Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 006-20
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Ordinance No. RECORD OF ORDINANCES 06-20 (AMENDED) Passed REZONING APPROXIMATELY 3.47 ACRES EAST OF HYLAND-CROY ROAD, SOUTH OF MITCHELL-DEWITT ROAD FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK, SUBAREA E) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK, SUBAREA F) FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 12 SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES (CASE 19-100Z/PDP) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, 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 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of J, 2020. Mayor - Presiding Officer ATTEST: �#k of Ouncil (D epw ) F Form 6220S Office of the City Manager City of Dublin 5200 Emerald Parkway •Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Memo Phone: 614410-4400 9Fax: 614-410-4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Initiated By: Jennifer Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I Date: June 10, 2020 Re: Ordinance 06-20 (AMENDED) Rezoning approximately 3.47 acres east of Hyland -Croy Road, south of Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea F) for the future development of up to 12 single-family homes (case 19-100Z/PDP). Summary This Ordinance was introduced to City Council at the February 10, 2020 meeting. During Council review of the rezoning, a number of concerns were raised. These included potential of the financial burden to the HOA in maintaining private drives, the layout of the proposed green spaces and the development standards, specifically the side yard setback requirements. The Ordinance was tabled at this hearing. The applicant has continued to work on updating the plans based on the discussion at the first reading and information and input received from multiple meetings with Staff and the residents of Oak Park. Neighborhood Contact On Sunday, March 8, Engineering and Planning Staff, several residents of Oak Park, the applicant, the City Manager and City Council member and Ward Representative Cathy DeRosa met to discuss the plans and preliminary updates made by the applicant following the February 10, 2020 Council meeting. At this meeting, Staff presented background information, a cost breakdown for the HOA, and four future development scenarios. These scenarios included approving the application as it was presented in the February meeting, modifying the existing plans, disapproving the current plan and retaining the existing zoning, or a comprehensive redevelopment of Subareas D and E. At the meeting, the group discussed the preliminary updates provided by the applicant given the discussion from the February meeting. Initially, the neighbors remained concerned with the setbacks and the financial burden to the HOA. After significant discussion, the group reviewed seven potential consensus items, outlined below: 1) Neighborhood concedes on increased setbacks 2) City takes responsibility for Oak Tree Drive N & S and the bulbs (public street) 3) Costs of private drives will be the responsibility of 32 lots (development text requirement and revised bylaws or declarations) Memo re. Ord. 06-20 (AMENDED) Oak Park, Subarea F — Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan June 10, 2020 Page 2 of 6 4) Ensure quality condition of "alleys" at post construction at the developer cost (not using HOA funds), subject to Engineering approval 5) Revise site plan to reflect Option 2b with "alley' access (removal of open space reserves and associated sidewalks along "alleys". No driveway access on Oak Park Blvd) 6) Determine specific requirements to require AC units in the backyard or establish a minimum distance between units. 7) Determine appropriate lot coverage for the four larger lots Following this meeting, the applicant began working with Staff on more formal updates to the plan given the discussion and consensus items. The applicant resubmitted materials on April 22. Planning and Engineering Staff met with the neighbors to present these updates the following day on April 23. In the meeting on April 23, Staff presented the updates to the plans, as well as a series of proposed conditions of approval intended to address the concerns regarding the financial burden to the HOA (consensus items numbers 2-4, above). During this meeting, the neighbors once more raised concerns regarding side yard setbacks. Staff shared the results of the neighborhood meeting with the applicant, and requested the applicant to provide their final updates to the plans in an attempt to satisfy the neighbors and move forward with the rezoning. On May 15, Staff shared the applicant's final concessions on the plans with the neighbors. Staff received the final documents addressing the remaining issues on Friday, June 5 and shared these updates with the neighbors the following week after a final review by Staff. Site Layout Updates Since the February 10 Council meeting, updates have been made to the site layout. These updates address concerns shared by the neighbors and Council regarding the originally proposed green spaces and the access to the homes. The applicant continues to propose 12 single-family lots, however, the applicant has removed the green spaces and the associated sidewalks in favor of four larger lots to minimize additional open space maintenance cost to the HOA. The applicant has also, by way of the development text, required all driveway access away from Oak Park Boulevard as requested by the neighbors. Private Drive Updates The financial burden of the private drives was a shared concern of the neighbors and of Council. At the February meeting, several Council members expressed concerns that the HOA would face significant, undue financial burden when the maintenance of the private drives is turned over to the HOA. The applicant worked with Staff and City leadership to address these concerns, ultimately recommending a number of actions to remedy the concerns, as outlined in detail in the Staff recommendation section of this memo. Memo re. Ord 0620 (AMENDED) Oak Pei. Subarea E- Reznnmg/prelimmery Development Plan June 10, 2020 Page 3 of 5 In summary, the City has agreed to assume regbor¢ibl Iity for the maintenance of porton of Caknce Drive North and South (Reserves Rand S), Including the bulbs. Port ons of Reaves I and ] (the "alleys"), which a characterized by Cher Inverted crown and lack of curb and gutter, are M remain the reporurbl Ilty of the HOA Lobs 104140 are recommended to have a speaa Paverrenb Assessment for repairing and replacing port ons of the private drives, which are not recommended to be maintained by the City. Further, the applicant has cerrumped to a donaton In the amount of $25,000 to the Pavement Assessment reserve. Proporedtae ees ownsDaet erdraponsPIAby, NAPAIVIRSE OWNER MAINTENANCE I FUNNY K1NFT City OF I cuts OF IDLIKIN III K. Il CITY OF Full tei PARK vie'. i III (A L A, Fir IFFAFFIN gAdE OAK FARK W.A. OAK PARK I RAN OF III I AND J (PROPOSED PUBLIC III W1 Rinki R AND D(PR aboulD Tons ROWr DIT, DF DIFUN CITYCIFIDIDIDIN �N- Of Dpi CITY OF Cial Proporedtae ees ownsDaet erdraponsPIAby, Memo re. Ord. 06-20 (AMENDED) Oak Park, Subarea F — Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan June 10, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Development Standard and Text Updates During the review of this ordinance, a neighborhood representative expressed the neighborhood's overall dissatisfaction with the proposed 6 -foot side yard setbacks, which match those in the rest of the neighborhood, as well as many other neighborhoods across the City. The residents desire larger side yard setbacks as to avoid, as stated by the neighbors, narrow stretches between homes and difficulty mowing around A/C units. The applicant declined to change the required side yard setbacks as to remain consistent with the rest of Oak Park. However, the applicant did revise the development text language regarding encroachments into the side yard to encourage the placement of A/C units in the rear yard. When this is not possible, the development text requires that there be a minimum distance between units as to allow adequate space for landscape equipment and a more open appearance. With the removal of the green spaces and the subsequent enlargement of the four lots fronting Oak Park Boulevard, the applicant was tasked with proposing a new lot coverage percentage to ensure that the larger lots did not overwhelm the existing homes or change the character of the neighborhood. Per the development text, the four larger lots are now permitted a maximum of 45% lot coverage. This is significantly less than the 60% permitted for the smaller lots but is consistent with many other neighborhoods in the City. The applicant also added language to the development text permitting detached garages, in - ground pools, hot tubs, and pool houses. Detached garages are limited to 1,000 square feet in size, 22 feet in height and must be designed to be architecturally cohesive with the primary structure. Pool houses are limited to 250 square feet in size. Previously, the development text did not specifically call these out as permitted uses, but they were permitted if the lot was able to accommodate them by size. Typically, homes in the neighborhood were too large to allow other structures on the site. However, this language was added as a result of the creation of the four larger lots. Finally, at the request of the neighbors, the applicant has revised the development text to require pool barriers to match the fencing that was approved for Subarea D; specifically the 4 - foot wood privacy fences that were approved with the Final Development Plan for Subarea D. Also permitted are 4 -foot tall, open wrought -iron style fences. 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. All other conditions will be monitored as part of the Final Development Plan application. 1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new Subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the final development plan; Memo re. Ord. 06-20 (AMENDED) Oak Park, Subarea F — Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan June 10, 2020 Page 5 of 6 4) That the applicant work with Staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and, 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed to Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan. Staff Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of this Ordinance with the following conditions: 1) Subject to the approval of the City Engineer, Applicant will prepare data showing projected cost of repairing and replacing the pavement areas of Subareas I and J of Oak Park that will remain as private drives ("Private Drives' within Oak Park after dedication to the City of Dublin for Oak Tree Drives North and South. This projection will state intervals of work expected to be done, cost of work at each interval, and the additional Pavement Repair Assessment ("Pavement Assessment') necessary, above the standard Oak Park Community Association, Inc. ("OPCA') lot assessments, to be paid each month by each of the Villa Lots 109-128 and Village Lots 129 to 140 (collectively "Lots 109 through 140' to provide a fund to pay for the expected pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives. 2) Applicant will donate the amount of $25,000.00 to OPCA to establish the Reserve IW Pavement Repairs Reserve (I&J Pavement Fund) for the future pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives. OPCA will segregate this amount and the Pavement Assessment amounts received from the owners of Lots 109 through 140. OPCA will credit the Pavement Assessment amounts to the IW Pavement Fund no less than quarterly. Disbursements from the IW Pavement Fund will be made by OPCA for no reason other than the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives. 3) To implement the above responsibilities and obligations, Applicant will amend the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park ("Declaration') to include Lots 109 through 140. The amendment of the Declaration will include revisions to Article VI, Assessments, to delete all references to Townhouse assessments and to add requirements that assessments for Lots 109 through 140 will include the additional Pavement Assessment for repairing and replacing the Private Drives. The Pavement Assessment will initially be $12.25 per month subject to increase or decrease by the OPCA Board of Directors ("Board's to ensure that funds are being appropriately reserved for actual or projected cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives in accord with the methodology of #1(a) above. However, so long as Applicant controls the Board, the Pavement Assessment may be adjusted upward at any time at its discretion. The Pavement Assessment will be considered part of the Operating Assessments in the Declaration with respect to the Lots 109 through 140. Applicant will further amend the Declaration to provide for the segregation and use of the IW Pavement Fund by OPCA as provided in #1(b) above. 4) The amendments in #1(c) above are subject to the approval of the Law Director prior to filing with the Union County, Ohio, Recorder and will be so submitted for approval within 60 days following final approval of the within rezoning. Memo re. Ord. 06-20 (AMENDED) Oak Park, Subarea F — Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan June 10, 2020 Page 6 of 6 5) The Private Drives will be maintained by the Applicant, without using OPCA funds, until turnover to OPCA. Unless agreed to in writing by a majority of the Oak Park residents, turnover of the Private Drives will not take place until the last lot of Lots 109 through 140 is sold. After the final lot of Lots 109 through 140 is sold and prior to turnover of maintenance of the Private Drives to the OPCA, the Applicant shall request a pavement evaluation of the Private Drives from the City Engineer. Under the direction of the City Engineer, the City of Dublin will evaluate the pavement condition and establish a pavement condition rating (PCR) for the private drives. A PCR of 80 or higher will be required before turnover of maintenance of the Private Drives to the OPCA. If the PCR is evaluated to be lower than 80, the Applicant shall perform maintenance necessary to bring the PCR to 80 or higher at the Applicants sole cost and expense. Ideally, the pavement work will be performed, and turnover made, after heavy construction operations are completed on the home on the last lot. To this end, prior to issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy for the home on the last lot sold, or six months after sale of the last lot if construction has not been commenced thereon, the Applicant will perform the required work. The City Engineer may also permit the applicant to make security assurances for performance of the work in the future prior to the pavement turnover to the OPCA. This condition does not limit the Applicant's right under the Declaration to turn over property other than the Private Drives or functions of the OPCA at any time, in its discretion. 6) The Applicant will deed to the City portions of Reserves I and J, prior to the approval of any building permits for Lots 109-140, and no later than 60 days after the approval by Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission of the Final Development Plan for this section. This area is generally Oaktree Drive North, north of Acorn Lane to the northern terminus, including the bulb. Also, it will include the area of Oaktree Drive South, south of Bur Oak Lane to the southern terminus, including the bulb. The description and exhibit of this area to be deeded to the City is required to be submitted with the Final Development Plan for this section. 7) The above conditions, upon approval, are required to be included in the Development Text. Vicinity Map Scale: V= 2000' CIVIL ENGINEER & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 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 OAK PARK PUD REZONING -SUBAREA F PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DUBLIN, OHIO (RESERVES A AND D) PREPARED FOR: OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 P: 732.750.1111 F: 732.596.8461 CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTAL: JUNE 5, 2020 INDEX OF DRAWINGS 1. VICINITY MAP 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. SITE PLAN 4. TYPICAL SITE SECTIONS 5. OPEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY 6. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 7. OVERALL OAK PARK SUBAREAS 8. OVERALL OAK PARK EXISTING RESERVES 9. OVERALL OAK PARK PROPOSED RESERVES 10. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 11. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN OVERALL LEGAL COUNSEL Christopher T. Cline c/o Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis 300 West Wilson Bridge Rd. # 100 Worthington, OH 43085 Phone: 614-764-0681 Email: ctc@BHMLaw.com 9 9 r it Kuv ZONED:PRL rEY ��_��. -: ..� ZONED:PRL Bishops Crossing / �p� PLANNED LOW DENSITY �{ ff�ll•F ri-KI ° inJerome Sc oc, a/ - r � _,^ PLANNED LOW _ . (_ i,1tE1W 4 WQ RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (URB) J= e :".; .. / I DENSITY RESIDENTIAL zi DISTRICT - - - Y.. (DUBLIN) r U- ` —'' ---- (URB) ------- ---------—_------------------- �, _, o �, t• o r Z LT (DUBLIN) w CITY OF DUBLIN - - - - � a - - CITY DUBLIN � a v x UNION COUNTY — - _ __ - -- - -- -- t / / yl na d Croy Road — JEROMETWP/UNIONCOUNTY z 0 SUBAREA E EXISTING A N EXISTING ..._.. _.__.__ � _::.��._w ,\ ZONED:RU 1 // \� I / �� — Ooktree Drive North - — � aktree Drive South SIAREA F' - I RURAL RESIDENTIAL RURALSITEi �, SITE _ ER (ME)TWP (JEROME ) z - RESIDENTIAL / (JEROME TWP) I • 1'•i ,.,, ` / r ii "'-x III RESERVE A o RESERVE D� m , t I `, ,. a ..y •_. m -- i a y r -til A "I o ----J �' IL --- -_`-"-J EXISTING v �a -I o o SUBAREA A � i� I m I I, I -- -- E I a �I . I, �, r� vv � ZONED.RU RURAL x � o --------- SUBAREA D �. `� ''"� RESIDENTIAL - - - (AG) °�'' - - �� __ (JEROME TWP) ZONED:PUD Drive __ - PLANNED UNIT -== —= _ 4� DEVELOPMENT 4 .- acierlti e ero a � W - EXISTING '/' vv /' ` �: /_� 9,? , . • i (DUBLIN) I w x a • \ \ / \\ `/ J r' ,� -`.. - - J { a-.1 r �� �'-------- -47 �_ G P� a x RURAL RESIDENTIAL. /// (AG) \ /i, a SUBAREA B-1 .. / 0 .. o �— —), { . j �- SUBAREA B-2 c W P4FSI W z (JEROMETWP)rill W� \ n I �' "f + SUBAREA ; IV� SUBAREA A O -a P� Pleasant Drive in r- K. _ E 8. goo ' • i- - - - t`- v / y ` m F DU N TY \ - . . B ATE I, ' \ EXISTING June 5,2020 \ \ ZONED:RU \ RURAL RESIDENTIAL °°'er ' e eiro ark SCALE As Noted ♦ /." - - (JEROME TWP) JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 5}IEET 0 50 100 200 1 inch =100 feet ZONED:PRL PLANNED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (URB) (DUBLIN) CITY OF DUBLIN UNION COUNTY EXISTI N G ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) DUBLIN JEROME HIGH SCHOOL / EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) Z (JEROME TWP) o U BISHOPS CROSSING FA J co 0 ZONED:PRL PLANNED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (URB) SHOP'S RUN SECTION 2 BISHOP'S RUt O P. B. 5, P. 122 & 123 P. B. 5, PP. 1'' (DUBLIN) RESERVE D RESER'. RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) @ HYLAND-CROY ROAD EXISTING ,'ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) Existing Hockberry Trees Caliper : 2 at 8" , 2 at 9". All to be removed CITY OF DUBLIN JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK 4�7ISZ..,..� axW�C) is �wa �.. r.. 1:. r� ESERVE "H" N �w Qi Ex Trees \ \ l T IVE RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) @ HYLAND-CROY ROAD EXISTING ,'ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) Existing Hockberry Trees Caliper : 2 at 8" , 2 at 9". All to be removed CITY OF DUBLIN JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 050 ioo zoo Rezoning Area SHEET 3.46 Ac. 1 inch = 100 feet 211 axW�C) �wa r� ZA N Qi O DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 050 ioo zoo Rezoning Area SHEET 3.46 Ac. 1 inch = 100 feet 211 7 \ Tree II 4 RESERVE "J" oe Lawn w w (Back of II \ ortion Of Reserve J to b TO - / \ Transferred breed to City of w Sidewalk) - / \ Dublin as Public ROW °C Nwall \\ RESE�VE "J"/ 128 6' 6' 6' I E I 6 6 6' y o I wUjI b 130 131 132 1 o z r m 1 a129 1 D H 1 137 138 139 140 N Q I � I h6' 6' 6' 6' w 5' Rear Yard Sel back (ttP i o I �+^ Q i 5' Rear Yard Setb ok [TYP LU 1-2 LU I I 133 0 I w o u P I 136 I Lu g QIL b J a rn Lu Z I I ° g l I a Z 1 1 I + I EL cle ;a f�,, a �z O � 12' 17 i a U Y a 1 a J I I I 33 32 11'-0" 14'-0" paving section ,III I rl 4'-0" Walk 8'1 Mn. — EXISTING OAK PARK PUD SUBAREA "A" al I I 31 30 29 H �I Z:)— O w U La fy 11I O_N 0U Ian 3� 0 E Z II II t I 2' SW Esmt--.4 I I I 9 - ii, 'f" 127 126 PUD SUBAREA 'I 125 124 123 (WEST) 25' 110 1 134 �' 135 R I jo O PUD SUBAREA "D" 112 I I 1 I m Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'I a �// \ N a 1 Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1' t� o�Sefback IttP —hind Walk Behind Walk a ` I (Dimension varies)) I Dimension varies) '111111401Sltle Yard setback ltt / 1 0, TV RESERVE "J" CHINKAPIN OAK LANE SOJ^ - E / _ _ °'a' E 0 _r 5a51B'S9'E 2 •„•„•E SH_UMARD OAK LANE RESERVE "1 0 °”' " r 76M �'°° PRIVATE STREET M -111T 9°E war s�18'�E (PRIVATE STREET) � ( ) W -J P � J - 10' Esmt � Z -T ................... RESERVE N" I so' RESERVE"O" I EXISTI P DAK PARK / ww EXISTING K PARKTT S B EA "Drr 2, �i 11r SUB "Drr 122 120 119 118 117 116 115 113 I 1 I, III I EXISTING OAK PARK 2 PUD SIIRARFA "A" IIII N I J I I, M 0 Lu 3 fy013tyC � I a I 11 9 GREENLAND PLACE 114 I 111 a (PUBLIC�STREET) 21 2s' I L --t LJ �I Ramp ��)) Ex Ra 9 o e OAK MEADOW��rr�'DRIV 6 5 4 (TYp) 3 (PUBLIC STREET) — l ----- --,,; a �" K_ —_I,� 6S R/W (EAST) 11'-0" 14'-0" paving section 14'1 paving section 16'-0" 4'-0" Walk 8'1 Mn. 2'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" Tree Lawn W Earth Profile grade I Slope: 3:1 Max. Slope: Slope: Slope: 3/16"1 3/16"1 r— 3/16"1 Q*0 d( LJ Wz a � � " I y m ° Q RESERVE "R" g 1 0 4 RESERVE "S" 3 8' Tree Ln Lawn(Back w - w RESERVE 1 1 0 — — — — — — — — — — — , > i o m OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET) OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET) oTCu o Sidewalk) w or w ortion Of Reserve I to b / II a o vewa Aaa w Transferred by Deed to City of Dublin as Public RO 2' Sidewalk Esmt N Walk 25 R/w 4' Walk 2' Sidewalk Esmt 4' Walk 20'FrontYard Setback frYP) 1 20' Front Yard Setb ick (TYP) _ \j — — — I 21' 2s' I T T- — T o s– 7 109 127 126 PUD SUBAREA 'I 125 124 123 (WEST) 25' 110 1 134 �' 135 R I jo O PUD SUBAREA "D" 112 I I 1 I m Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'I a �// \ N a 1 Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1' t� o�Sefback IttP —hind Walk Behind Walk a ` I (Dimension varies)) I Dimension varies) '111111401Sltle Yard setback ltt / 1 0, TV RESERVE "J" CHINKAPIN OAK LANE SOJ^ - E / _ _ °'a' E 0 _r 5a51B'S9'E 2 •„•„•E SH_UMARD OAK LANE RESERVE "1 0 °”' " r 76M �'°° PRIVATE STREET M -111T 9°E war s�18'�E (PRIVATE STREET) � ( ) W -J P � J - 10' Esmt � Z -T ................... RESERVE N" I so' RESERVE"O" I EXISTI P DAK PARK / ww EXISTING K PARKTT S B EA "Drr 2, �i 11r SUB "Drr 122 120 119 118 117 116 115 113 I 1 I, III I EXISTING OAK PARK 2 PUD SIIRARFA "A" IIII N I J I I, M 0 Lu 3 fy013tyC � I a I 11 9 GREENLAND PLACE 114 I 111 a (PUBLIC�STREET) 21 2s' I L --t LJ �I Ramp ��)) Ex Ra 9 o e OAK MEADOW��rr�'DRIV 6 5 4 (TYp) 3 (PUBLIC STREET) — l ----- --,,; a �" K_ —_I,� 6S R/W (EAST) City of Dublin concrete combination curb & gutter RD -02 No. 57 aggregate PROPOSED OAK TREE DRIVE N/S 4" sub drain 55' R/W DEDICATION OD OT item 707.31 or 707.33 Not to Scale I SITE DATA: Rezoning Area ±3.46 Lots: 12 DU W 11'-0" 14'-0" paving section 14'1 paving section 16'-0" 4'-0" Walk 8'1 Mn. 2'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 2'-0" Tree Lawn W Earth Profile grade I Slope: 3:1 Max. Slope: Slope: Slope: 3/16"1 3/16"1 r— 3/16"1 City of Dublin concrete combination curb & gutter RD -02 No. 57 aggregate PROPOSED OAK TREE DRIVE N/S 4" sub drain 55' R/W DEDICATION OD OT item 707.31 or 707.33 Not to Scale I SITE DATA: Rezoning Area ±3.46 Lots: 12 DU W DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 SHEET 3/11 1 inch = 40 feet A � W w Q*0 d( LJ Wz a � � DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 SHEET 3/11 1 inch = 40 feet SECTION A: OAK PARK BOULEVARD (PUBLIC) NOTTOSCALE SECTION C: ACORN LANE / BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE SECTION B: CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE) / SHUMARD OAK LANE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE SECTION D: OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH / OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PUBLIC) NOTTOSCALE CROSS SECTION KEY PLAN W M MTB June 5, 20" wVJ,E fI As No W JOBNO. T M19013 ffiT 4/11 WOxo aaSZE 4�m wao a a LW 00 C Y F o � � M MTB June 5, 20" wVJ,E fI As No W JOBNO. T M19013 ffiT 4/11 m C 0 ILJ 00 M O N O N CD .0 DUBLIN C DUBLIN JEROME HIGHSCHOOL / v / /r4— -- — \ OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH= (PROPOSED PUBLIC ST) m 1A I 19R I I I w IA z Ll 1!171 / z —OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH— \ CieO (PROPOSED PUBLIC ST) Q I m -- //--------------------------------------BISHOPSCROSSING 1 Idl I 19R I I I -- //--------------------------------------BISHOPSCROSSING 1 11 III Ll 1!171 / —OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH— \ (PROPOSED PUBLIC ST) A I Ip 19B IA Itl LU L�J I Q110 O I _ SZ ± 1.75 Ac. Q I a I I m r 0 U I 'm I 0 I I 119 119 A C / --1 —F—I—F F-- 11 11 11 —F—I—F F'— OAK MEADOW DRIVE \ ao : v 9d s a II II L-,T� z - -- -- -I - —i I_�-------J N w —_r—ice —I —ter—�� LU \ w --III z Q-i 1110 r , LJ PLEASANT DRIVE GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK KEY GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK WALKING PATH (IN PROGRESS) 4' SIDEWALK (EXISTING) 4' SIDEWALK (PROPOSED) BIKEPATH (EXISTING) EXISTING OPEN SPACE DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 0 50 loo 200 SHEET 1 inch = 100 feet 5/11 11 III Ll 1!171 119 A C / --1 —F—I—F F-- 11 11 11 —F—I—F F'— OAK MEADOW DRIVE \ ao : v 9d s a II II L-,T� z - -- -- -I - —i I_�-------J N w —_r—ice —I —ter—�� LU \ w --III z Q-i 1110 r , LJ PLEASANT DRIVE GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK KEY GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK WALKING PATH (IN PROGRESS) 4' SIDEWALK (EXISTING) 4' SIDEWALK (PROPOSED) BIKEPATH (EXISTING) EXISTING OPEN SPACE DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 0 50 loo 200 SHEET 1 inch = 100 feet 5/11 916 \ II ' 922. 