagine might be a pharmacy drive-thru to service the neighborhood. She asked if they were going to leave it open ended or try to limit the type of drive-thru. Mr. Gerber said this needed to be balanced because it is not known what is going to go in now or in 15 years. He said he wanted to guard against drive-thru traffic inside because it would not be pedestrian -friendly any more. Mr. Zimmerman read from the top of Page 47, concerning parking and loading and the reduced number of stacking spaces proposed in the text. He said he would like to have something said on stacking, but still give staff an opportunity to review in the future. Mr. Gerber asked how that could be worded as a condition. Mr. Hale suggested the condition: That the stacking will be determined at the time of the final development plan. He suggested making the gas station a conditional use. Ms. Jones asked if they wanted to narrow the list of permitted uses, or leave them as broad as possible to cover the future. Mr. Saneholtz said there were permitted uses listed that he would very strongly object to, for instance, repair shops and related services. Mr. Walter said he had a problem with any of the classifications that had the word "miscellaneous" included. He said if they were going to be this specific, they cannot be this specific and broad at the same time. Mr. Gerber said he thought all drive-thrus had to be deemed conditional uses. Mr. Walter agreed, but said the question was how many drive -thins were allowed and are there any that the Commission is going to disapprove. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Hale suggested that they say the permitted uses for drive-thrus exclude restaurants. Mr. Saneholtz suggested excluding food service. Mr. Hale said they hope to have a drug store, and possibly a dry cleaner or bank. He agreed they would not do drive-thru restaurants. He agreed that all drive-thrus will be conditional uses, the gas station will be a conditional use, and they will make sure the repair listed does not include auto repair. Mr. Zimmerman asked if they wanted to go through the list use by use. Mr. Gerber asked if there was another way to do it. Ms. Readler said no, unless it was tabled and changed, then brought back to the Commission. Mr. Hale asked if they could agree that the final list will be approved at the time of the final development plan. Ms. Readler said that the problem with that is only the Commission will have the final say on the list of retail uses since Council does not see a final development plan. Mr. Langworthy said there are three types of uses, the ones that fit into a neighborhood context, ones that fit in a neighborhood context with a conditional use approval, and those that do not fit. Ms. Jones said there were some that were more regional in nature and not neighborhood in nature. Mr. Langworthy suggested the case be tabled to the next meeting and that a revised list be brought back for review. Mr. Gerber said that was a good idea. Ms. Jones said this was a big change for our community, and although she thought they were all moving in a positive direction, she thought it would be nice to pin this down so that we are really cautious about what uses we do allow in neighborhood retail for a center of this nature. Mr. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 19 of 23 Saneholtz agreed. Mr. Gerber said when he made the motion, he would add that as a bases for tabling. Mr. Walter asked if the buildings would have second floors, and if so, what would the use be and what was the square footage. Mr. Hale said the square footage given was for the ground floor. He said they included in the text that they could provided office or residential use on the second floors and they do not have to increase the parking ratio. Mr. Zimmerman referred to page 46 of the text under Density: Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout the subarea. He asked if there was an certain maximum amount of square footage allowed for patio. Ms. Husak said it was not calculated like that. She said it was part of the conditional use review. Mr. Zimmerman asked where on the site patio is generally contemplated. Ms. Husak said currently, to the north of the entry a restaurant is indicated with a patio surrounding it on two sides that would face the pond. She said there is also potential for patio space around the major tenant buildings, but it is preliminary at this point. Mr. Saneholtz asked that Item H-1 — Setback Requirements on page 47 of the text be addressed. Ms. Husak said that was the area of the text where there was a typographical error. She said it was supposed to read: The pavement setback shall be 110 feet, and the minimum building setback 180 feet from the proposed future right-of-way. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it was the same for McKitrick Road #2. Ms. Husak said it was. Mr. Hale said changes had been made in the drawings and they did not get added to the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Item J — Lighting: All lighting shall be in conformance with Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines except as provided for in this text and asked it be explained. Ms. Husak said Condition 5 addressed it. Mr. Walter asked to clarify the lighting condition, and if the reworked Kroger Center on Bridge Street had exposed gooseneck lighting. He asked if that would be precluded in this where it stated that all building illumination shall come from concealed sources. He asked about sign lighting. Ms. Husak said Planning had noticed the Kroger Center as well and is investigating that issue further. She said it is envisioned to be like the Giant Eagle center and the Shppes at Avery, where the Burgundy Room restaurant is located. Mr. Saneholtz said he could not find Exhibit A-8 in Item K — Architecture. Ms. Husak said that Condition 6 should also state "...discrepancy between text and plans in general." Mr. Gerber asked that it be added. Mr. Gerber said that in the final development plan stage, it will be in a larger format because the Commission will have to review a landscape package, etc. He asked if the sign package will be reviewed at the final stage as well. Ms. Readler said yes, except to the extent that it is addressed anywhere in text. Ms. Jones said signs were addressed on Page 45 of the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to L-3, Page 49 and asked staff if the proposed signage was appropriate. Ms. Husak said Condition 7 