22.5 JGL.J \ II Prop 3/4" Ex 6" San Prop 3/4" Water Service Water Service Service — — � —T T Prop 6" I y �\ San Service — _ Bye_' Lawn 1 RESERVE "J" _ - T RESERVE "R" LU w (Back o e g n — — O `u to —- / \ ortion Of Reserve J to b �w w Sidewalk) m O KT R IVE NORTH (P OPOSED PUBLIC STREET) / \ % Transferred by Deed to Cit r�of w w / \ Dublin as Public ROW �// \ — -- -- 50' \ a 4' Walk 2'Sidewalk Esmt 4' Walk \ R/W o — 20' Front YardSetback (TYP) \---------------— — — — — — — ,— �ws - - 6" Water I — — — — — — — — ervice (TBA) r T 1 _ 1 I I 2ESE VE "J"� 128 I zs zs Pro 3 4" P / R/ End i 6' 6' 6' water I E Service I E I u'7 Y 130 131 132 I a 2' 12' I —I� o 12900 I I I I p a 1 1 1 I I_ II � v I II III III N I 'a 127 I w 6F 6 6 Ex 6" Water � Service (TBA) c o m 15' Rear Yard Se ack (TYP � I Io is z — `o m o > _ u a Service II � 1 922 P 6"— — San Service 8' Tree in - RESERVE = "I" Lawn(Back w w i a curb to w w - - ortion Of Reserve I to OAKTREE DRIVE OUTH (PROP S PU LIC STI�.ET) Sidewalk) W W Transferred Deed to City of / \ Prop 3/4 S Water I Dublin as Public ROVE / an ernce Service — P t Service 4' Walk 2' Sidewalk Esmt I 1 4' Walk � 20' Front Yard Setb ick (TYP) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ Prop 3/4' a Water Service t 1 F Ex 6" San Service (TBA) Ex 6" Water 6 61 6, Service (TBA) Ex 6' San h ��I Service _ w o I I 137 I 138 139 140 Ex 6' San Service (TBA) DIN Rear Yard 4' W ik / 10910 — — M I— LU ~ I I P� o coo, Laue\ a� Pra� f I W Cie Q i 133 San Eemt r I I m O I I San Service 136 I w 126 > ( 12 6, Prof ',=a) i 1 Prop 3/4" CieWater as � I Water I N V I I I N Servic: I = LL I Service LU W Lu I I I i O I I I Q + zz I I + I I l a > IJ QQ dl II I r� --j _j U 0 I i IIW LP I n w I I o Z 0 N It `° 3 E L M ow I 1 0 LU UICie LOT -82 u F7I Q J T EXISTING OAK -PARK PUD SUBAREA "D" 125 124 123 OU ID -a j I 134 I of I N t 1 I Prop San Service Prop Sanitary Manhole 13 Prop 3/4" I Sidewalk Esmt FIKfR(3R49r6 ITide Yard setback (TYPY---� Behind Walk Dimension varies a — — — \may -- = to' _NKAPIN OAK LANE 507.26151 ESERVE "J" sos°18'59 E " m sos°18'59"E PRIVATE STREET) 5104 m 7—b:si� w / � s 122 AK PARK EXISTING PUD SUBAREA "D" 121 120 RESERVE"N" 119 I I o I I - 135 o aQ N 1Cie PF rx Prop 6"mSan Service Prop 3/4"Befnt From ROW to 1' Behind Walk 10' Side Yard Setback TYP I Dimension Varies _ /� - N s0 5 1 e59'E - sos°„' SHUMARD ORESERVE "I” _AK LANE N NI '6.52' - i� (PRIVATE STREET) sa>°1 8'59"E '�81�"— w � � o 0 10' Esmt o 0 o g Z �i f RESERVE "o" EXISTING K PARK l PU SUBAR "D" 118 I I 117 116 115 —WS— TBA 110 STING OAK PARK _ PUD SUBAREA " V 112 LEGEND Existing Sanitary Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Existing Water Main Proposed Water Service Proposed Sanitary Service To Be Abandoned 113 z O > r� A u C f n b C � � Fh=a o8.E>o C 0 OaO = O E� tw oz� L n 11 n U 0z o DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 6/11 A O W � IN QxW��o /►�� ��I z w d u C f n b C � � Fh=a o8.E>o C 0 OaO = O E� tw oz� L n 11 n U 0z o DATE June 5, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 6/11 ORIGINAL ZONING P 77, M'l 67 SF �z , 7III'� n, 171J� J� , l_ �:� F Irl - 7-1... rti1.�1;1�4 f rj C 1- OnirfJ -_� J 1f1 r p 1-1 .. .� In 7n pn 1 T 777 1 d <i F-1 % �I L ' 1 b II° I SU! G� n �o° °a°Q,Qaa 7-7 -_ 177 7-7' )W4), SO..rFFR n n t] n I / ° f ter` G° ' titi 24 a 1 I'❑ a , �❑ earl --\ 23 22 III 21 !t 4 • o // 7 nn° nr7 n -- 20 , ff r� 19 �A .� AUBI a°� �aIJ sti -n L., 6 n On n / 7,y 18 7° - O; n 7 17 t 11 r 48 1 49 50 51 7n Lei I, '.•1 Ll SI �71' p ° p n a �r�LL Op❑ J °rJ � ° �] G`1 - - - - G O O G G 0 o �` in ' 57 56 1 55 54 -n p � 15 II 14 581-1 ILL S i —5.6, 59 �❑ LJ❑ L u l Cl'_CI 13 11 II60 I —� n, n - ' 12- J�'I�•i --,r,7_7 6 t I�. ll T r 63 E 1i �62 4 -- r Fn rtr 1G J — ❑ h� n °,�n �� Dry 11 n I 1 F ° rr ° �� Clfl �J 111 Q I1 ° p1 r QI n � n-, n � If i i � II 1 - 1 �� ; ' a❑ °n �d n❑ "rte F-7 n f, n � I--� rL 1 1 'a 1 I ] �i i I- 1' I __ IF sii r— J ~' E__71 n n - i l f 1 J ' ��I— 11 4. ' I 14,_� �� rl J� fiJ u� L `,I n° J L5 0 5 - _ 4 ,1���' J II ��� •I Ci� �CJ 2J J LI �`p J � J- JI J i 'f _ _ L';��r ' yr � � � � � `s J f ] L� a° a° o° ] Ili n° V r t f1 1 �Il , 1 �n; n nl 1 Iej ❑ 4 �n F7 j_F =prj \ p I Is n -'F= J 19 r , i 30 1 3132 33 I .n , ;,; r•t . `VF n n 7 n Ir 7r7 n � _ n n n I o n � 73 o f c +f- 4:9 AC; '0'' "0' �a7 x,SUIRARFA #D# IJ 71 "r,� ° °el L i _ C I 1 a 7eG J Q I- q❑ q }� LANE 61 o b ❑ ❑ DUEa J 94 92 L a° a° Qv! ffla G� a °a - f �°� o� o ED L� E 171 o❑ G A VD I� SUBAREA "El - — ❑ L�ti�s'L r.';� +f - 8.3 Ac, o ��r'JJL LJ4J , as ° �--ffE FJ I,I 06 ❑IIy L __ 1 V " -L -�IL O 83 61 79 77 75 73 — L n 11 E5U Sol r ra 76 78 -1_ _ ° Ll f LI lk rr LII 2 1 I + 4 I� }, 5 � r r, r, °� MCI L 6 � � ❑ �� O ❑ L 111 U � I o � p I� � r - , �, � I L IUI I r L1�° �d� �� y IE''JJ ��I l ' i I Ir n�. � � fl p–vJ rd�,F��:� r '.- .. r7 _ J by IIEl �J - L__ I ORIGINAL ZONING- SUBAREA PLAN k d n SUBAREA USE II��� r� ❑ 03 °7,= ono C fL-� 33 J I VILLAGE HOMES 55'- 60' Width x 1 25' Depth Inm Q C C CLUBHOUSE NA NA D TOWNHOMES ° p1 r QI n � n-, n � If i i � II 1 - 1 �� ; ' a❑ °n �d n❑ "rte F-7 n f, n � I--� rL 1 1 'a 1 I ] �i i I- 1' I __ IF sii r— J ~' E__71 n n - i l f 1 J ' ��I— 11 4. ' I 14,_� �� rl J� fiJ u� L `,I n° J L5 0 5 - _ 4 ,1���' J II ��� •I Ci� �CJ 2J J LI �`p J � J- JI J i 'f _ _ L';��r ' yr � � � � � `s J f ] L� a° a° o° ] Ili n° V r t f1 1 �Il , 1 �n; n nl 1 Iej ❑ 4 �n F7 j_F =prj \ p I Is n -'F= J 19 r , i 30 1 3132 33 I .n , ;,; r•t . `VF n n 7 n Ir 7r7 n � _ n n n I o n � 73 o f c +f- 4:9 AC; '0'' "0' �a7 x,SUIRARFA #D# IJ 71 "r,� ° °el L i _ C I 1 a 7eG J Q I- q❑ q }� LANE 61 o b ❑ ❑ DUEa J 94 92 L a° a° Qv! ffla G� a °a - f �°� o� o ED L� E 171 o❑ G A VD I� SUBAREA "El - — ❑ L�ti�s'L r.';� +f - 8.3 Ac, o ��r'JJL LJ4J , as ° �--ffE FJ I,I 06 ❑IIy L __ 1 V " -L -�IL O 83 61 79 77 75 73 — L n 11 E5U Sol r ra 76 78 -1_ _ ° Ll f LI lk rr LII 2 1 I + 4 I� }, 5 � r r, r, °� MCI L 6 � � ❑ �� O ❑ L 111 U � I o � p I� � r - , �, � I L IUI I r L1�° �d� �� y IE''JJ ��I l ' i I Ir n�. � � fl p–vJ rd�,F��:� r '.- .. r7 _ J by IIEl �J - L__ I ORIGINAL ZONING- SUBAREA PLAN SUBAREA USE SUBAREA USE DESCRIPTION UNITS A PARK HOMES 60'- 80' Width x 1 25' Depth 33 B-1 and B-2 VILLAGE HOMES 55'- 60' Width x 1 25' Depth 39 C CLUBHOUSE NA NA D TOWNHOMES 24' Lot Width x 104' Depth 36 E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 39,700 SF NA TOTAL UNITS 12 108 TOTAL OAK PARK ACREAGE TOTAL OAK PARK ACREAGE 61.39AC GROSS DENSITY 1.69 DU/AC 1 1.76 DU/AC PROPOSED ZONING ' W i [~ �I a • W 01 d 1 SUBAREA `A' SUBAREA `B1' I� SUBAREA'1B2' I� !jT=7--::- fr �I SUBA EA `D' I I' RE -ZONED SUBAREAS D and E SUBAREA USE DESCRIPTION UNITS A PARK HOMES 60'- 80' Width x 1 25' Depth 33 B-1 and B-2 VILLAGE HOMES 55'- 60' Width x 1 25' Depth 39 C CLUBHOUSE NA NA D VILLA HOMES 55' Min. Width x 104' Depth 20 E PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE NA F I PROPOSED NEW VILLAGE HOMES 55' Min. Width x 130' Min. Depth 12 TOTAL UNITS 104 DU TOTAL OAK PARK ACREAGE 61.39AC GROSS DENSITY 1.69 DU/AC I X. � - � M M O N =O - N � 0 E0 X00= C, t2 0 = 0 0 } >. fe 0 > C V U . Q r -.t to Z 00 C3 C3) 0 0 % C: LO -r- LU LL Ln — 11— DATE June 5, 2020 Proposed Public Streets SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 SHEET 7/11 o I U t E • r~� � 1 'fir �► ' — — — ' — — — �+" iii • � � � � � � � ; � � IML NQ 6NAD , Nk k �xx gill ., �����, ���►♦♦♦��♦ate FVRA Elk it ,`� �` \� , \ ,� `• IV� Ai 054 Lm I I ., I 'I •I I II II • OAK PARK RESERVES KEY NAME/USE OWNER MAINTENANCE RESP. Acres NOTES Public Streets -Previously PUBLIC STREET CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN N/A Dedicted Large Open Spaces RESERVES E. F. H -OPEN SPACE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 24 Surrounding the Development RESERVE K- ISLAND CITY OF DUBLIN OAK PARK HOA* 0.16 Small landscape island Reserves N and O (.068 ac) RESERVES G. L, M, N, O OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 3.67 replaced B and C (0.228) RESERVES I AND J OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 1.761 Private Street RESERVES A AND D OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 3.46 Two additional open space reserves will be created • ' _� � iG.l� `• - - - vii- _ :._ _ �wl 10§\wNXL §\kXS v rr 1 �1 Ah Ak Aft .1 �,� .}t�♦' �\ \\\ - ♦ fir! t 4. VOW-FS NS , "1 VIEW 2 ti IN i , MINIMA- - - �I _ I I ., I 'I II •• OAK PARK RESERVES KEY NAME/USE OWNER MAINTENANCE RESP. ACRES NOTES Public Streets- Previously PUBLIC STREET CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN N/ A Dedicated RESERVES E, F, H -OPEN SPACE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 24 Large Open Spaces Surrounding the Development RESERVE K- ISLAND CITY OF DUBLIN OAK PARK HOA* 0.16 Small landscape island RESERVES G, L, M, N, O -OPEN SPACE OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 3.67 Reserves N and O (.068 ac) replaced B and C (0.228) RESERVES I AND J OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 0.84 Private Street PART OF RESERVES I AND J (PROPOSED PUBLIC ROW) CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 0.92 Reserves (.46 ac each) created RESERVE R AND S (PROPOSED PUBLIC ROW) CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 0.6 Proposed for Platting as Public Street OAK PARK HOA* =OAK PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION t u NINI Ef afv es rift I to riefft t'!}- f Ea I fFemD IV, - e pp E 1. `I of leX tkroiffri 11E if. II Dublin Jerome High School at�f�Ir � kF¢I fErl ar trtml. R I I L IU.F KI YEIwtcF 'S O 1 t i 6 t uQf BphOPV Croeaing ii x lana -o- - - It Uuktrng Driec North OvktreeD Snug 'N -Al 4 e 7 -I <9 54um..n0 Gilder Rmge NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS AND GARAGE CONFIGURATIONS ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL HOMES AND GARAGE CONFIGURATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH BUILDING PERMIT. i sI uQf BphOPV Croeaing ii x lana -o- - - It Uuktrng Driec North OvktreeD Snug 'N -Al 4 e 7 -I <9 54um..n0 Gilder Rmge NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS AND GARAGE CONFIGURATIONS ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ACTUAL HOMES AND GARAGE CONFIGURATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH BUILDING PERMIT. =ME, sI ®i 3 =ME, sI 0F 3 's DAU Juue5,20M As Notea JOBNO 20190]13 GRAPHLCSCALE t 1111 0 e0 IN tm 1 inch - 100 feet OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TEXT Version of May 28, 2020 Subarea F: New Village Home ± 3.46 Acres Description: Subarea F, here proposed for rezoning, currently exists in the Oak Park subdivision in the east - central portion of the site as Reserves A and D. This proposal will amend the development standards formerly in place for Subarea E to create this new Subarea F with the only permitted uses now being specified residential uses. Within Subarea F, the development of twelve (12) single family lots for detached single family homes, will be permitted. Six (6) lots will be in Reserve A and six (6) in Reserve D. These lots will replace the currently allowed retail commercial uses. These single family lots will have typical Oak Park homes on lots with a depth of approximately ± 130' with frontage and street access on either existing private streets or a public street, Oak Park Boulevard. Oaktree Drive North and South, contained within Reserves A and D, shall be dedicated by plat to the City of Dublin. The City shall maintain these streets and may convert them to a public street section at a time determined by the City Engineer. Portions of Reserves I and J, although not formally part of this rezoning application shall be directly dedicated by the applicant by deed to the City of Dublin to facilitate the continuation of public rights of way from Oaktree Drive North through the cul de sac bulb to Snowdrop Court and Oaktree Drive South through the cul de sac bulb to Primrose Court. The two reserves in new Subarea F proposed for rezoning total about 3.46 acres, with Reserve A being 1.733 acres and Reserve D being 1.735 acres. 11. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: A. Permitted Uses Permitted uses in Subarea F shall include detached single-family homes with attached and detached garages, in ground pools, hot tubs and pool houses. Pool houses shall not exceed two hundred and fifty (250) square feet. Detached garages may not exceed a footprint of one thousand (1000) square feet but may include second floor recreational spaces or storage as long as the structure does not exceed the maximum height contained within this text. It is not intended that a second residential unit may be permitted in a detached garage. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development by mirroring the standards for existing homes in Subareas A, Band D. B. Residential Swimming Pools (i) Permitted types. (a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below -grade permanent swimming pools are permitted. (b) Temporary pools. Inflatable or other temporary pools are permitted provided they have a maximum depth of 18 inches and are placed to the side or rear of the primary structure. (c) Hot tubs. Hot tubs are permitted accessory structures, and may be either below or above grade, provided that they do not exceed 100 square feet in total water surface area, or 4.5 feet in depth or height as measured from finished grade. Hot tubs, which exceed these size and height requirements, shall be considered swimming pools and must be placed below the established grade. Hot tubs shall be secured with a lockable cover or shall be entirely enclosed by a permitted barrier with a self -latching and lockable gate. (ii) Location and setback. There shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between a swimming pool and the principal structure. Swimming pools shall not be located within the front building setback, forward of any part of the house, or within a required side yard, rear yard, or other restricted area of the lot (e.g., a no -build zone). No swimming pool shall be located, designed, operated, or maintained as to interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights of surrounding property owners. Nuisances shall be pursued according to all applicable city ordinances. (iii) Swimming pool barriers. (a) Swimming pools shall be surrounded by open ornamental swimming pool barriers or a solid swimming pool barrier, provided the solid barrier is no higher than four feet and otherwise complies with the regulations herein and this section. Any solid swimming pool barrier shall be of the type and design as was approved for fences for Subarea D as part of the final development plan. Open ornamental swimming pool barriers shall be black, wrought -iron style. (b) All openings, doorways and entrances into the pool area shall be equipped with gates of equal height and material with the fence, and shall be provided with latches and permanent locks. (iv) Accessory equipment. No swimming pool accessory equipment, including but not limited to pumping equipment, filtering equipment, diving boards, or slides shall be located in any required yard and shall be screened per the same code requirements as other utility structures. III. Density, Height. Lot and Setback Commitments: A. Lots (i) Twelve (12) single family lots are permitted and will have a minimum lot depth of at least ± 130'. (ii) Eight homes will have primary frontage on Oaktree Drives North and South, currently a private and a proposed public road and four homes will have primary frontage on Oak Park Boulevard, a public road. B. Setbacks and Building Lines (i) Each permitted lot shall have a minimum width at the front building line of fifty- five (55) feet. The eight easternmost lots will have the front building line, and lot width, measured from either Oaktree Drive North (Reserve R) or Oaktree Drive South (Reserve S). (ii) Building Setbacks: a. The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from either the existing or proposed public right-of-way of the street the lot fronts on. b. There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line for Lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140. The minimum rear yard setback for Lots 133 through 136 shall be twenty (20) feet from the rear property line located along the reserve boundary abutting Reserves I and J, Acorn Lane and Burr Oak Lane. c. The minimum side yard setback for Lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140 shall be six (6) feet from the internal lot boundary and a ten (10) foot setback for Lots 129 and 140 from the edge of Reserves I and J which are the boundary line of Acorn Lane and Burr Oak Lane. The minimum side yard setback for Lots 133 - 137 shall be six (6) feet from the internal lot boundary of an adjacent lot. The minimum side yard setback for Lots 134 and 135 shall be ten (10) feet from the edge of Reserves I and J which are the boundary line of Chinkapin Oak Lane and Shumard Oak Lane. C. Encroachments (i) Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one half feet, provided that the side yard is at least six (6) feet and provided that there is 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. Where practicable window wells visible from the public right-of-way shall be constructed of materials that complement the architecture of each unit and shall be screened using an evergreen plant material or an alternative decorative screening mechanism. (ii) Air conditioners, compressors or other HVAC or service structure units are encouraged to be located in the rear of the home. If they are located in side yards they must meet the following conditions: a. They may be located within insets in the side building elevation. b. They may be located to encroach into side yard a maximum of two and one- half (2 '/z) feet, provided the side yard is at least six (6) feet and they shall not be located directly across from a unit on an adjacent home and shall be separated a minimum of eight (8) feet from the unit on the adjoining lot. c. All service structure units in the side yard must be screened per code All other encroachments into side yards shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth in this text. D. Maximum building heights: (i) The maximum building height for residential structures and attached garages may not exceed thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. (ii) The maximum building height for detached garages located on lots 133-136 may not exceed twenty two (22) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. E. Permitted Lot Coverage (i) The maximum lot coverage for the structure and impervious hardscape of each home and its garage for lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140 shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total lot area. This is the same lot coverage provision as for all other Oak Park single family lots in Subareas A and B. (ii) The maximum lot coverage for the structure and impervious hardscape of each home and its garage for lots 133 - 136 shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the total lot area. IV. Access, Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. Garages must adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks, as included in the development standards of this subarea, along all public and private streets. B. Detached, rear or side loaded alley garages are permitted on lots 133-136 and are limited to a maximum four (4) car garage with a maximum square footage of one thousand square feet. These detached garages are in addition to attached garages. C. Driveways for Lots 133-136 shall meet the requirements of Code Section 153.210 with the following exceptions: (i) Detached four car garages shall permitted to have maximum driveway width of twenty feet between the private street reserve line and the setback and may be increased to a maximum of forty feet in width beyond the setback line.. The curb cut and driveway area between the reserve line and the private street pavement shall be a maximum of twenty (20) feet. (ii) Spacing between driveway curb cuts for attached and detached garages is subject to approval by the Planning Director. D. All housing units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces in a garage, which is required. Three car attached garages are permitted. E. Dwelling units in Subarea F shall front on a public street or private street currently proposed to be a public street as provided herein. F. Sidewalks: A final system of sidewalks, will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan for Oak Park Subarea F. Public sidewalks, which may be in designated public easement 13 areas, shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width and will be constructed at the time each lot is developed. Sidewalks along Oaktree Boulevard and Oak Tree Drives North and South shall be contained within a public sidewalk easement. These sidewalks shall be maintained by the City of Dublin after acceptance of construction. Handicap accessible ramps, which are already constructed, may be modified and additional ramps shall be provided per current appropriate accessibility standards. G. Access: (i) Access to the residential lots in Subarea F shall be from the proposed public streets or private streets connecting to Hyland -Croy Road on the east and to Mitchell - Dewitt Road on the north. (ii) The plat of Oak Park provides for reciprocal access to the private streets in Reserves I and J and for Reserves A and D, which will include the twelve residential lots subject to this text. (iii) The Plat accompanying the rezoning of Subarea F will contain Oaktree Drive North and South, which shall be transferred by deed to the City of Dublin. (iv) Lots 133 through 136 shall not have front driveway access on Oak Park Boulevard and shall have driveway access through the private streets. Lots 132 and 137 shall not have driveway access on Oak Park Boulevard and shall have access from Oaktree Drive North or South and shall be located on the far side from the intersection with Oak Park Boulevard. (v) Lots 129 and 140 shall not have front driveway access on Oaktree Drive North and South and shall have driveway access through the private streets. V. Architectural Standards: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Home plans/architectural facades that are already approved for any Oak Park subarea are acceptable for these two reserves. Further plans or facades, including detached garages and other approved accessory structures, can also be approved either as part of the Final Development Plan for Subarea F, or at a later date by Planning Staff utilizing the guidelines set forth both in this section and the approved Final Development Plan. This Section V and the existing developed homes in the Oak Park residential subareas, approved as part of the standards for Oak Park, shall serve as a guide for architectural approvals under both the Final Development Plan and any approvals by Planning Staff. (i) This section acknowledges that changing market conditions or other unanticipated factors may make it desirable to create new home models or facades subsequent to approval of the Final Development Plan. Planning Staff has the authority to approve these new models or facades when in keeping with the spirit and theme described in this Section V. (ii) This section further acknowledges that modifications to approved facades may be necessary or desirable, such as might be required because of the need to adapt approved facades or garage access of existing approved models or to modify an existing approved fagade to create a new fagade to allow compliance with diversity requirements and internal changes made to the footprint, floorplan or interior layout that require revised exterior fagade changes. Planning Staff has the authority to approve those changes when in keeping with the spirit and theme described in this Section V. Changes to side or rear facades with a low degree of visibility from public streets require a less demanding review prior to staff approval. B. Architectural Theme: Building designs, including detached garages, will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. C. Exterior Materials: (i) Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, wood or stone, or, manufactured stone, stucco, cementitious fiberboard (e.g. Hardi products), and other comparable materials, or any combination thereof. (ii) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. (iii) Roofing materials: All homes shall use dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. For homes with asphalt shingles, at least 50% shall be the red asphalt shingle color as used elsewhere in Oak Park. D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details will be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Rear and side elevations of dwellings, except garage facades facing private streets at the rear of the structure, shall include quantities of brick and/or stone that are comparable to the quantity of brick and stone found on the front elevation of the same structure, unless approved otherwise by the Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or by Planning Staff; provided however that reductions of brick and/or stone on other than the front elevation shall not exceed 30% and shall be in locations with reduced visibility from public or private streets. E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. F. Garages: Decorative garage doors with a "Carriage Look" shall be provided on all units, including detached garages G. 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. H. Architectural Diversity Within Subarea F (i) No home two lots to the left or right of the subject lot shall have the same front fagade as the subject lot. (ii) No home directly across the street and one lot to the left or right of that lot shall have the same front fagade as the subject lot. However, this requirement may be adjusted depending on specific site conditions. An example would be a home across the street facing on a different street. 2 a. The above requirements do not apply between homes in Subarea F and Subareas A and D where the home concerned is an approved model unique to Subarea F. b. If mirror image lots are located at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and either Oaktree Drive North or Oaktree Drive South, the homes on those lots may be mirror image versions of the same model, despite that they are adjoining lots separated by Oak Park Boulevard. VI. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments: A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B. Tree Preservation: There are four "volunteer" existing trees that have grown up in Reserve D. These will conflict with development of lots and construction of homes. Replacement or payment, if necessary, will be determined in consultation with the City Forester. C. Street Trees: (i) Street trees shall be required along all public and proposed public streets. If feasible these trees shall be located in the tree lawn. Trees shall be generally spaced a minimum of twenty (20) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. (ii) Street Trees shall be provided along lots abutting the private streets (Lots 129, 133, 134, 135, 136 and 140) at a ratio of one (1) tree per 50 feet with no rounding up required. Trees along the alleys may be located in the side or rear yard setback and shall be maintained by the lot owner. (iii) All street trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2 1 /2) inches in caliper at installation and approved through the Final Development Plan review. 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, signage or utilities, subject to staff approval. Street (iv) Trees and sidewalks will be installed on lots with the construction of each structure D. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. E. Permanent Fences: Permanent fencing or a landscape hedge as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property line on the front of each lot, and, may also continue along the side yard property line if the home abuts a public right of way on that side yard. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to enclose a deck or patio in the rear yard of each lot provided that it is located II within three (3) feet of the patio or deck. Such fencing shall be constructed of masonry or other materials that are approved as a part of the final development plan for this subarea. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the final development plan. VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments: At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for any portion of Subarea F to the Planning Commission, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for review if any signage is proposed for the areas to be developed. This plan shall be consistent with the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the Oak Park PUD. This graphics and signage plan shall be consistent with the approved Final Development Plan for Oak Park, and its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within this subarea. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VIII Model Homes: Homes may be used as model homes 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 this Subarea and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code 153.098. The current Oak Park sales office use in the Oak Park Community Center may also be continued. X. Phasing: Subarea F may be developed in a single phase or in separate phases. X. Miscellaneous: A. Oak Park Homeowners Association: (i) All residential property owners located within Subarea F of the Oak Park PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in the currently existing Oak Park forced and funded homeowners association, the Oak Park Community Association, Inc., which details the Homeowners responsibilities as detailed in the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions of Oak Park (Union County, Ohio, Recorder OR 857 page 618) which shall run with the land and shall include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners association this text. B. Maintenance of Private Streets in Reserves I and J: (i) Maintenance cost of remaining private streets (alleys) in Subareas I and J maybe the subject of additional homeowners' association assessments on the lots created in Subarea F. (ii) The developer will work with the City Engineer to determine a quality condition of private streets (alleys) at post construction. Any remedy required shall be at the developer cost (not using HOA funds), subject to Engineering approval. J:A20190]1 3VCorrespondenceASubmittals\2020-04-22 POP council ReSubmixal\New Text 2020-05 28\oevelopment Text Redline with QC + IMM edits Rev OS 28 20 doc: 9 Oak Park Private Streets Pavement Maintenance Cost Tablet JANUARY 23 2020 Reserve Concerned Area Cost to Mill and Replace Cost for Crackftll/Two Sealcoats Total area of all private streets 6,770 sy $117,319 $9,098 Total area of existing 5,171 sy $94,894 $7,058 HOA private streets $45.15 per lot per year $17.49 per lot per year (Reserves I & J) $6.20 per lot per month $3.76 per lot per month Total area of new private 1,600 sy $22,4252 $2,040 streets (Reserves R & S) $3,795.76 per year $1,411.60 per year Amortized Cost/Repair #Lots Mill/Replace 15 years Mill/Replace 25 years Crack Fill/Seal Coat 5 yrs Lot Cost/Month' All private streets 104 $7,820 per year $4,695.68 per year $1,819.60 per year $75 per lot per year $45.15 per lot per year $17.49 per lot per year $6.20 per lot per month $3.76 per lot per month $1.45 per lot per month $7.65 or $5.21 Reserves I and J 92 $6,326.26 per year $3,795.76 per year $1,411.60 per year (Existing streets/lots) $68.76 per lot per year $41.25 per lot per year $15.34 per lot per year $5.73 per lot per month $3.43 per lot per month $1.27 per lot per month $6.90 or $5.52 Reserves R and S 12 $1,495.00 per year $897.00 per year $408.00 per year (new streets/lots) $124.58 per lot per year $74.76 per lot per year $34.00 per lot per year $10.38 per lot per month $6.22 per lot per month $2.83 per lot per month $13.21 or $9.05 ' Cost figures as of January 2020. Derived from actual pavement contractor bids for work to be done in Spring 2020 2 Cost if done at same time as other mill and replace work at Oak Park, otherwise $28,490 ' First number is for 15 year mill and replace interval, second number is for 25 year Oak Park Projected HOA Costs as of January 27 2020 Payor now Category Expense Item Amount Total/yr Notes: Current HOA fund balance as of Dec 31 2019 is $ $305,855.26 Current HOA dues are $96/mo per lot Myers Real Estate is currently managing the FICA Oak Park Community Association, Inc. Deelarant eontrols HOA until turnover. All items above are estimates based on actual current expenditures or quotes Future reserve items such as clubhouse roof /mechanicals/landscape replacement are not forecast; current landscape replacement is included however as the number given is actual amount to be currently expended to comply with City of Dublin Landscape audit. HOA may not achieve same contracting efficiency/economy as developer currently provides Landscaping Oak Park Landscaping/Mowing; Annual by Developer Currently 2020 $19,101 19,101 HOA Additional landscaping currently by HOA 2,535 2,535 Future Estimate for additional landscaping maintenance Subarea D 4,000 4,000 Future Mow and maintain two new park areas Subareas P &Q 3,000 3,000 Future Missing plantings in Oak Park per audit since inception test ea 10 s 8,150 815 Total $29,451 Clubhouse Oak Park Insurance $5912 5,912 Oak Park Water/Sewer City of Columbus 4628 1 4,628 Oak Park Gas Columbia 1,071 1,071 Oak Park Maintenance includes HVAC, per year 2000 2,000 Oak Park Irrigation Maintenance 200 200 Oak Park Electric 5665 5,665 Oak Park Electric Maintenance 97 97 Oak Park Annual Back Flow Test -Plumbing; 500 500 Oak Park Fire Dept fee 50 50 Oak Park Fire Dept Alarm 602 602 Oak Park Real Estate Taxes Union County 2020 19,106 19,106 Oak Park Cleaning throughout clubhouse -currently $225/mo 225 2,700 Future Interior painter each 5 yrs 2,500 510 Future Exterior painter each 5 yrs 5,000 416 Future Carpet cleaning -each year 1 500 1,500 Future Replace landscape lights -each 10 yrs 2 500 250 Oak Park Pond maintenance -42,500 pump motor ea 2yrs 2,500 1,250 Oak Park Pond maintenance -4600 chemicals each year 600 600 Oak Park Front fountain paint and maintain 750 750 Total $47,807 Future Fencing Maintenance Estimate to paint 600 lineal feet of 6' and 350' of 4' 3yrs Subarea D $7,850 Total $2,616 Private Street Maintenance Future Reserve for mill & replace all private streets 15 yrs 15 yrs worst case 117,319 $7,821 Future Reserve for all rivate streets crackfill/seal coat 5 yrs 9,098 1,819 Future Snow plowing $100 each time; $75 salt; estimate 10X year 1,750 1,750 Total $11,389 HOA HOA Admin/Misc HOA management fee, admin and misc-estimate $5,000 Total $5,000 All Items Total Grand Total Yearly Estimate of HOA Costs After Developer Turnover $96,263 Estimate yearly cost to each homeowner lot after turnover based on 104 lots and $96,263; $926/ or $77 per month $926 Notes: Current HOA fund balance as of Dec 31 2019 is $ $305,855.26 Current HOA dues are $96/mo per lot Myers Real Estate is currently managing the FICA Oak Park Community Association, Inc. Deelarant eontrols HOA until turnover. All items above are estimates based on actual current expenditures or quotes Future reserve items such as clubhouse roof /mechanicals/landscape replacement are not forecast; current landscape replacement is included however as the number given is actual amount to be currently expended to comply with City of Dublin Landscape audit. HOA may not achieve same contracting efficiency/economy as developer currently provides RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting February 10, 2020 Page 2 of 26 organization — one of three in Ohio and one of 84 in the country. They also understand that without the support of the community and City Council, they would not be successful. They will continue to be fiscally responsible and meet the needs of the City. He introduced Levy Committee member Joel Campbell. Mr. Campbell stated that when the Fire Department is needed, they are there for the citizens. On March 17, the residents need to be there to support this levy renewal. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Dublin is a grateful community to the Washington Township Fire Department. They have done an outstanding job of providing services to the community. Their accreditations surpass most any organization in the country and she is confident that residents will vote in favor of this levy on March 17. CMZEN COMMENTS There were no comments from citizens. CONSENTAGENDA • Approval of Minutes of January 21, 2020 Regular Meeting • Approval of Minutes of January 27, 2020 Special Council Meeting • Notice to Legislative Authority of Transfer of 135A and D6 liquor permits from Hotel 6364 Frantz OPCO LP, dba Residence Inn Cols/Dublin to Dre Reit OPCO LLC, dba Residence Inn, 6364 Frantz Road, Dublin, Ohio. There was no request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda. Ms. Fox asked that a revision be made to the January 21, 2020 minutes. She stated that during Roundtable comments, the date should read "1850's" and not"1950's." Ms. Alutto moved to approve the actions for the three items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCE Ordinance 06-20 Rezoning Approximately 3.47 Acres East of Hyland -Croy Road, South of Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea F) for the Future Development of up to 12 Single -Family homes and 0.66 Acre of Open Space. Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Husak noted this Ordinance has been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission who reviewed this in December. This is a request for rezoning approximately 3-1/2 acres from a currently permitted commercial development to 12 single-family lots. She shared a slide of the site, which is located on the west side of Hyland -Croy, to the north and south of Oak Park Boulevard — the entryway into the neighborhood. Oak Park was zoned in 2006 from Rural to PUD. This was one of the first conservation design developments in the City and included 50 percent open space, with lots being clustered in the center of the site. The open space was at the outskirts of the site of 61 acres. The site developed since 2006, and in 2017 a rezoning was approved by Council to allow a conversion of townhomes to single-family lots. What is before Council tonight is a conversion of the commercially zoned area to a single-family zoning. The proposed lots are in line with those in the Oak Park subdivision as they exist today and as they have been developed to date. The smallest lot is .16 acre and the larger lot is .22 acres, and are in line with what exists today. Lot widths, lot depths, front yard setbacks, read yard setbacks and side yard setbacks are also in line with what exists in Oak Park today. Therefore, the development pattern is retained with this rezoning. One of the discussion items during the PZC process and in several meetings with the current residents of Oak Park relates to the ownership and maintenance of open spaces as well as private drives that exist within the neighborhood. Depicted on the slide are the existing private drives, which would then be part of this proposed subarea. Architecturally, the applicant is retaining the style that exists today in Oak Park. PZC recommended approval of this rezoning. The applicant has met some of the conditions, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting BAXaEn BROItlEBS BAYfOM.OlUO fqm Biot He(r/ February 10, 2020 Page 3 of 26 and some will be deferred to the final development plan phase. With this application, a preliminary plat approval will be requested at the second reading. The applicant is here tonight and has a presentation. The residents of Oak Park also have a presentation for Council. Chris Cline, attorney for applicant Oak Park Dublin 300 W Wilson Bridge Road Worthington. ON noted he Is accompanied by Linda Menerey of EMH&T. He noted Oak Park is a conservation design subdivision, and was the first project done under that design in Dublin. • He shared slides depicting the original and proposed subareas. The large, dark orange area was the commercially zoned land that was retained by the seller of the land, who was originally a co -developer of the project. There was no control over that land by the developer of the residential area. • The commercially zoned land dominates the entrance to the subdivision visually and also dominated the planning in terms of what needed to happen in order to have the commercial develop. It has been a negative for Oak Park since the beginning — both to the residents and to the lot sellers. • He then shared a drawing of the roads and the reserve areas. One of the issues they have struggled with is the cost to the residents for the maintenance of these items. The purple areas on the slide represent the existing private roads. Those are already in place and are not part of this rezoning application. The yellow areas are the new private roads proposed with this rezoning. These represent 77 and 23 percent of the existing private roads as opposed to the new private roads. The orange represents the reserves that are part of the HOA. The center one, Reserve M is the clubhouse and formal gardens. Reserve G and L are interior open spaces. The perimeter lots border City parkland. The plan was to have smaller internal open spaces and those are part of the HOA and represent a maintenance cost for the HOA. • Under Ohio law, there is a requirement, which is also in their Declaration that an HOA Board of Directors must study the operating and capital expenses for the subdivision, must then budget for those and put reserves aside. This is the Ohio Planned Communities Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 5312. As shown on the pavement maintenance cost table for the private streets, some of these expenses recur only at intervals. Between 15-25 years, the road must be rebuilt — mill and replace. These roads are comparable to municipal standards in terms of the roadbed, but the asphalt on the top wears and needs to be replaced. The bids received for this work for all private streets is $117,319. This cost is amortized over 15 to 25 years, as shown on the chart. The numbers at the bottom show the cost per month for all private streets, reserves I and J, and Reserves R and S. Subtracting the existing streets from the total indicates that the actual reserve requirement increases, which is less than $1.00 per lot per month. • He shared the projected HOA costs as of January 27, 2020. The total yearly cost is $96,263 for all of the responsibilities of the HOA. Therefore, there are not adequate monies in the HOA to pay for that in the beginning. The developer, Oak Park Dublin, has been paying those costs and banking the HOA dues. Currently, there is $305,855 in the HOA account. This will help the HOA establish a reserve for the future. Currently, there are 68 developed lots, which generates $77,000 per year of Income. With the cost of $96,263 for maintenance as projected, there would be a shortfall. • He provided a summary of the project cost data. These Include clubhouse expense of $47,807; landscaping at $29,451; private road repair and maintenance at $11,389; fencing maintenance for villa lots at $2,616; and HOA administration expense at $5,000. Based upon the 104 lots at buildout, the revenue is projected to be $120,000 per year. • In terms of the criticism of lot standards, these lots at 55 feet in width have the same minimum as Subarea B. What is proposed with the rezoning is a 55 -foot width minimum, but only two of them are actually 55 feet. Six of them are above 60 feet in width and the other two are close to 60 feet. Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meering February 10, 2020 Page 4 of 26 There has been a complaint about the side yard setbacks. These are six feet, as are all the other subareas in Oak Park. It is important to be consistent with all that has been done previously in the subdivision. Lots are typically build right up to the side yard setback throughout subdivisions in Dublin and elsewhere. Six feet of setback provides 12 feet between houses, which is a typical setback. In terms of tree lawns, Dublin Code requires 8 feet. Along Oak Park Boulevard and Oak Tree Drives North and South, the tree lawns are 8 feet with four -foot sidewalks and street trees per Dublin Code. For the internal area, on the private streets, Dublin does not have requirements for tree lawns or sidewalks. Nonetheless, a four -foot sidewalk has been included, based on a request from PZC. There are street trees and garages for the villa lots, and some landscaping along fences. The street trees are inside the sidewalk versus being In a formal tree lawn. The tree lawns are only the distance between the edge of the pavement and the edge of the right-of-way. There is also a residual tree lawn that is outside of the zoned area (shown in black) and inside of the pavement. There are some significant standards, although nothing is required in that internal area. (He shared a graphic from the packet.) Another item raised as an issue is curb cuts on Oak Park Boulevard. This subdivision was designed to service 40,000 square feet of retail and therefore has many roads. Instead of 40,000 square feet of retail, the proposal is for 12 single- family lots, which translates to an incredible stepdown of 74 percent reduction in traffic. There are three lots that border Oak Park Boulevard. These on the west will access off the private drive; two have to access from Oak Park Boulevard, and there were already curb cuts planned for the commercial. Having four houses with curb cuts on Oak Park Boulevard is not problematic from a traffic standpoint. He shared slides depicting a home model in the prime position at the front door of Oak Park with a side entry garage. From the beginning, control of the commercially zoned land has been a problem for them. The villa rezoning was done in 2017, converting three-story townhouses to villas or patio homes, with garage access to the rear. At that time, his client did not have control of the commercial land. There have been many contracts and amendments, and in June of 2019, they secured control of that commercial land. They believe this rezoning application represents a tremendous benefit to the residents of Oak Park. They are surprised with and do not understand the opposition they have received from the residents. They believe the rezoning will Increase existing home values. They are working to address a problem that they did not create. They are now seeking to convert the commercial rezoned land to residential land. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited public testimony. Melvin Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court. Oak Park. Dublin stated she represents herself as well as the overwhelming majority of the homeowners at Oak Park, many of whom are present tonight. Also present is Prasad Vempati, another Oak Park homeowner. • She noted there are major concerns that the homeowners have regarding the proposed redevelopment of the commercial lots. These include the undue burden it will place on the HOA for the maintenance of private roads; concerns with the configuration of the proposed redevelopment including the closeness of the homes; the inconsistent treatment of the tree lawn area; and the driveway access to the main boulevard. • Regarding maintenance of the private roads, she noted this involves Reserves J and I, and Reserves R and S. Except for the six private roads surrounding the commercial lots, there are no other private roads in Oak Park. These private roads were built to support the commercial use. From the beginning of the Oak Park development, the cost of maintaining the private roads has been a concern. The minutes from November 6, 2006 City Council hearing reflect the Mayor's concern — indicating that maintaining roads are an enormous expense to individual homeowners who are already paying taxes for the purpose of roadway maintenance. The Mayor indicated she did not understand why private roads were Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 10, 2020 Page 5 of 26 being built in the community in the first place. In response to Council's concern, the attorney for the developer sent a letter to staff dated November 15, 2006 outlining three alternatives to deal with the cost of maintaining these roads. The first alternative was for the homeowners of the townhomes and the commercial lots to share in the maintenance costs of these roads. The second alternative expanded the cost sharing agreement to the entire Oak Park community. The third alternative was to change the designation of the private roads and make them public roads. According to the attorney at the time, it was not a problem because the roads were already built to public specifications and such a change would not require any modifications to the site layout. There are some items things worth noting: • With respect to the cost-sharing alternative, the attorney said that some arrangement will be made to ensure that the commercial property owners are committed and able to contribute their fair share. • If the developer had the option to pass some of this maintenance responsibility to the City, then why did he choose the cost-sharing alternative? From the homeowners' perspective, there must have been some benefit to the developer at that time to choose the cost-sharing alternative. • The attorney requested that the developer be permitted to present further details and make a final commitment and decision about the alternative chosen during the final development plan. • On November 16, 2006, the City Manager sent a memo to Council members, outlining the different proposal alternatives the developer was presenting with the intent of finalizing the specific costs and maintenance responsibilities at the time of final development plan. The staff was supportive of this approach and recommended approval of the Oak Park development plan. • She is looking at the 2006 minutes and memos because they demonstrate the underlying circumstances by which staff and Council became comfortable with approving the Oak Park development plan. The understanding was there would be either a cost sharing agreement, or the roads would be converted to public roads. • Today, based on the Oak Park Declaration, Article 5 and 7, we know which of the three alternatives was selected — the concept of the cost sharing agreement. The HOA would own and maintain some portion of the private roads — what is being considered today Reserves I and ] — and the HOA and the commercial lot owner would share the maintenance responsibility of those reserves, and the commercial lot owner would own and maintain the other portions of the private roads —those currently being proposed as Reserves R and S. The pink areas (shown on the roads and reserve exhibit) would have been a part of a cost sharing agreement, and the yellow would have been completely maintained by the commercial parcel owners. • The significance of all of this is that there is a substantial negative financial impact on the Oak Park community. When the residents purchased their homes, there were to be 108 members contributing to the HOA. With the rezoning of the townhomes in 2017 and the proposal today, there will be 104. Reserves I and I would have been subject to a cost sharing agreement. However, under the proposal today, it would all fall under the HOA. Oak Tree Drive North and South would have been the commercial lot owner's responsibility. Under the proposal today, it will all be under the responsibility of the HOA. • The consequence of all of this is there are less members contributing to the HOA; no cost sharing agreement to offset some of the maintenance costs; and increased maintenance obligation costs to the HOA. • In 2017, with the rezoning of the townhome lots, the City of Dublin performed an evaluation of the private roads and concluded that the following work would be needed: some patchwork in one to two years at a cost of $10,000; and a complete repavement between 8-10 years at a cost of $120,000. These were based on City contracted rates from 2017. Since that meeting, they have observed no work being done on any of these roads. • The concerns about private road maintenance were raised again by City Council during the rezoning of the townhomes in 2017 and more recently at the PZC hearings in August and December of 2019. The issue at the 2017 Council meetings Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting wrm aim February 10, 2020 Page 6 of 26 was deferred because the City would have an opportunity to revisit this matter when the final development plan for the commercial lots would come before City Council. This is now the final development proposal for the commercial parcel and is the time to address the longstanding issue with respect to the maintenance of private roads. • In summary, the purpose of the private roads was to support the commercial use and should now be converted to support residential use. It was never the intent of City Council, nor the developer to place the entire burden of maintaining these private roads on the homeowners. The proposed rezoning does not resolve any of the maintenance concerns that have been raised consistently by the homeowners, City Council and the PZC. Maintenance of these private roads will create an undue financial burden on the HOA. • If Council were considering the entire Oak Park development plan today for residential use, Council would likely raise an issue with these private roads, as the Council did in 2006. If the developer would have proposed that plan in 2006, it likely would have been rejected. It should be no different today. For that reason, the homeowners request that all private roads be converted to public roads. • The developer's representative has stated in the past that the Oak Park HOA fees are comparable to association fees paid in other communities in Dublin. In August of 2019, the homeowners contacted other homeowner associations in Dublin to compare the HOA fees and the benefits received in return for those fees. She shared a summary chart of the information collected. (Distributed to Council members.) She highlighted a few of the items. • For Westbury, the yearly costs are $125 to maintain five acres of common land and fencing, cul-de-sac islands and an entry sign. For Amberleigh, they pay $880 for homes built after 2000, and that includes a clubhouse, pool and tennis courts. For Tartan Ridge, they pay $800, primarily to maintain 46 acres of landscaping. For Muirfield, depending upon the home valuation, a $500,000 home value has an Association fee of $1,100 and they have two heated pools, a splash park, hot tub, tennis and pickle ball courts, 29 miles of bike trails, two playgrounds, nature preserve, golf course and upkeep of 200 common ground areas, including 14 ponds and two gazebos. • Oak Park's current HOA fees are $1,152 and they have four acres of landscaping to maintain, a clubhouse and some ponds. Oak Park fees compared to the benefits received compared to other communities and benefits receive are already high. • In terms of the projected HOA cost chart submitted by the developer with the rezoning application, the forecasted costs are not all inclusive. There are many inconsistencies in this chart and the management company budgeted items. Missing from the chart are a number of items, which she outlined in detail. • The reserve funds were not intended to absorb completely the cost of maintaining six private roads. It is unfair to assume that these funds are available for this purpose. There are a number of outstanding maintenance issues currently at Oak Park, and that Is what the reserve funds should be used to cover. • Other issues she has mentioned are the closeness of the homes, the inconsistent treatment of the tree lawn area and the driveway access to and from the main boulevard. • According to the original development plan, the park homes on the periphery of the community were to be larger homes. These were to be 2,500 to 3,800 square feet on lots of 60, 70 or 80 feet of width. The village homes in Subarea B were to be smaller homes of 2,000 to 2,800 square feet on smaller lots with a width of 55 or 60 feet. According to the developer's representative, buyers of the village lots did not want the smaller homes. Since the development standards did not explicitly restrict the larger homes, the developer accommodated the demands of the buyers and built the larger homes in Subarea B. The result is that a number of the Subarea B village homes were built right up to the boundaries of the permitted building area. These homes only have six-foot side yard setbacks. As a consequence, the homes appear to be tightly packed. She encouraged Council members to come to the community and view these. She shared a screen shot of the closeness of the homes in this area. This problem was recreated when the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minvies of Dublin City Council Meeting February 10, 2020 Page 7 of 26 rezoning of the townhomes was done. There are homes very close to each other. Because these restrictions were not placed In the development standards, the developer could build larger homes in these areas. [Mayor Amorose Groomes asked Ms. Houseman to bring closure to her comments that relate specifically to the rezoning proposed tonight, given the extended time that has been allowed for her testimony as representing the homeowners.] • Ms. Houseman stated that the rezoning will recreate what has occurred in 2017, and that is why she is sharing the visual. It is important to look to the history to see evidence of what does not work and why the problem should not be recreated for this area. • She shared pictures of examples of the current conditions of what has been built under the six-foot side yard setback for homes. The City could require that this setback minimum be eight feet. The fact that the rest of the Oak Park community has some parcels with a 55 -foot lot width or a side yard setback of 6 feet should not be the only determining factors regarding the closeness of these homes. This opportunity should be taken not to repeat the same mistakes. More importantly, addressing this concern will not have a negative impact upon the number of homes that the developer can build in this area. • Regarding the inconsistent treatment of the tree lawn area, every area in Oak Park including the common areas have a tree lawn area of approximately 7 feet between the sidewalk and the curb. The proposed rezoning anticipates virtually no tree lawn area along the private streets. This is not consistent with the development character of Oak Park. There is opportunity to have a tree lawn area in the commercial lots that are consistent with Oak Park if the developer is willing to reconfigure the lots and use some of the greenspace. • The second concern is the responsibility of maintenance for the tree lawn areas, particularly in front of the homes. The developer proposes that the HOA maintain the tree lawn area directly in front of the homes facing Hyland -Croy. This is not consistent with the rest of the community. • The third concern is the driveway access to the main boulevard. Renderings show that at least two homes will have driveway access to the main boulevard and the development text suggests that other homes could also have additional driveways exiting to the main boulevard. The main boulevard is narrow due to the islands in the middle. It poses a challenge for future homeowners who desire to back into their garages. The islands are an Important design element, creating a grand entrance for Oak Park. Reducing the size of the islands will not be aesthetically pleasing. There is an opportunity to reconfigure the homes, utilizing the green space, so that no driveways lead to the main boulevard. The summary of the homeowners' requests is as follows: 1. To have all lot sizes a minimum of 60 feet In width or the alternate side yard setback of 8 feet; 2. Keep all tree lawn area consistent to a minimum of 7 feet throughout the commercial lots; 3. Have the maintenance responsibility of the tree lawn area in front of the home to be maintained by the homeowner; 4. Remove all driveway access to the main boulevard. These are the requests of the homeowners. The developer today has full control of the commercial lots, the private roads, the townhome lots rezoned in 2017, and the HOA. There are alternatives for the developer to consider as part of this rezoning to address all of these issues without reducing the number of homes the developer is proposing. The developer could pass along some of those costs to address their concerns to the 32 homes that will be built at the entrance to the Oak Park community. The homeowners strongly believe that if the developer addresses these concerns, this will make the community better and more desirable for potential buyers. Unfortunately, the developer has made it very clear that he is unwilling to entertain any of the changes to the proposed development plan. For that reason, 94 percent of the Oak Park homeowners do not support the rezoning of the commercial lots as proposed by the applicant. She shared a petition from the homeowners with Council. A.finufe.< RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 10, 2020 Page 8 of 28 Ms. Houseman stated this is the final opportunity to do what is right for the community. The Oak Park homeowners urge the City Council to reject the proposed rezoning, to consider closely the impact this proposed rezoning will have on the rest of the Oak Park community and reject it. There was no further public testimony. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited Council discussion and questions. Ms. Alutto asked how often the developer and the homeowners met to discuss the concerns regarding this particular rezoning. Prasad Vemoati. 7031 Greenland Place Oak Park responded that in August of 2019, the PZC directed that the developer's representatives and the HOA should meet to discuss the proposed plan. After multiple weeks, the HOA took the initiative to contact the developer's representative to meet and one two-hour meeting took place. They tried to address some of the concerns, but wanted to make sure there was a channel to reach out to the actual owner of the Hallmark Properties — the Oak Park Dublin LLC — to have a more fruitful conversation. That part of the conversation never occurred. As part of the meeting with the representative of the developer, it was clear that there was a "take it or leave it" proposal and nothing could be done. Mayor Amorose Groomes summarized that there was only one meeting between the developer's representative and the HOA representatives. Mr. Peterson asked staff about the two new open space areas. Did the City require those, or were those proposed by the developer? Ms. Husak stated that they are In general a result of how the lots are arranged on those two squares. It is not a requirement per se that they be open spaces. Mr. Peterson noted he was more compelled by the argument by Mayor Amorose Groomes that these same standards were found throughout the single-family development. However, he is somewhat persuaded by this argument that maybe problems have been revealed by those developments — that two wrongs do not make a right — and we should not repeat something that was wrong. Is there adequate space, if the two open spaces were removed, to address these concerns? Ms. Husak responded staff had that conversation with representatives from the neighborhood. They visited the site and viewed the concerns about the proximity of the houses to one another. That discussion did come up in terms of eliminating this open space and giving the lots a little more room. The problem is that all of the lots surrounding these open spaces are alley loaded and have rear access. For a lot fronting that area, it would actually be looking at the rear -loaded garage. It therefore became clear it is not an option in terms of what surrounds those open spaces. Mr. Peterson stated that the houses could be smaller, though, correct? Ms. Husak responded there is no requirement that the houses be of a certain size. The requirement is that they fit on the lot and meet the setback requirements of six-foot side yard, which exists in this neighborhood and many other Dublin neighborhoods. Mr. Peterson stated he understands the private versus the public nature of the road is not necessarily at Issue with this application, but it is Intertwined with going forward in this way. His understanding is that a road built to public standards and private standards are two different standards. Ms. Husak responded there is more involved with public roads, as they are platted and they have a certain right-of-way width required. These roads as they exist today do not meet those requirements. Mr. Peterson asked if the cost to replace the current private road with a public standard road is known. Mr. Cline offered to respond. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that Engineering can address this question. Mr. Peterson asked if this is even feasible to do. Mr. Hammersmith stated that roads R and S, which are 800 feet in length, if removed and reconstructed to the public standard is estimated at a cost of $500,000, give or take. This RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutee of Dublin City Council Meeting 9AAR8RBRQI M-OAYMN.M. f 6101 Held! February 10, 2020 Page 9 of 26 depends upon whether some of the storm sewer can be salvaged and whether the road base can be reused. This is only for R and S, and does not include I and J and the rest of the structure. Mr. Reiner noted that it was stated that the roadways were built to City standards. Mr. Hammersmith responded that it depends upon the component referenced. The road base itself and the asphalt pavement was built in strength to a City standard, but City standard is not inverted crown. It is not type 6 curb -- a combination curb and gutter is required by the City. To indicate they are built to a public standard could include one element, but not all elements. Mr. Peterson asked If it is the case that these two areas, when intended to be purely commercial, were to pay for the two private roads or was the cost to be passed to all of Oak Park for those two portions. Mr. Cline responded that the Declaration referred to does not include any of the commercial land. There was an aspirational statement that there would be cost sharing, but that did not Include the developer of the commercial land. He was not a party to that. He could justifiably have said he will maintain R and S, but R and S are not all of those private roads — just the portion in front of the subareas proposed for rezoning today. There could have been a cost sharing arrangement, but that was not guaranteed and there is no commitment to that commercial land whatsoever and it is not part of the Declaration. Mr. Peterson noted that the area marked in purple of the slide was agreed to be covered by all of the houses in the development. Mr. Cline responded the commercial was not part of that— that has always been part of the HOA responsibilities. Mr. Peterson stated that what is new is answering the question of who will share in that cost sharing. The applicant desires that this be the entire development. Mr. Cline responded that it is a very small number, as he has testified. The cost for the HOA to maintain all of the private roads is $7-8 per month, and adding this portion raises the cost a maximum of $.65 per lot. Mr. Peterson stated that expectations are important. When buyers purchased a single- family lot and reviewed their documents, would they have expected to have been charged a portion of maintenance for what exists now — the purple shaded private roads? Mr. Cline responded that the Declaration is very clear that it is an HOA responsibility. It lists Reserves I and J as being a shared maintenance responsibility in the residential Declaration. Mr. Peterson asked if there is any ability to fox any of those Issues and consume that common area into the other lots to address any of that. Mr. Cline responded that at the outset, they believed that City Council, PZC and staff would want the same kind of interior open spaces, as otherwise the interior lots would have nothing next to their lots. For that reason, they included that. Is it possible to redesign or reconfigure those lots? He does not believe there would be a lot of benefit from that. The lots could be made larger, using up the open space and reducing the maintenance costs, but it seems a disservice to the residents to do so. Ms. Fox asked about lot coverage. What is the maximum lot coverage allowed? In reviewing the development standards of Subarea B -- the village homes -- when window wells and air conditioners are added, there is a caveat that the setback needs to be eight feet. This is in the original development text. It seems that is not incorporated in this text. In the original Subarea B villages, there is a maximum lot coverage of 60 percent. Ms. Husak responded the maximum lot coverage is 60 feet, and the 6-8 foot requirement Is retained if there are encroachment situations. Ms. Fox stated that there was not a maximum square footage for a house. The village houses were to be smaller to be appropriate for the lot, but larger village houses were built, creating these Issues. Does Planning staff believe there should be a maximum square footage for these village homes? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meering uaaei�eaon,rnc. onrmv, oxo- - conn e�o February 10, 2020 Page 10 of 26 He(d Ms. Husak responded that she has not seen a square footage limitation in all of her experience with the City. The square footage of a house is determined by lot coverage and setbacks. Ms. Fox commented regarding the original development agreement or universal agreement on page 28. It speaks of Subarea B and that the maintenance of all landscaping for individual lots within Subarea B shall be the responsibility of a forced and funded homeowners association. Owners of lots within Subarea B shall pay a fee for this service, in addition to the homeowners association dues that will apply uniformly throughout the development. Therefore, in regard to the question raised about the landscape piece along the frontage and whether that should be the homeowners responsibility, it appears that it fell upon a separate entity. It is under "surcharge for universal maintenance." Another item to note, when this was originally zoned, there were 36 townhomes. It was rezoned to have 20 villa homes, which drops 16 homeowners out of the pool of contributors to the HOA. Mr. Cline responded to the question about maintenance. The tree lawn, which is in front of the homes that border City streets is not maintained by the City although the City owns it. People take care of their own grass in the tree lawn. It would be similar in this case, that people cut the grass in the tree lawn. There is no statement in the development text that the HOA would bear this responsibility. Ms. Fox stated that was apparently a misunderstanding. Ms. De Rosa noted she is reviewing the Declaration of the cost sharing agreement, specifically the paragraph that speaks to that cost sharing. It reads, "Except as herein provided, the cost of maintaining the private drives shall be shared by the Association and the Reserves of A and D." This indicates the costs would be shared by that commercial owner. Mr. Cline pointed out that was only the residents' Declaration that had this language. The commercial developer was never a party to it and did not sign onto it. It was aspirational to work out a cost sharing agreement, but that did not occur. Ms. De Rosa stated that a buyer reading this would understand that was the intent. Mr. Keeler noted that the HOA has reserves of $305,000. Mr. Cline agreed that Is correct. It is being managed by a third party. Mr. Keeler stated that there were references made to other HOAs in the community regarding their fees -- ranging from $50/year to $1152/year in this neighborhood. He poses the question of whether anyone has evaluated how much each household should be paying. The $305,000 seems a high number for the reserves. Perhaps the residents are already paying too much in fees. Mr. Cline responded that under normal circumstances, the developer would not be carrying the maintenance burden. At the time the first two houses were said, the Association could not maintain the nearly $100,000 of maintenance fees. The developer has continued to pay all of those expenses that would otherwise be borne by the HOA and has been banking the monies in the reserves. Fairly soon, the developer will likely tell Myers Real Estate to proceed with setting aside the reserves and allocating this money into the various categories. The major maintenance cost relates to the clubhouse, which includes a fitness center, meeting rooms, gathering spaces, etc. The clubhouse expenses are $47,000 per year, and the taxes alone for the clubhouse are $20,000. Mr. Keeler stated that perhaps the starting point may be flawed at $1,152/year per resident. Mr. Cline responded that the projected costs are numbers that are being spent currently by the property manager, and the property manager may be able to provide services more cost effectively than the residents may be able to do. Mr. Keeler stated that the total remains about $100,000 per year and there Is $300,000 in reserves at this time. Mr. Cline responded that per state law, the reserves are to be reviewed annually. When the last lot is sold, and the residents are in charge, the HOA can determine the appropriate level of reserves to cover the expenses. mutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 10, 2020 Page 11 of 26 Ms. Alutto stated that, effectively, the longer that turnover is delayed, the larger the reserves become as the developer is currently paying for certain types of maintenance. Mr. Cline responded that in the spring, they plan to perform work on the private roads and some of those funds will come from the HOA funds. The developer is acting as the HOA at this point until the last lot is sold. Some of the pavement repairs will be paid for by the developer as they are in Reserves R and S. Others will come out of the HOA funds. Ms. Alutto stated that, given the vast majority of neighborhood residents who desire some reconfiguration of the two greenspaces, she cannot believe some option cannot be identified to resolve the issues. She understands the difficulty of addressing all of the issues of the homeowners, but there should be the ability to reconfigure this greenspace. Mr. Cline stated that if the goal is to eliminate the greenspaces, that can be done. Mr. Cline added that in terms of resident meetings, prior to filing a rezoning application, they called a meeting with the residents for 2-3 hours at the clubhouse. The meeting went well, and the residents were pleased to hear of the elimination of the commercial area. After that time, opposition arose. The first demand was related to areas outside of the rezoning area, namely to eliminate all of the private streets. That was not possible, but he never stated this was a "take It or leave it" proposal. However, there was no Flexibility in terms of what they could do and not do. Generally, this is a fair proposal and meets all the development standards of the community. Ms. Alutto stated she understands that, but the setbacks were not ones the neighborhood liked. There are lessons to be learned from previous experience. Ms. De Rosa commented in regard to the rezoning change from townhomes to villa homes about two years ago. How many of those villa homes have been sold? Mr. Cline responded that the development has not moved forward. When the resident opposition surfaced and it appeared the commercial area would not go away, nothing moved forward with the villa homes. If this rezoning effort is not successful, the only option is to develop under the existing commercial zoning. Ms. De Rosa asked for confirmation that the developer now fully controls the commercial properties without contingencies. Mr. Cline responded that they do, but there are some enduring financial obligations associated with it. Ms. De Rosa stated that Oak Park has been under development for 14 years. Of the promised 100 plus homes, 72 are occupied, with 40 left to be sold. Mr. Cline stated that of the original 72, 68 homes have been built. Ms. De Rosa stated that 68 residents have been paying for the maintenance for the subdivision for a period of time. Two years ago, the change was made regarding townhomes to villa homes, but nothing has developed. It seems there is an opportunity to step back and ask if there is no commercial development, are the private roads needed at all. Mr. Cline responded the private roads cannot be removed, as they are the access for the villas that replaced the townhomes. Ms. De Rosa stated that the villas have not yet been built, however. She simply recognizes the amount of time that has passed and there is now an opportunity to step back and look at possible reconfigurations. The private roads are part of this discussion as they Impact the finances of the residents over the long term. She would love to see some of the opportunities discussed and explored. Mr. Cline responded that if this rezoning does not go forward, the villas will develop, but perhaps at a less expensive range. People will then view the garage and back door of the villas. Ms. De Rosa stated she understands the situation, but there is opportunity to work with the residents on a solution. Mayor Amorose Groomes asked staff for the name of the original developer of Oak Park. Ms. Husak responded that for the residential portions of Oak Park, they were owned and developed by a company out of New Jersey. Mr. Cline clarified that there was a name change, but the company remains the same for the residential portion. His client was the original developer of the residential portion. Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting February 10, 2020 Page 12 of 26 Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if the rezoning of the townhomes to villa homes was also done by the same applicant. She served on PZC at that time. Mr. Cline stated he represented the same applicant on that rezoning. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, essentially, there has been one developer that has come forward on four separate occasions to develop this land. Mr. Cline pointed out this was only for the residential portion of Oak Park. The commercial portion is totally separate. There was HC Associates as the landowner and initial developer; they then made an internal family arrangement that split off the commercial land to ]SDI Dublin, Inc. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, currently, the ownership of the commercial, the townhomes and the residential units is one entity. Mr. Cline agreed that is correct. Mayor Amorose Groomes referenced a slide of the development to describe the proposed homes and potential access to the homes via public or private roads. Mr. Cline stated that the villa homes are 104 -foot deep lots — patio homes with rear access. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that if the goal tonight is to solve a problem that is complex, expensive and places a burden on the residents, what is being proposed constitutes spot zoning -- taking these small parcels and rezoning only these small parcels. However, the City has never engaged in spot zoning — the City zones in context. The townhomes were approved in reliance upon the commercial development and the need for a transition from single-family homes into the commercial spaces. But things have changed and it is Important to look at this collectively. There is nothing existing today except some private roads installed and in need of some repair. She understands that the rezoning application is for only the two squares of land, but she suggests not spot zoning this land. Context and history matter, and change of use matters. We do have an opportunity to create a much better product for the residents. She cannot support spot zoning for this small space that will have a profound impact on the entire community. There is now one owner of the parcels and a chance to do R right. Alleys have never been well received in this community and are not something she will support. The question for the applicant is what he would like Council to do with this application. Mr. Cline responded that this rezoning is set for public hearing in two weeks. He cannot speak for his client, who directs his actions. The client has been emphatic that they will not abandon the approved villa/patio home zoning because it is a good product in a good market. He will convey to his client what has been discussed tonight, but will not presuppose their response. Ms. Alutto asked if there is a way to have the types of products desired while addressing some of the issues raised tonight. Perhaps looking at rezoning the entire area versus only this portion, and looking to resolve all of the issues including the public roads, Mr. Cline responded that a large amount of investment has been made in the rezoning to the villa homes. There was a three-way contract involved, commitments made and contractual requirements have been fulfilled. To a significant degree, that constrains what can be done today. Rezonings are costly. One of the reasons the commercial could not develop was because they owed the residential developer $1.8 million for their share of the infrastructure. Those two commercial pieces also owed HC Associates about $750,000. These factors prevented to some degree the commercial portion being marketable. Those mortgages have both been wiped away now, and that commercial is much more viable than it was previously. Absent this rezoning moving forward, the commercial zoning in place includes the permitted uses in the Community Commercial category and allows auto - oriented commercial uses as conditional uses. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that this Ordinance is scheduled for a second reading on February 24. The applicant has heard the input from Council and the direction they would like to see moving forward. She would expect that the applicant would have substantive conversations between now and the next hearing. Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin Held February 10, 2020 Page 13 of 26 Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the Ordinance is scheduled for second reading/public. hearing on February 24. It is possible that the applicant may request an extension of time to address issues. Staff will inform the HOA leadership of any change to the anticipated hearing schedule. Ordinance 07-20 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan of +/- 24 Acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subareas DS, 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 19-0842/PDP) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Husak stated this is a rezoning request for approximately 24 acres within the Tartan Ridge neighborhood. She shared an aerial of the site at the comer of McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads. It is fairly vacant at this time, but there Is a green silo on the site and a stormwater management pond that Is being used currently as part of Tartan Ridge and will be enlarged with this application. She shared a view of the entire Tartan Ridge neighborhood, which was zoned in 2007 and is about 190 acres. It was zoned during the time that Oak Park was zoned and this area was slated for commercial development as well as some townhome units. With this proposal tonight, all of those uses would change to single-family residential. There are 56 lots proposed at a density of 2.3 units per acre, and 7.5 acres of open space is proposed, mainly along the Hyland -Croy and McKitrick frontage and the stormwater management pond. The applicant has been working with staff and has also meet with the HOA leadership and adjacent residents. The proposal is for an empty nester market type of home — patio homes. She shared details, noting that the applicant is continuing some of the standards that make Tartan Ridge a unique neighborhood, including pillars at the end of driveways and hedge treatment along the frontages of the homes. There is also a matrix of where side -loaded garages or court - loaded garages could be utilized within this proposal. Staff has also worked with the applicant and their architects on continuing that architectural style that is unique to Tartan Ridge. They have proposed some sample elevations. The pond will include amenities — an overlook with seating areas and a gazebo. There were discussions between the applicant, staff and the PZC in terms of maintenance and how that will be handled in this area. The applicant is proposing to have a sub association, but also be part of the overall Tartan Ridge Association. This particular amenity would be maintained by the Overlook Association. PZC recommended approval to Council at their December meeting. Staff has been working with the applicant to ensure they have fulfilled the conditions that could be met prior to tonight's hearing. There are a couple Items that will be addressed with the final development plan. She offered to respond to questions. Mayor Amorose Groomes invited the applicant to present. Kevin McCauley. 6689 Dublin Center Drive, stated he is present on behalf of the ownership group, Stavroff Land and Development. With him are Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design; Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes; and Brad Schoch, architect of record for the project. Stavroff has been part of the Tartan Ridge project since the beginning — assembling the land, zoning the property, developing the property and marketing the retail portion of the property over the past 12 years. The property was zoned in 2007 for 68,500 square feet of retail; 24 town homes; and five single-family lots. Primarily, they were working on marketing the retail for the past 10-12 years. They have learned that retail is just not right for this property at this time. They worked with residents, HOA reps, staff, Council members and PZC members to determine what product would work in this location. They believe that what is proposed meets the concerns they have heard. They did survey residents of Tartan Ridge to understand what they want to see in the community. They learned that the majority of the residents did not want the retail. What is being proposed tonight are 56 patio homes, with the elimination of 68,500 square feet of retail, 24 townhomes and five lots. This proposal removes an extra tum lane, reducing Infrastructure City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 9 Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana 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: Ord. 06-20 Rezoning approximately 3.47 acres east of Hyland -Croy Road, south of Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea F) for the future development of up to 12 single-family homes and 0.66 acre of open space (case 19-100Z/PDP) Summary This Ordinance is a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan of a 3.47 -acre site within the Oak Park PUD to allow for the future construction of up to 12 single-family homes and approximately 0.66 acre of open space. Background The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal, non-binding feedback on a Concept Plan for a portion of Subarea E in Oak Park, on August 22, 2019 for the potential development of 12, single-family homes where commercial development is currently permitted. The Commission was generally in support of the request to rezone the area to allow for a change in use. The Commissioners expressed concerns regarding existing private streets, including maintenance and current conditions. The Commissioners discussed the potential future cost burden to the HOA and the residents, and the extent to which the HOA would be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the private drives. The Commission discussed the proposed layout of the site, as well as their desire to see increased connectivity to the proposed open spaces. The Commission suggested that the applicant work with neighborhood residents to find a plan that worked for both the applicant and the residents. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on December 12, 2019 and made a recommendation of approval to City Council. Previously, City Council approved Ordinance 52-17 for the rezoning with preliminary development plan to convert an area previously approved for 36 townhome units to single- family lots within Subarea D on September 11, 2017 based on a recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 13, 2017. Prior these approvals, the Planning Memo re. Ord. 06-20 Oak Park, Subarea F Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 2 of 6 and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal feedback for three options to convert the 36 approved townhome units to single-family lots within Subareas D on November 10, 2016. The Commission supported the conversion to single-family homes and encouraged the applicant to pursue developing this and the commercial properties together. With the subareas under different ownership, it was determined that this was not feasible to do so at the time. Prior to that approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved an amended final development plan to modify the development text to allow a one -foot front yard setback for the townhome units located in Subarea D on August 7, 2008. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a final development plan and final plat for the subdivision and development of 108 residential units on a 61 -acre site on March 15, 2007. City Council reviewed and approved Ordinance 74-06 to rezone 61 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park) for the development of 108 residential units, approximately 40,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space on November 20, 2006. Description The subject site is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. However, the original single-family portion of Oak Park is largely developed. The acreage in Subarea D, which was approved in 2017 to be converted from multiple -family townhomes to single-family lots continues to be vacant, however the final plat has been recorded and lots are available for sale/construction. The site is located between four private drives and is divided by Oak Park Boulevard, which is a public street. A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site and runs north and south along Hyland -Croy Road. 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 the zoning and development of 12 single-family lots, two new open space reserve and associated site improvements. The site is currently zoned PUD — Oak Park, Subarea E which allows for commercial development including small-scale retail and restaurant uses, among others, up to 39,700 square feet. Community Plan/Future Land Use The Community Plan shows the Future Land Use for this site as a Mixed -Use Neighborhood Center, based on the land use approved when the Plan was most recently updated. This designation is intended to provide daily retail uses and personal services for the convenience of neighborhoods in which they are located. Integrated residential uses are highly encouraged, and neighborhood centers should coordinate with surrounding Low and Medium Density Mixed Residential uses to provide support and pedestrian activity. This proposal necessitates a rezoning to allow for a change in permitted uses from commercial to residential uses. Additionally, this proposal would result in less impactful uses on the area than what the current zoning allows. Memo re. Ord. 06-20 Oak Park, Subarea F Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Details Layout This proposal includes a portion of the existing Subarea E. The proposed site is rectangular in shape and consists of two vacant parcels with little vegetation and no significant natural features. The parcels are separated by the existing Oak Park Boulevard. The site is located west of Hyland -Croy Road and is bound by Acorn Lane and Bur Oak Lane on the north and south sides, respectively. The proposal is for 12 single-family lots on 3.47 acres and two open spaces, accounting for 0.66 -acre of the site. The lots surround the green spaces on two sides, while the existing street network surrounds the other sides of the greenspaces. Eight of the lots will face Oak Tree Drive North and South (private drives) while the remaining four homes will face Oak Park Boulevard (public). The lots range in size from 0.16 -acre to 0.22 -acre in size with widths ranging from 55 feet to approximately 70 feet. Lot depths range from 130 feet to 135 feet. A sidewalk connection is proposed around the entirety of both parcels, with portions of the sidewalk directly adjacent to the private drives. The applicant has proposed sidewalk improvements outside of the boundaries of this rezoning and preliminary development plan. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within the geographic boundaries of this plan. Subareas The proposed rezoning with preliminary development plan is applicable to a portion of Subarea E, specifically Reserves A and D. The remaining portions of Subarea E will remaining under the existing zoning. The applicant has created a new Subarea, Subarea F and provide updated maps illustrating the two parcels being rezoned. Traffic/Access The main access to the site is from Hyland -Croy Road along Oak Park Boulevard, which provides access to the homes through the various drives and streets adjacent to the site. A portion of the homes have driveway access on a private drive in the development. Twelve on -street parking spaces are proposed on Oak Tree Drive, six on Oak Tree Drive North and six on Oak Tree Drive South. Sidewalks are proposed along the Oak Tree Drive and Oak Park Boulevard frontages, as well as along the private drives. The applicant provided a trip generation analysis that shows the proposed 12 detached, single- family homes significantly reduce the trip generation compared to the original zoning. Therefore, the change is not expected to impact the public infrastructure. Stormwater Management/Utilities A series of detention basins were constructed as part of the original Oak Park development to accommodate both water quantity and water quality per the requirements as defined in Chapter 53. The proposal is encompassed within the East Subarea as defined in the original Oak Park stormwater management report, which drains to the existing east basins along Hyland -Croy Road. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed 12 single-family lots will add less Memo re. Ord. 06-20 Oak Park, Subarea F Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 4 of 6 impervious area than originally programmed as part of the original Oak Park development and has demonstrated compliance with stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53. Existing sanitary and water mainline has been constructed as part of the original Oak Park development. The proposed improvements include abandoning existing water and sanitary services that are no longer needed in addition to new services that were not originally constructed in order to provide water and sanitary service for all 12 proposed single-family lots. Development Text The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for the site including uses, lot requirements, architecture details, and materials. The applicant has provided a development text with standards specific to this PUD Subarea, but largely consistent with the development standards approved within Subarea D. Uses Detached single-family homes and open space reserves are the only permitted uses in the proposed development text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in the written development text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this area. Development Standards Twelve single-family lots are proposed with a minimum lot depth of 130 feet. The lots will have a minimum width of at least 55 feet. Lot sizes range from 0.16 -acre to 0.22 -acre. These requirements are largely consistent with the rest of Oak Park; however, these lots are deeper than those in Subarea D. Lot coverage is limited to 60% of the total lot area. This is the same lot coverage permitted for all single-family lots within Oak Park. The proposed front yard setbacks are a minimum of 20 feet, rear yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet, and side yard setbacks are a minimum of 6 feet. The proposed side yard setbacks are consistent with the rest of Oak Park. The proposed rear yard setbacks are smaller than the rear yard setbacks for most of Oak Park, with the exception of Subarea D. Most of Oak Park has 25 feet rear yard setbacks, whereas Subarea D has 10 feet rear yard setbacks. The proposed rear yard setback is to accommodate the 20 feet minimum front yard setback, where most of the neighborhood - with the exception of Subarea D, has a front yard setback that ranges from a minimum of 13 feet to a maximum of 20 feet. Window wells may encroach into the required side yard setback with a maximum of 3.5 feet, provided that the side yard is at least six feet and there is a minimum of eight feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Air conditioners and other HVAC or service structure units may encroach into side yard setback a maximum of 2.5 feet, provided the side yard is at least 6 feet and the structure is screened per Code. Memo re. Ord. 06-20 Oak Park, Subarea F Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan February 4, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Landscaping As described in the landscaping section the proposed text, two new open space reserves will be provided, each approximately 0.33 -acre in size. These spaces will be owned and maintained by the Oak Park homeowners association, to be consistent with the remainder of the neighborhood. Four trees are proposed to be removed from the site. A tree replacement plan was not provided at this time, therefore staff recommends the tree replacement plan be provided with the submission of the final development plan. Fencing and landscape hedge requirements are unchanged from the original Oak Park development text for consistency. Architecture The Oak Park development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements and the neighborhood theme, which is inspired by English and Irish garden cities with a park -like ambience and sense of quality. The newly created lots shall conform to the same architectural standards as the rest of Oak Park, with minor changes or exceptions. Exterior materials in this area will remain consistent with the rest of Oak Park, and four-sided architecture shall be required. The proposed text includes language that would permit mirror image versions of the same model of home if located at Oak Park Boulevard and either Oak Tree Drive North or South. This is proposed to create an entry feature into the neighborhood when entering from Hyland -Croy Road. Neighborhood Contact Staff has been in contact with the residents of Oak Park throughout this process and met with residents at the proposed site in October of 2019. The residents made Staff aware of several concerns with the proposal including, but not limited to, the financial impacts of maintaining private drives, the general site layout and the proposed side yard setbacks. Staff has encouraged the residents to attend any public meeting for this application. Neighborhood concern regarding the financial impacts of maintaining additional private drives is significant. Both the applicant and the neighbors have discussed this issue with little to no resolution. The drives were approved as part of the original zoning in 2006, the expected maintenance of the drives included the potential commercial tenants, however, there is no concrete evidence that ties the commercial development to this infrastructure maintenance in the City's approval documents. As part of this application, the area of private drives, which will have to be maintained by the Pak Park HOA is limited to the ±500 linear feet. The applicant has investigated costs associated with the continued maintenance of the private drives and has provided those as part of this packet. In addition, the applicant has verbally committed to resurface portions of the private drives, prior to turning the HOA over to the residents, not all of which are subject to this application. Memo re. Ord. 06-20 Oak Park, Subarea F 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. All other conditions will be monitored as part of the Final Development Plan application. 1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new Subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant work with Staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and, 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed to Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of this Ordinance at the second reading/public hearing on February 24, 2020. Oak Park Private Streets Pavement Maintenance Cost Tablet JANUARY 23 2020 Reserve Concerned Area Cost to Mill and Replace Cost for Crackftll/Two Sealcoats Total area of all private streets 6,770 sy $117,319 $9,098 Total area of existing 5,171 sy $94,894 $7,058 HOA private streets $45.15 per lot per year $17.49 per lot per year (Reserves I & J) $6.20 per lot per month $3.76 per lot per month Total area of new private 1,600 sy $22,4252 $2,040 streets (Reserves R & S) $3,795.76 per year $1,411.60 per year Amortized Cost/Repair #Lots Mill/Replace 15 years Mill/Replace 25 years Crack Fill/Seal Coat 5 yrs Lot Cost/Month' All private streets 104 $7,820 per year $4,695.68 per year $1,819.60 per year $75 per lot per year $45.15 per lot per year $17.49 per lot per year $6.20 per lot per month $3.76 per lot per month $1.45 per lot per month $7.65 or $5.21 Reserves I and J 92 $6,326.26 per year $3,795.76 per year $1,411.60 per year (Existing streets/lots) $68.76 per lot per year $41.25 per lot per year $15.34 per lot per year $5.73 per lot per month $3.43 per lot per month $1.27 per lot per month $6.90 or $5.52 Reserves R and S 12 $1,495.00 per year $897.00 per year $408.00 per year (new streets/lots) $124.58 per lot per year $74.76 per lot per year $34.00 per lot per year $10.38 per lot per month $6.22 per lot per month $2.83 per lot per month $13.21 or $9.05 ' Cost figures as of January 2020. Derived from actual pavement contractor bids for work to be done in Spring 2020 2 Cost if done at same time as other mill and replace work at Oak Park, otherwise $28,490 ' First number is for 15 year mill and replace interval, second number is for 25 year Oak Park Projected HOA Costs as of January 27 2020 Payor now Category Expense Item Amount Total/yr Notes: Current HOA fund balance as of Dec 31 2019 is $ $305,855.26 Current HOA dues are $96/mo per lot Myers Real Estate is currently managing the FICA Oak Park Community Association, Inc. Deelarant eontrols HOA until turnover. All items above are estimates based on actual current expenditures or quotes Future reserve items such as clubhouse roof /mechanicals/landscape replacement are not forecast; current landscape replacement is included however as the number given is actual amount to be currently expended to comply with City of Dublin Landscape audit. HOA may not achieve same contracting efficiency/economy as developer currently provides Landscaping Oak Park Landscaping/Mowing; Annual by Developer Currently 2020 $19,101 19,101 HOA Additional landscaping currently by HOA 2,535 2,535 Future Estimate for additional landscaping maintenance Subarea D 4,000 4,000 Future Mow and maintain two new park areas Subareas P &Q 3,000 3,000 Future Missing plantings in Oak Park per audit since inception test ea 10 s 8,150 815 Total $29,451 Clubhouse Oak Park Insurance $5912 5,912 Oak Park Water/Sewer City of Columbus 4628 1 4,628 Oak Park Gas Columbia 1,071 1,071 Oak Park Maintenance includes HVAC, per year 2000 2,000 Oak Park Irrigation Maintenance 200 200 Oak Park Electric 5665 5,665 Oak Park Electric Maintenance 97 97 Oak Park Annual Back Flow Test -Plumbing; 500 500 Oak Park Fire Dept fee 50 50 Oak Park Fire Dept Alarm 602 602 Oak Park Real Estate Taxes Union County 2020 19,106 19,106 Oak Park Cleaning throughout clubhouse -currently $225/mo 225 2,700 Future Interior painter each 5 yrs 2,500 510 Future Exterior painter each 5 yrs 5,000 416 Future Carpet cleaning -each year 1 500 1,500 Future Replace landscape lights -each 10 yrs 2 500 250 Oak Park Pond maintenance -42,500 pump motor ea 2yrs 2,500 1,250 Oak Park Pond maintenance -4600 chemicals each year 600 600 Oak Park Front fountain paint and maintain 750 750 Total $47,807 Future Fencing Maintenance Estimate to paint 600 lineal feet of 6' and 350' of 4' 3yrs Subarea D $7,850 Total $2,616 Private Street Maintenance Future Reserve for mill & replace all private streets 15 yrs 15 yrs worst case 117,319 $7,821 Future Reserve for all rivate streets crackfill/seal coat 5 yrs 9,098 1,819 Future Snow plowing $100 each time; $75 salt; estimate 10X year 1,750 1,750 Total $11,389 HOA HOA Admin/Misc HOA management fee, admin and misc-estimate $5,000 Total $5,000 All Items Total Grand Total Yearly Estimate of HOA Costs After Developer Turnover $96,263 Estimate yearly cost to each homeowner lot after turnover based on 104 lots and $96,263; $926/ or $77 per month $926 Notes: Current HOA fund balance as of Dec 31 2019 is $ $305,855.26 Current HOA dues are $96/mo per lot Myers Real Estate is currently managing the FICA Oak Park Community Association, Inc. Deelarant eontrols HOA until turnover. All items above are estimates based on actual current expenditures or quotes Future reserve items such as clubhouse roof /mechanicals/landscape replacement are not forecast; current landscape replacement is included however as the number given is actual amount to be currently expended to comply with City of Dublin Landscape audit. HOA may not achieve same contracting efficiency/economy as developer currently provides M/rc h alnJ,e'M& e/%Oew rrR ghAchool a ' 0 4M a aaow � � 6r an aRa Snowdrop Ct Acorn-"� ;,1➢ L. 1 Oak view Ave -N Oak=Park_131YO Oak view Ave S R -t r -Oak BuML SITE Z ... d Ct v � primrose � � lid O Greenland PI 0 m o A a �r 4City of Dublin OHIO, USA Planning 12017 Case # PLANNING APPLICATION This is the general application form for Boards and Commissions. In addition, applicants should submit a checklist with the requirements for the application type indicated below. Attach additional sheets if necessary. ❑ Administrative Appeal ❑ Administrative Departure ❑ Amended Final Development Plan ❑ Amended Final Development Plan - Sign ❑ Architectural Review Board ❑ Basic Development Plan Review ❑ Basic Site Plan Review ❑ Building Code Appeal ❑ Community Plan Amendment ❑ Concept Plan ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Development Plan Review - Bridge Street District ❑ Development Plan Review - West Innovation District ❑ Demolition ❑ Final Development Plan ❑ Final Plat ❑ Informal Review ❑ Master Sign Plan ❑ Minor Modification ❑ Minor Project Review ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Non -Use (Area) Variance X❑ Preliminary Development Plan/PUD Rezoning ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Site Plan Review - Bridge Street District ❑ Site Plan Review - West Innovation District ❑ Special Permit ❑ Standard District Rezoning ❑ Use Variance ❑ Waiver Review ❑ Wireless Communications Facility ❑ Zoning Code Amendment Property Address(es): 7050 & 7055 Oak Park B. Tax ID/Parcel Number(s) (List All): 3900280140400 3900280140950 Existing Land Use/ Development: Vacant Parcel Size(s) in Acres (List Each Separately): Reserve A 1.733 AC. +/- Reserve D 1.735 AC. +/- Existing Zoning District: PUD - Commercial Proposed Land Use/Development: I Proposed Zoning District: Single Family Residential I PUD- Residential Name (Individual or Organization): Oak Park Dublin LLC. Mailing Address (Street, City, State, ZIP); Atlantic Realty Development Corp. Attn: William K Hayes II 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Suite 600 Woodbridge, NJ. 07095 Email/Phone Number: BillyH@AtlanticRDC.com (732)-750-1111 For questions or more information, please contact Planning at 614,410.4600 1 www.dublinohioUSA.gov 1- EVERYTHING GROWS HERE. Page 2 of 3 ❑ Not Applicable Name (Individual or Organization): Christopher T. Cline c/o Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis Mailing Address (Street, Cit)4 State, ZIP): 300 West Wilson Bridge Rd. #100 Worthington, OH 43085 Phone Number: (614)-764-0681 Email: ctc@BHMLaw.com ❑ Not Applicable Name (Individual or Organization): Same as Above Mailing Address (Street, City, State, ZIP): Phone Number: Email: p Not Applicable I William K Hayes II __ , the property owner, hereby authorize l;f is;p PTr To act 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 (listed in Sections III and/or IV). Original Signature of Property Owner (listed in Section II): Date: 10 Subscribed and sworn before me this day of QQ State of MDEBORAH A LACOVARA County of Notary Public `<, ary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires 9/25/22 I wmidm n ndyes u , the property owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to enter, photograph and post a notice on the property described in the application. For questions or more information, please contact Planning at 614.410.4600 1 www.dublinohioUSA.gov VIII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This section must be completed with an original signature and notarized. ❑ Original Document Attached I William K Hayes II , 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 correct to best of my knowledge and belief. Original Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative: w Date: 10k-1 Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 'D%11 DEBORAH A LACOVARA State of A Notary Public of New Jersey County of Notary Publi y ommission Expires 9/25/22 F FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - Case Title: Date Received: Case Number: Amount Received: Next Decision Due Date (If Applicable): Receipt Number: Reviewing Body (Circle 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 614.410.4600 1 www.dublinohioUSA.gov PARCEL NUMBERS/OWNERS/ADDRESSES OAK PARK- OWNERS WITHIN 300' 22 -Oct -19 CAMANo/Parcel Number Owner Address City/State/Zip 3 9002 801 40200 HONG MEI & CHENG ZHAO 71 10 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280140190 SHANAAH AROUB Y 7118 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280140180 SONTI SATYA KARTHIK & JHANSI DAYALA 7126 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280140170 HOUSEMAN MELVIS O & CHRISTOPHER J 7134 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280140160 LUCAS STEPHEN G & AMY LYNN 7142 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40430 RAYAPATI VENKATA SOUJANYA TIPIRNENI 8051 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40440 REDDY PENDRU SUGUNAKAR & RACHANA ANNA 8043 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40460 FETSKO DANIEL T & LAURA A KIRK-FESKO 8035 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40470 BARTUNEK, KATHLEEN R 8027 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40480 NOLAND JACOB T 8019 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40490 MCKEE KYLE L & HILLARY K MCKEE 8011 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40500 KARE RAJESH KIRAN & KEERTHI ARADHYULA 8007 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40660 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8001 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40780 AKULA PRATHIBHA & SRINIVAS 7995 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40790 JENNINGS STEVEN M & ROBERTA M 7991 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40800 BAUZA PEDRO & LINETTE MEJIAS 7983 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280140810 PULI SREENIVASA R & SWATHY KAMPATI 7975 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40820 YOUN KENNY K & SUSIE S 7976 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3 9002 801 40830 SERNA VANIDA ANN & SHERMAN 7959 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3 9002 801 40840 PADMANABAHN ANANDARAMAN 7951 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141150 MAGANTI SAILAJA & PRASAD VEMPATI 7031 GREENLAND PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141130 CITY OF DUBLIN 7955 GREENLAND