addressed that portion of the text. Mr. Walter confirmed that two shopping center monument signs were contemplated; one on each of the roadways for this retail center. Mr. Hale said except for the Code. Ms. Husak said yes. Mr. Saneholtz referred to C on Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 20 of 23 Page 49 and E that mentioned the color of the sign text. He said there was no mention of the color of the signs themselves. Ms. Husak said there were three colors contemplated, but a decision on what the colors will be made at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz asked if staff was happy with the phasing of the project. Ms. Husak indicated that they were. Mr. Saneholtz said that Subarea F could be an open field for years. Ms. Husak said Planning has requested that the applicant contemplate phasing for Subarea F, particularly, and due to the multiple conditions, that is the language proposed. Mr. Saneholtz understood that if nothing was done in Subarea E, then literally Subarea F could sit blank forever or until something was done in Subarea E. Mr. Hale said they had never thought that they do not have the right to build the commercial at the same time. He said he did not think they had to wait sequentially to get to the commercial because they believe they are going to do that relatively quickly. Mr. Saneholtz said he was just interested that all of the Commissioners understood that the corner could, under these terms, sit vacant for 15 years. Mr. Gerber said that was the same as with every project that the Commission sees. Mr. Saneholtz said there had been other projects that sat partially finished and they do not have any leverage to cause completion of it. However, he believed that this text said they were going to be required to build some commercial. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said the intent behind this was to create an edge with either the building at the northeast corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, or at the east/west entry on Hyland -Croy Road. He said they addressed what structures in the first phase must be under construction within 24 month. He said there are no further restrictions placed on when the remainder has to go in. Mr. Saneholtz said he just wanted to clarify that his understanding was correct. Mr. Gerber said he liked the stepping up the level of the architecture. He recalled that at Tartan West there was an internal architectural review board which did a good job, and the same thing is being contemplated here. He said that was a great idea. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not think it applied to the commercial area. Mr. Hale said it did. Mr. Gunderman added that the commercial area will come to the Commission in the final development plan, whereas the single-family homes will just go through an administrative review process. Mr. Saneholtz asked about Exhibit 13 on Page E-9 which calculated the open space. He asked how the required setback space was credited to the development. He said he had heard multiple explanations where some got none, some got half credit, and others got 100 percent credit and asked why. Ms. Husak said that Code requires each subdivision to set aside certain acreage of open space. She said it was approximately 11 for this site. She said it was a formula in the Code based on the size of the site as well as the number of housing units. She said setbacks get credited 50 percent if amenities to the public are included in those open spaces and whether or not a development gets credited for open space, really just becomes an issue if they are short on what they are required to have. , Mr. Walter asked with respect to the bikepath and that general area, what was staffs position on connecting that to the Metro Park. He said at that intersection, it appeared that it was being driven up to the north, to the main entrance. Ms. Husak said it would definitely require some coordination with the Metro Park, similar to what was done with the Oak Park development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 21 of 23 Mr. Walter said it was disconcerting to him that at Jerome High School, there is the same kind of corner situation preventing easy pedestrian access as now exists at the Metro Park. He said it was an unsafe pedestrian/car interaction. He said he would like to see if they could work that better when it gets to final, plus sitting that as a connection to Tartan West that does not seem to be completed. Mr. Saneholtz said the connectivity of this development to the park itself is huge, especially if there is a four -lane boulevard in front. Mr. Walter said the water feature on Hyland -Croy Road seemed to have a hard edge on it and he wondered if they were going to try to naturalize it so that it is in keeping with some of the other naturally existing ponds. Mr. Hale said the side that Mr. Walter was referring to would be naturalized. Mr. Gerber asked if the garden lots and alleyways really sold. He asked what they would look like in 15 years. Mr. Hale said if done right, they will be fine. He said there is a limited number of them and they feel there will be a demand for them. Mr. Gerber asked if they did not work, what would Plan B be. Mr. Hale said he guessed they would come back and request to put in 80 - foot lots instead. Ms. Husak asked everyone to recall what was seen in Westhaven where a majority of the lots were alley access lots with garages in the rear and it worked. Mr. Langworthy said he had visited the Kentlands and asked the same question about the marketability of this type of lots. He said the comment made was similar to what Mr. Hale said. He said they said there is a certain market that would not buy that, but there is a certain market that will, and the key is to balance the number so that there is enough to address that market, but not too many that some will stay vacant. Mr. Saneholtz said that he liked the concept of having some alley loaded garages. He said at Westhaven, it gave those sections the pedestrian feel which is definitely different than our typical pattern. He said he appreciated the flexibility and the attempts the developer has taken upon themselves to give us the opportunity to do it. Mr. Gerber said this was a great project and thought that they had moved the biggest mountains tonight. He said he would like to table this in order to get with staff on commercial uses. Mr. Hale asked if the case could be tabled to the February 1 meeting and waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Gerber asked if that would give Planning enough time. Mr. Gunderman said it would be enough time if the only issue to deal with was the commercial uses. Mr. Gerber said it was, with a fine combining of some of the other comments the Commissioners have made. Mr. Gunderman noted that if there is no need for new drawings and only a new list of uses, they could waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Walter asked if that at the next meeting, they would have the opportunity to go into detail on some of the other subareas. Mr. Gerber suggested that the issues with other subareas be discussed tonight. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 22 of 23 Mr. Walter said the topology of the site has a ridge, and he asked how much earth will be moved specifically in Subareas 7 and 2. He said he did not want those areas flattened. Aaron Stanford said if the question pointed toward the level of grading or elevation changes, what they provided did not indicate at this point of time what will be seen as a change in elevation. He said that would be worked out through the final development plan. Mr. Walter said he asked because the grading at the Riverside Drive retail center looked significantly different than what was contemplated. He wanted to make sure that is covered at some point. Mr. Gunderman said there had been questions about that grading and the plans really are consistent. Mr. Walter said he was concerned about the change of hills in Phase 7, Subarea D-2. Ms. Wanner said there will be some grading. She said they will try to keep the natural features like the tree rows and minimize the grading around the trees. Mr. Walter asked where staff was considering the stub street on the northern entrance to be. Ms. Husak said that was also a final development plan issues. She said they wanted to build in, connectivity to future possibilities for development. She said it would have, to be located sensitively to existing vegetation. Mr. Walter .said he liked all the features discussed in the southern area, but the north gets very linear there. He said if there was away to make it less linear he would like it. He said there will probably be two very different characteristics in the neighborhood depending upon which area you live. Mr. Gerber asked that the issue be kept in mind for the final development plan stage. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Page 22 where it stated that shutters were to be operable or appear as such. He asked if "appear as such" meant that they cannot be fastened directly to the building as might be seen in lesser quality. Ms. Husak said the shutters would appear workable and be sized to cover the window. Mr. Saneholtz said he found the wording interesting under I -BB on Page 22 of the text just above the blue shutter graphic. Mr. Jones said "or appears as operable" generally means that there is shutter hardware that is associated. He said it was not just a shutter tacked to the wall. Mr. Hale said they were happy to do whatever the Commission wanted. He asked if they wanted to spend five minutes going over the uses, or bring them back at the next meeting. Mr. Saneholtz said there was no need to rush through the uses, and he would like the professional planning staff time to review them. Mr. Gerber said he understood the list of uses was short. He said other comments had been made tonight. He said the purpose of waiving the 15 -Day Rule was to get it back here. However, he said there is a risk because two Commissioners were not present tonight. He said procedurally, he was not sure how to proceed. Mr. Hale suggested it could be approved, subject to bringing back the list to the next meeting, and the discussion is the list. Mr. Gerber suggested holding off. He said five Commissioners had pretty much signed on to this and are very much committed to recommending approval to City Council. He said it had been tried before and sometimes people get confused about what is going on. He said he preferred that they come back on February 0 and wrap it up. Mr. Gerber said he was not looking for a three-hour meeting on the topic. He said he thought they could go Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 23 of 23 through the points that have been raised. He said staff was keenly aware of what those points are and can work with the applicant to get those to the Commission. Mr. Gunderman said basically, the same conditions were expected in the next discussion with the only thing changing between what is before them now would be a list of uses for the commercial area. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Gunderman. Mr. Gunderman said the recommendations for uses will be sent in the Commission packet. Mr. Walter said the Commissioners will see revised conditions, because Mr. Gunderman said the same conditions will get tweaked. Ms. Husak said as an example, Condition 7 was a good candidate to be taken care of then. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Page 39, Subarea D-1, #3, Garden Lots, down to H. He said on the other Subarea D-2 it mentioned: Such fences shall not be made of vinyl and it was absent in H and assumed it was a typographical error he would like correct. Mr. Langworthy said they would like to take the mention out because it was already forbidden by Code. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Subarea E, Page 43, at the bottom: Off Street Parking — All townhouse units.shall be required to have a minimum of two off street parking spaces. He asked if the garage was considered as off street, not a driveway behind the garage. Mr. Hale said garages were considered as off street parking, not the driveway behind the garage. MOTION AND VOTE: Mr. Gerber moved to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text, and to further clarify the conditions contained in the staff report, consistent to the discussion at this meeting. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and Mr. Hale agreed to the tabling. Mr. Gerber said he thought this was a great project and that the big issues were covered. He said they are just about there and he thought he could speak for everyone on the Commission that there was ample support for this and they looked forward to seeing this on February I'`. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 5-0.) Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Flora Roger and Libby F ley Administrative Assistants