PLACE DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141120 CHADARAM BHAVANI D & PRAKASH RAU SUBRAMANIAM 7015 GREENLAND PL DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141110 YARAMAKALA TEJASWINI & SREEKANTH BASIREDDY 7007 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141100 CHAPPIDI SRINIVASULU & NEERAJAKSHI NADENDLA 6999 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280141090 CITY OF DUBLIN 7947 GREENLAND PL DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3900280140110 CITY OF DUBLIN 8078 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3 9002 801 40950 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7055 OAK PARK BLVD DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 3 9002 801 40400 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7050 OAK PARK BLVD DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40220 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7005 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40240 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7013 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40270 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7021 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40280 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7029 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40300 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7037 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40330 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7045 SNOWDROP CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40340 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8028 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40360 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8020 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40380 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8012 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40390 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8004 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141210 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 8004 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40880 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40890 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7996 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40900 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7988 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40920 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7980 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40940 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7972 OAK MEADOW DR DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3 9002 801 40970 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7044 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141000 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7036 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141020 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7028 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141030 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7020 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141050 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 2012 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 3900280141080 OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 7004 PRIMROSE CT DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 MGR. OAK PARK COMMUNITY ASSN. c/o Myers Real Estate 1221 GRANDVIEW AVENUE GRANDVIEW, OHIO 43212 Preliminary Development Plan Oak Park Dublin SW Corner Hyland Croy and Mitchell DeWitt Roads Applicant: Oak Park Dublin, LLC January 21, 2020 REZONING STATEMENT FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN OAK PARK SUBAREA F Scope of Proiect This Preliminary Development Plan proposes conversion of Reserve A, Reserve D and a portion of Oak Park Boulevard, contained in Subarea E and located within the Oak Park Subdivision, from commercial use to residential use with twelve single family homes, six in each reserve and open space. This proposal will create a new Subarea F and rezone the new single family residential land use for the site and will remove the zoning for the commercial uses. A necessary adjunct of this process will also be amendment of the Future Land Use Plan of the Community Plan from commercial to residential use for these two reserves. Reserve A is about 1.733 acres, Reserve D is about 1.735 acres and a portion of Oak Park Boulevard is approximately 0.37 acres for a total rezoning of about 3.83 acres. The balance of Subarea E, which is owned by the City of Dublin and used for park uses is not affected by this rezoning Background The current site of the Oak Park Subdivision was originally a 61 -acre farm site at the southwest corner of Hyland Croy and Mitchell DeWitt Roads for sale by a local partnership named HC Associates. An established New Jersey real estate development company, Hallmark Homes, desired to begin high quality residential development in Dublin and sought to purchase the site. A significant aspect of the 2005 purchase agreement was that HC Associates required that it would retain a part of the site for commercial development and this requirement was incorporated into the Preliminary Development Plan presented for approval. Significant elements of the 2006 Planned Unit Development rezoning of Oak Park were: • Conservation Design allocated about 50% of the site as open space • Walking/Bicycle paths within site and also accessing Glacial Ridge Metro Park • Targeted residents were growing families, young professionals and empty nesters • Mixed use created three land uses providing for homes, recreation and shopping 0 72 Single Family home sites of varying sizes 0 36 attached, zero lot line, three story Townhome units 0 30+ acres of open space onsite and adjoining Glacier Ridge Metro Park o About 40,000 square feet of commercial use focused on retail uses. • Architecture inspired by traditional cross-roads English/Irish villages and hamlets • Four-sided architecture and four-sided materials, a new Dublin commitment • Architecture and materials consistent across all three developed land uses • Architecture, in detail, specified for all land uses as part of the rezoning Conservation Design Conservation Design was a land use approach which Dublin followed at the time of the initial PDP. As the original PDP is considered for revision, it must be understood that there are features of Oak Park that continue to be either influenced or dictated by Conservation Design. The Conservation Design approach maximized open space and clustered residential uses in designated areas rather than being dispersed throughout a development site. In theory, the same density would be achieved. In the case of Oak Park, about one half of the total site was open space with the residential and commercial uses being concentrated in a central area on the remaining one half. For the smaller buildable areas, Conservation Design virtually presents as an urban, rather than suburban approach. The result is that, while a much larger percentage of open space is obtained overall, the residential and commercial uses are concentrated on smaller amounts of land than was traditional in the case of conventional zoning approaches. In the case of Oak Park, homes are located on smaller lots than would otherwise be typical for the same size home. This affects multiple development standards, examples being building setbacks, lot size and lot coverage. This proposed rezoning for the final twelve new lots continues the approach which was adopted for Oak Park, which is a nearly complete subdivision. This provenance must be remembered and the Oak Park model not directly compared to the characteristics of typical suburban residential developments. Initial Execution The Final Development Plan for the single family homes and townhome sections was approved in March of 2007. The Final Development Plan for the commercial portion was filed in July of 2007 but was never taken forward. The Final Plat was approved and filed in January 2008 and the Notice of Commitment for infrastructure improvements was filed in November 2008. The first residents moved into their homes in July 2010. Challenges for Oak Park The Great Recession, beginning in 2008, presented challenges for development of all local real estate projects as well as for prospective home buyers. Oak Park's launch was squarely in the problematic time frame. The residential developer, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, ("Oak Park") 2 maintained its commitment to install all of the subdivision infrastructure and to construct multiple initial "spec" homes. The pace of sales and further construction was initially slow however, and the anticipated price points were adjusted downward - as was the case for most residential development in this tough market. Moreover, the character of this peripheral portion of Northwest Dublin was evolving and the rural "feel" encouraged by the City's planning efforts steered land use toward single family and empty nester users. Oak Park filed a Notice of Commencement for two of the six -unit townhome buildings in February 2009, but marketing studies warned that young professionals were not likely to be attracted to the remote, quiet, area and that empty nesters would not be likely to favor the narrow attached townhomes with multiple floors and staircases. The townhomes were never constructed. Similarly, the retail portion faced its own challenges: • Expensive materials and architecture costs mandated by the zoning text • Limited visibility due to the large setback from Hyland Croy Road • Limited signage mandated by the zoning text • Evolving development patterns west of Dublin with more competitive commercial sites • Obligation to pay for percentage of total infrastructure costs in subdivision • Limited viability of small commercial nodes in remote locations Oak Park Charts a New Course The 36 three-story townhomes in the Oak Park plan were envisioned as a transition and buffer between the commercial area and the single family homes. As a result, there was planning staff resistance to allowing a land use change that would diminish or remove this element should the commercial be built. As the single family portion of Oak Park neared buildout however, a decision point was reached. If the townhome concept was not revised: the subdivision would shut down and the townhome portion, which could never be built, would simply stay vacant. A corollary to this fact was the other reality that the commercial would probably never be developed anyway. It was time to take the only reasonable action. Ideally, both the townhome and commercial subareas would have been combined in a new single family subarea. However, two landowners, one for the townhome subarea and one for the commercial subareas were involved. Oak Park Dublin, LLC owned only the townhome subarea (Subarea D) and could plan and request rezoning only for that subarea. Efforts to bring both subareas under a single residential land use were not successful. Oak Park Dublin, LLC, proposed a plan for the land it controlled. In 2017 Oak Park then asked for an Amended Preliminary Development Plan to rezone the 36 Townhome lots into 20 single family Villa lots of 55' frontage and 104' depth, similar to patio homes, and with development standards that would result in homes similar to the single family 3 homes then in Oak Park. This rezoning and Final Development Plan was approved, and the Villa lots platted in July of 2018. The Uncomfortable Relationship Between the Residential and Commercial Uses The residential interface with the integral commercial reserves had been a cautionary aspect for Oak Park buyers from the start, and came to the fore with the immediate proximity of the adjacent new Villa lots. For a number of years, Oak Park had been in inconclusive discussions with the owner of the commercial reserves, which had been sold by HC Associates to JSDI Dublin, Ltd. These discussions had been ongoing for some time, both before and after the Villa lots rezoning. Those discussions eventually resulted, after the Villa lots rezoning, in an agreement between Oak Park Dublin LLC, HC Associates, and JSDI Dublin Ltd, that Oak Park Dublin would acquire the commercial land, Reserves A and D, and, would then apply to rezone the sites to residential use. There were also agreements and financial concessions regarding the new Villa lots, necessary so that the Villa lots could contractually replace the former 36 townhome lots. The agreement was signed effective May 1, 2019 and a deed to transfer Reserves A and D to Oak Park Dublin LLC was recorded with the Union County Recorder on June 4, 2019. It would have been nice if the agreements with the other two parties involved could have been made prior to the Villa lot rezoning. But that didn't happen and both Oak Park Dublin, LLC and the City of Dublin Planning Commission and City Council worked with the plan that was achievable at the time. That plan, for the Villa lots, is not now subject to change. Note also that other aspects of Oak Park, such as the private street areas currently subject to Oak Park HOA control, are not part of either the Villa lot rezoning or the rezoning of Reserves A and D proposed by this AFDP. Current Status Oak Park Dublin, LLC now owns the two commercial reserves, Reserves A and D, as well as the adjacent 20 Villa lots. Other than the three remaining single family lots currently under construction, the two commercial reserves and the Villa lots comprise all of the undeveloped land in Oak Park. Oak Park is bound by contract with HC Associates and JSDI Dublin, Ltd to rezone the commercial reserves to residential use. This Preliminary Development Plan (Amended) presents such a plan for rezoning of the two commercial reserves to twelve single family lots, six in each reserve, that will be consistent with the appearance and quality of the existing developed Oak Park homes, as well as the approved rezoning for the Villa homes, which are not yet built. The Nature and Character of the Proposed Preliminary Development Plan (Amended) Key elements of the proposal to rezone Reserves A and D to twelve single family lots: • Lot size is similar to the range of lot sizes in the Oak Park single family subareas o Lot minimum width of 55' up to 69' o Lot depths minimum of 130'(existing Oak Park residential lot depth is 125') 4 • Development standards will mimic the developed Oak Park single family subareas • Architecture will use existing approved Oak Park elevations or modifications approvable administratively, similar to the process for the Villa lots o e.g., existing elevations modified for garage on adjacent non -frontage street • Result will be homes indistinguishable from existing homes in Oak Park • No new streets will be constructed; existing streets will service the new homes o Two homes will have frontage and access from Oak Park Boulevard (public street) o Remaining eight homes will have access and frontage on existing private streets; Oaktree North and South, Bur Oak Lane, Acorn Lane, Shumard Oak Lane and Chinkapin Oak Lane as well as Oak Park Boulevard. o Existing Oaktree Drive North and South will be included in a roadway access reserve similar to other existing private streets in Oak Park • Oak Park HOA will maintain the newly reserved streets • These private streets are already being used by Oak Park residents and were to be utilized by the commercial development. • Utility facilities are already in place but will need to be modified and extended. • ,On street parallel parking will be included along Oaktree Drive North and South o These parking spaces were previously head -in spaces to serve the commercial on the existing Oak Park plans • New open space will be provided internal to the rear of homes consistent with other Oak Park areas to the west. • Particular attention will be paid to the presentation of homes facing Hyland Croy Road to ensure an attractive gateway to the Oak Park subdivision o "Mirror Image" homes are anticipated for the two entrance lots on Oak Park Blvd. Architecture To amplify the above summary regarding architecture, there are currently about 25 approved models for both the single family lots and the Villa lots. This "stable" of elevations for the twelve new lots will use any of these plans and the Development Text will so state. Additionally, the Development Text will also empower planning staff to make changes to these approved models. This will enable any modifications necessary to adapt an existing model to a particular lot in this new part of Oak Park. Such an adaption might be changing the access orientation for a garage, decreasing (or expanding) the width of a building, or reorienting a particular elevation to face a different street on a corner lot. Totally new models could also be approved by planning staff. At this mature stage of the Oak Park development, planning staff has acquired the skill and experience to successfully make these sort of adaptions. The success of these efforts is reflected in the current architectural achievements of Oak Park. 5 Relation to Area Land Planning The Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan and the Hyland Croy Corridor Character Study both emphasize the objective of preserving the rural, open feel of Hyland Croy Road with low intensity clustered residential land uses with large setbacks from the roadway and significant open space. Oak Park effectively follows this lead and the change to residential use of the commercial reserves will improve the Oak Park window to the roadway. The Glacier Ridge subarea plan of the Community Plan notes that this neighborhood retail center would affect the visual character of Hyland Croy Road; by removing the visibility needs of this retail center the visual impact along the corridor will be improved and the overall landscape theme improved. Relation to the Future Land Use Plan Oak Park falls within the Mixed Residential Rural Transition district which contemplates about 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Existing Oak Park, with 92 residential units, currently matches this target. Adding the twelve new single family lots will raise the total to 104 units, still shy of the original Oak Park total of 108 units. This new overall residential density is about 1.69 units per acre, still less than Oak Park's original residential density of 1.76 units per acre. However, the removal of the 40,000 square feet of commercial retail space that was previously included in Oak Park's total impact results in a major decrease in the overall intensity of the site. The attached Trip Generation report shows that vehicle movements are dramatically decreased by the conversion of the commercial areas to single family homes. Other aspects of the commercial use are also positive, examples are elimination of the visual clutter from signage and lighting, noise from commercial trash pickup, and nighttime retail hours that would have conflicted with residential quiet times. Relation to Roadwav and Infrastructure Planning Oak Park has already contributed land and funding to Hyland Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Mitchell DeWitt Road improvements, in both City of Dublin and Union County. These contributions were based on the higher intensity previously planned for the 40,000 square feet of retail use. Similarly, utility infrastructure is now more than adequate for the lesser intensity generated by the proposed downzoning to single family residential use. Conclusion We believe that conversion of the retail subareas to single family lots conforming to the already demanding Oak Park architecture and materials standards will be a major step up for both the current Oak Park residents as well as the Northwest Glacier Ridge area as a whole. The removed retail commercial space is now replaced by new, more appropriately sized and located retail commercial areas that are now available to the south on Post Road. Significantly, Oak Park will now have what it never had before and which every subdivision needs: a residential "front door" that showcases the neighborhood and presents an inviting image to future potential homeowners. An additional benefit will be that Oak Park will have a marketable mix of residential demographics combining single family and empty nester uses (anticipated for the Vila homes), a long term planning goal for City of Dublin residential developments. The current retail concepts for Reserves A and D of Subarea E was not destined for success, as indicated by the fact that it never was developed. More importantly, it created the potential for conflict with the single family land use of Oak Park and operated as a negative element for the attraction and appeal of the subdivision. Christopher Cline, Attorney for Applicant Oak Park Dublin, LLC Haynes Kessler Myers & Postalakis 300 West Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 100 Worthington, Ohio 43085 614-764-0681 ctcAbhmlaw.com January 21, 2020 J \20190713VCorrespondenceASubmreals\2020 0121 POP counol\working ooa\Rexomng statement for POP 2020 0121 doc: 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 OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TEXT Version of January 29, 2020 Subarea F: New Village Homes + 3.46 Acres Description: Subarea F, here proposed for rezoning, currently exists in the Oak Park subdivision in the east - central portion of the site as Reserves A and D. This proposal will amend the development standards formerly in place for Subarea E to create this new Subarea F with the only permitted uses now being specified residential uses and open space supporting those residential uses. Within Subarea F the development of twelve (12) detached single family homes will be permitted, six (6) in Reserve A and six (6) in Reserve D, to replace the currently allowed retail commercial uses. These single family homes will be typical Oak Park homes on lots approximately f 130' depth with frontage and street access on either existing private streets or a public street, Oak Park Boulevard. The two reserves in new Subarea F proposed for rezoning total about 3.46 acres, with Reserve A being 1.733 acres and Reserve D being 1.735 acres. IL Permitted Uses and Development Standards: Permitted uses in Subarea F shall include detached single-family homes and open space reserves. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development by mirroring the standards for existing homes in Subareas A, B and D. Ill. DensiM Height, Lot and Setback Commitments: A. Lots (i) Twelve (12) single family lots are permitted and will have a minimum lot depth of at least f 130'. (ii) Eight homes will have primary frontage on Oak Tree Drives North and South, private roads, and four homes will have primary frontage on Oak Park Boulevard, a public road. B. Setbacks and Building Lines (i) Each permitted lot shall have a minimum width at the front building line of fifty-five (55) feet. The eight easternmost lots will have the front building line, and lot width, measured from either Oaktree Drive North (Reserve R) or Oaktree Drive South (Reserve S). 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) Building Setbacks for Homes: The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from either the public right-of-way, or, reserve line of the private street the lot fronts on. There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line. The minimum side yard setback shall be six (6) feet from the lot boundary and six (6) feet from the edge of the reserve boundary. C. Encroachments (i) Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one half feet, provided that the side yard is at least six (6) feet and provided that there is 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. Where practicable window wells visible from the public right- of-way shall be constructed of materials that complement the architecture of each unit and shall be screened using an evergreen plant material or an alternative decorative screening mechanism. (ii) Air conditioners, compressors or other HVAC or service structure units may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one-half (2 '/z) feet, provided the side yard is at least six (6) feet, and must be screened as required by code. All other encroachments into side yards shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth in this text D. Maximum building heights: (i) Thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. E. Permitted Lot Coverage (i) The maximum lot coverage for the structure and impervious hardscape of each home and its garage in Reserve F shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total lot area. This is the same lot coverage provision as for all other Oak Park single family lots in Subareas A and B. V. Access, Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. Garages must adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks, as included in the development standards of this subarea, along all public and private roads. B. All housing units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces in a garage, which is required. Three car garages are permitted. C. Dwelling units in Subarea F shall front on either a public or private roadway as provided herein. D. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks, walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan for 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 Oak Park. These may include current facilities. Public sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width and will be constructed at the time each lot is developed. Sidewalks may directly abut the curb along private streets provided that street trees are provided along the sidewalk and are maintained by the homeowners' association. Handicap accessible ramps, which are already constructed, may be modified and additional ramps shall be provided per current appropriate accessibility standards. E. Access: (i) Access to the residential lots in Subarea F shall be from the existing public or private street network connecting to Hyland -Croy Road on the east and to Mitchell -Dewitt Road on the north. (ii) The plat of Oak Park provides for reciprocal access to the private streets in Reserves I and J and for Reserves A and D, which will include the twelve residential lots subject to this text, and Reserves "P" and "Q" (iii) The Amended Plat implementing this rezoning of Subarea F will contain provision for reciprocal access by all residential lots and reserves subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park to the existing private streets in new Reserves "R" and "S". (iv) Residential lots in Subarea F which abut both a public and private road have equal right to choose driveway access to either the public or private road so abutting. V. Architectural Standards: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Home plans/architectural facades that are already approved for any Oak Park subarea are acceptable for these two reserves. Further plans or facades can also be approved either as part of the Final Development Plan for Subarea F, or at a later date by Planning Staff utilizing the guidelines set forth both in this section and the approved Final Development Plan. This Section V and the existing developed homes in the Oak Park residential subareas, approved as part of the standards for Oak Park, shall serve as a guide for architectural approvals under both the Final Development Plan and any approvals by Planning Staff. (i) This section acknowledges that changing market conditions or other unanticipated factors may make it desirable to create new home models or facades subsequent to approval of the Final Development Plan. Planning Staff has the authority to approve these new models or facades when in keeping with the spirit and theme described in this Section V. (ii) This section further acknowledges that modifications to approved facades may be necessary or desirable, such as might be required because of the need to 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 adapt approved facades or garage access of existing approved models or to modify an existing approved fagade to create a new fagade to allow compliance with diversity requirements and internal changes made to the footprint, floorplan or interior layout that require revised exterior fagade changes. Planning Staff has the authority to approve those changes when in keeping with the spirit and theme described in this Section V. Changes to side or rear facades with a low degree of visibility from public streets require a less demanding review prior to staff approval. B. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. C. Exterior Materials: (i) Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, wood or stone, or, manufactured stone, stucco, cementitious fiberboard (e.g. Hardi products), and other comparable materials, or any combination thereof. (ii) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. (iii) Roofing materials: All homes shall use dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. For homes with asphalt shingles, at least 50% shall be the red asphalt shingle color as used elsewhere in Oak Park. D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details will be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Rear and side elevations of dwellings, except garage facades facing private streets at the rear of the structure, shall include quantities of brick and/or stone that are comparable to the quantity of brick and stone found on the front elevation of the same structure, unless approved otherwise by the Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or by Planning Staff, provided however that reductions of brick and/or stone on other than the front elevation shall not exceed 30% and shall be in locations with reduced visibility from public or private streets. E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. F. Garages: Decorative garage doors with a "Carriage Look" shall be provided on all units. G. 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. 0 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 H. Architectural Diversity Within Subarea F (i) No home two lots to the left or right of the subject lot shall have the same front fagade as the subject lot. (ii) No home directly across the street and one lot to the left or right of that lot shall have the same front fagade as the subject lot. However, this requirement may be adjusted depending on specific site conditions. An example would be a home across the street facing on a different street. a. The above requirements do not apply between homes in Subarea F and Subareas A and D where the home concerned is an approved model unique to Subarea F. b. If mirror image lots are located at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and either Oaktree Drive North or Oaktree Drive South, the homes on those lots may be mirror image versions of the same model, despite that they are adjoining lots separated by Oak Park Boulevard. VL Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments: A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B. Open Space: Two new open space subareas will be provided, one in Reserve A and one in Reserve D of Subarea F, each being approximately 0.33 acre and identified as new Reserves "P" and "Q". These open spaces will be owned and maintained by the Oak Park homeowners' association. C. Tree Preservation: There are four "volunteer" existing trees that have grown up in Reserve D. These will conflict with development of lots and construction of homes. Replacement or payment, if necessary, will be determined in consultation with the City Forester. D. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public and private streets. If feasible these trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be generally spaced a minimum of twenty (20) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. If a tree lawn is not available along a private street a street tree may be located adjacent to the sidewalk on the lot or in open space reserves and will be maintained by the homeowners' association. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and approved through the Final Development Plan review. 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. Street trees and sidewalks will be installed on lots with the construction of each structure. 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 E. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. F. Permanent Fences: (i) Permanent fencing or a landscape hedge as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property line on the front of each lot, and, may also continue along the side yard property line if the home abuts a public right of way on that side yard. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to enclose a deck or patio in the rear yard of each lot provided that it is located within three (3) feet of the patio or deck. Such fencing shall be constructed of masonry or other materials that are approved as a part of the final development plan for this subarea. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the final development plan. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for this subarea. VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments: At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for any portion of Subarea F to the Planning Commission, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for review if any signage is proposed for the areas to be developed. This plan shall be consistent with the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the Oak Park PUD. This graphics and signage plan shall be consistent with the approved Final Development Plan for Oak Park, and its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within this subarea. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VIII. Universal Maintenance: Maintenance of any common areas within Subarea F shall be the responsibility of the existing Oak Park forced and funded homeowners' association, the Oak Park Community Association, Inc. IX. Model Homes: Homes may be used as model homes 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 this Subarea and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code 153.098. 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 X. Phasing: Subarea F may be developed in a single phase or in separate phases. XI. Homeowners Association: All residential property owners located within Subarea F of the Oak Park PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in the currently existing Oak Park forced and funded homeowners association, the Oak Park Community Association, Inc., which details the Homeowners responsibilities as detailed in the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions of Oak Park (Union County, Ohio, Recorder OR 857 page 618) which shall run with the land and shall include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners association this text Revised Version of 29 January, 2020 Christopher T. Cline, Attorney at Law Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, Ohio 43085 614-764-0681 ctckbhmlaw.com J.A20190713VCorrespondenceASubmittaIs\2020-01-29 PDP Council VVVorkin g Do aADevelopmeniTazr Version of 2020 01-29Jm. revdoc: Vicinity Map Scale: V= 2000' CIVIL ENGINEER & LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 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 OAK PARK PUD REZONING -SUBAREA F PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DUBLIN, OHIO (RESERVES A AND D) PREPARED FOR: OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 P: 732.750.1111 F: 732.596.8461 CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTAL: JANUARY 29, 2020 INDEX OF DRAWINGS 1. VICINITY MAP 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. SITE PLAN 4. TYPICAL SITE SECTIONS 5. OPEN SPACE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY 6. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 7. OVERALL OAK PARK SUBAREAS 8. OVERALL OAK PARK EXISTING RESERVES 9. OVERALL OAK PARK PROPOSED RESERVES 10. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ENLARGEMENT 11. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN OVERALL LEGAL COUNSEL Christopher T. Cline c/o Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis 300 West Wilson Bridge Rd. # 100 Worthington, OH 43085 Phone: 614-764-0681 Email: ctc@BHMLaw.com N f T�ck.w-it ZONED:PRL o�w�=� -: ..� ZONED:PRL Bishops Crossing 61 6G(rQ6� i-,' PLANNED LOW DENSITY r Dublin Jerome School °/ _ r� �. PLANNED LOW � - , - i:tEifod 4 Wit RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT i-rl- r�u.i �• (URB) J - /= DENSITY RESIDENTIAL4. DISTRICT ;' c 4 jiDUBLIN f •. Z�� _ (URB)- _ = .�• ., — 0 O (DUBLIN) w CITY OF DUBLIN - a - _ ` L_ CITY OF DUBLIN � v x UNION COUNTY —Hyland -Croy, Road — _ _ � . r JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY z o BAREA E 0—�e_ EXISTING A 1 EXISTING \\ -, �� �� A ` ZONED:RU f �' z`: /,/ �� — Oattree Drive North - — ` , SLTBAREA-F e Drive south r UBAREA F / RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ; RURAL �� ����(SITE)SITE _ = �/ III ()TWP (JEROME) z- RESIDENTIAL ( ) rII RESERVE A RESERVE D , t z (JEROME TWP) /I�. 'R� "i 311 ` , n / °' V -- e � �I, o II __�__ a IL---- o- EXISTING x ` _ - ZONED:RU x c 4 0 SUBAREAA J 1 RURAL o w` -' i I�------- — -- SUBAREA D=z..�` -------'- _� < , �� ii RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) `�' ` \ QJ QO ,_ ZONE UD .• / / -_.. -- ^ Oak Meadow Drive D:P a PLANNED UNIT 1 DEVELOPMENT �� kl' �� ' Glacier Ridge Metro Par a EXISTING ` / ' �� ,' /';/ �' ' , ���� � ," , I (DUBLIN) / °i j i o ZONED:RU `, /' `, _. `' �. - ,-- = -� _ - �- _.-'--_'-.._I a w do RURAL RESIDENTIALr / (AG) \. i -- ' /y. ,,a \✓ / SUBAREA B-1 1 m F- I - d �— SUBAREA B-2 - 5 L d0� w F w (JEROME TWP) / �. .; , rill~ ; L o _ s );--I I o I q t I - Z 4 �► 0 x W LJ I+ - - - - - - - - - - SUBAREA C i i SUBAREAA / ;�� Ir 1 _Pleaeaut Drive __ y rS, m E m 2`ooau o �— --- — — — — — — — — — — -- f -- / 4 •- / TY ER TW N ` _ - a BJanuary EXISTING 29,2020 ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL 'BC�r a etre ark SCALE As Noted (AG) \ (JEROME TWP) JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE SBEET 0 50 100 200 1/11 1 inch =100 feet ZONED:PRL PLANNED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (URB) (DUBLIN) CITY OF DUBLIN UNION COUNTY EXISTI N G ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) DUBLIN JEROME HIGH SCHOOL / EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL BISHOPS CROSSING RESIDENTIAL (AG) Z m axW (JEROME TWP) o 0 i SUZANNE B. FEASEL, U TRUZE LL -SHOP'S RUN SECTION 2 BISHOP'S R O 7 ZRN r� P. B. 5, P. 122 & 123pB. 5, P RESERVED ZAI NES B. FEASEL, TRUSTEE 23 BF F323EL SUZANNE B. FEASEL, TRUSTEE595, P. 821 O.B. O RESEF_. 00./ 595, P. 821 269. P. 2RO - -'9R- 59 '8. 821 — — — Z ZONED:PRL PLANNED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (URB) (DUBLIN) RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) HYLAND-CROY ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY EXISTING ,'ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) Existing Hockberry Trees Caliper : 2 at 8" , 2 at 9". All to be removed EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK \.,, lie axW 16 i as yy 1 isr rr r� IESERVE �A \�\ r� u. 3 .e:. �w Qi Ex Trees\ \ l T % _ A — RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) HYLAND-CROY ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY EXISTING ,'ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) Existing Hockberry Trees Caliper : 2 at 8" , 2 at 9". All to be removed EXISTING ZONED:RU RURAL RESIDENTIAL (AG) (JEROME TWP) GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 050 ioo zoo Rezoning Area SHEET 3.46 Ac. 1 inch = 100 feet 211 apo axW �wa r� ZA N Qi O DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 050 ioo zoo Rezoning Area SHEET 3.46 Ac. 1 inch = 100 feet 211 HKAW—Q40Y ROAD Bail moo I HXAAV—OWY ROAD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — n is fiboft Ar / uture Connection I 1 Future Connectir\ / p —- I --pr OrlMd Zeal Original Zoning nq / \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ /awe f_ lt-23-1. 1--23--1a 4 �'S1�7PI�E f — —' — —— r Oaldrce Drive North (Private Street) Oaktrce Drive South (Private Street) / \ \ \ \ 1 \ ( Front Yoni Sdbork (TYP 120- RiSMW� — Front Yoni Sdbork (TYP�J'e-a � >m• 20. 6• 6• s -e 6• 6' 6• 6' R,00O IF Enab R/IY — — — — 12e I .r is W fog o o m 129 a 130 131 132 g P 137 a 9 136 139 140 III I II T 1 I 6• 6' 6, I I p M — 12783 ----- 110 S' Finer Yard Setback (TP I % I 5' Reor Yard (TYP I .. y II I Iz � _yYYti I I EL J 9 PARC/ ag IN MACE Q ^. }0.33 Ac. A PAW aWV SOME 32 1 — I9AmLt I 133 I a 136 }0.33 Ac. o & o. 2 I Reserve P an dInq o l J 126 ��� -9 20.20. Reserve Q 11r 0 e� m - - - " r I I 2' 25- 31 134 135 m N I T I N N 112 J l 3 I � 125 � M e li — — _ — oAEW►E r. _ _ 2_ Sorzs'15E i gyp_ jSos1e's9'E 0 I '18' 9"E 2 so3.11'a31 �W 7 7 0 0• V o — 1so.ar — sa.oa' + �esz' 1 , 7632' Sa.oa' — — — 1so.aP — 505y1B'S9"E 505'18'59"y e Chiakapia Oak Lane (Private Street) Shumard Oak Lane (Private Street) w `< is E 124 Waw �If o =I 113 AE3�7P4E ba W IdESE1PIE 7V' o I ^ °o o 122 121 120 119 116 117 116 115 01 E I 29 12301 114 Jr' o � �x m ___ , • �� e U ���------ J a ---- -- F T Ramp'. n ap apap ap a ' 0 70 9 0 Nffl 3a'W 8 k Z setaY (TYP) 7 Z p 6 5 251.M'k 14 o �TYP) 3 t$ k Z = 2 — �— — O Meati ado Drive (Public Sh'cet)— m N It 0 3 0 M O m„ SITE DATA: z 0 W DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted Rezoning Area ± 3.46 Lots: 12 OU JOB NO. Open Space ± 0.66 ac 20190713 Impervious Area Per Lot 60% GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 SHEET 3/11 1 inch = 40 feet 0 � O W A aa�x P6I COO y p �y/ z Q' LJ O DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted Rezoning Area ± 3.46 Lots: 12 OU JOB NO. Open Space ± 0.66 ac 20190713 Impervious Area Per Lot 60% GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 SHEET 3/11 1 inch = 40 feet SECTION A: OAK PARK BOULEVARD (PUBLIC) NOT TO SCALE SECTION D: ACORN LANE / BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE) MOTTO SCALE SECTION B: CHINKAPIN OAK LANE / SHUMARD OAK LANE (PRIVATE) SECTION C: ACORN LANE / BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE NOTTOSCALE SECTION E: OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH / OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PRIVATEI NOT TO SCALE CROSS SECTION KEY PLAN Q MTE Luuary39,Nm (40 ZW ��i MBNA 30190]13 T LL SMET 4/11 > a,�,Sn_ U wz wa' az' x� a 0 MTE Luuary39,Nm 4 WC E AS Noted ��i MBNA 30190]13 T LL SMET 4/11 Dublin Jerome High School / v / /r4— -- — ISI Oaktree Drive North S05'1 8'59"E . . . Ex' Ramp Oak Meadow / (TYp) -- ------------------------------------------ Bishops Crossing Q Oaktree Drive South LA ToP9 — — to 0 Ex--F�amp (TYp) LL =I Glacier Ridge Metro Park Glacier Ridge Metro Park DATE January 29, 2020 I SCALE KEY As Noted WALKING PATH (IN PROGRESS) 4' SIDEWALK (EXISTING) 4' SIDEWALK (PROPOSED) BIKEPATH (EXISTING) EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 5/11 �r I w O J M 0 — Z r I m M Ir� l i T Ex--F�amp (TYp) LL =I Glacier Ridge Metro Park Glacier Ridge Metro Park DATE January 29, 2020 I SCALE KEY As Noted WALKING PATH (IN PROGRESS) 4' SIDEWALK (EXISTING) 4' SIDEWALK (PROPOSED) BIKEPATH (EXISTING) EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE JOB NO. GRAPHIC SCALE 20190713 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 5/11 JLL. J 922• VJ ���FFFer O Connection — per Original Zoning 1 4 RESER — — 3— - 4LUL1 0 VEB B 3 W - R En I — I � 12800 o 100 U N N 00 \ II n —I� I 127 - I 00 Z z a o A Z Y � M III117 III 16 III a 8031 p 3/4" waf service — Prop 6" San Service 129 Z,L a 916 18'59"E L eel 2 N I� T 2 C14 I _ Prop 3/4" i 11Prop 3/4" Water Water Service Service 505'18'59"E 4' —55.0'± 55.0'= Ex 6" San 1 Service 20' Front Yard Setback (TYP) s Waw) I I ervie a0 O M .3'± 105.3 691 _ 1 16' 00 O F.Mfti 131 i' 6'� 5' Rear Yard Setback (TW)--' 55.0'± 55.0'± E io Reserve spa ±0.33 Ac. Itl H7 a — — 50''Prop 3/ 4" Water Service 51859"E — — � T o kr+N*4 Oaktree Drive North 23'(Private Street)3Oaktree Drive South Prop 3/4" I f (Private Street) Water Irvice r 238t3' 69 0'± 50' r _ ss.o'±SanPropService R Pro "Prop 6"Fx 6" San San Service 20' Front Yard Setback (TYP) Service (TBA) 922 BO8�1 "E' 19 2 2 Ex 8" San Ex 6" San Prop 3/4' Service Service Water 1 Future Connectio per Original Zoning==__________� RESERVE I/o�O00 0Prop 3/4' ServiceWater 25' 25' Ex 6" WaterB B 6' Service 20' 6 6' 6. Service (TBA) { W Yp dinca YP dinglope -H -H 12' 12' + + + + 109 0 0 o r• ---y o a o 0 0 0 7 132 � y M II M M M M MI IZ } _ I } 137 138 139 140 �o III I I � II � 6' a �� l rn N 6' 6' O W +6 --- -- J Ex 6� San "' 110 Ex 6" Water 0 I Service (TBA) 5' Rear Yard Setback (n?'QNa Service (TBA) o — Z 69.0'± "7 69.0'± 55.0'± 55.0'± 62.9'± 135.0'± n "to 135.0' 107.4'± Ex 6" San I d I 1 :t L Service o a� an Service PN Ex 6" San o m + 0 RB3BrN4 Q > Typtca 133 Service WatProp r3 4r I m 1,36 ±0.33 Ac. Cel Enveline Prop 6' o Servi a A: � °p I Prop 3/4" a 111 San Es 20. .n O Water Y + Service o O .� +i a al ! I 135.0' N +i �i to 135.0' . I 20' io v N n a Prop 6 a n e r San Service I Prop 6" o o Prop San Service 1Sanitary 25' 25' IManhole Pro3/4" 11 Prop \} I 134 Prop 3/4" I �rn N I 1 m ServWatice 135 Nt co Water co co co w Service I 135.0'± 135.0'± f N01 236.83' /b242.83 Oi o ffi 2 RESERVE X07'26'1 — it °p! S05'18'S9"E _ _ 50_5'18'59"E 554.04 "ERESERVF 70 o m SIN m S061 8'59"E 150.81- 54.C'W °� 76.52 Y 76.52 " w eat Chinkapin Oak Lane (Private Street) 1 1 I Shumard Oak Lane (Private Street) S05' 18 59 E 150.81 m SOS`18`59"E 1 1 X - O 124 55.0' l o — 50' �I— y n T— _ a m s � i i ♦oz 0' B B I I FP�a 121 120 RESERVE "0' _ R/W IRESrEIP II 12' \� 11911 II III III II LEGEND 112 113 Existing Sanitary Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Existing Water Main —WS— Proposed Water Service Proposed Sanitary Service TBA To Be Abandoned z O r� A A Z W � III117 III 16 III 115 LEGEND 112 113 Existing Sanitary Sewer Existing Storm Sewer Existing Water Main —WS— Proposed Water Service Proposed Sanitary Service TBA To Be Abandoned z O r� A u DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 6/11 A Z W � ~ hyo ao� a t FSI a N Vl a u DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 SHEET 1 inch = 30 feet 6/11 ORIGINAL ZONING {i - -, _ �•_ '�:- � D CJ n � n n 7 �� r -n �' ayL ``'•ti _` - _ �. �.t { C'7 - �^ - - r -I- /ot� C Ls' ❑ .J I I -� n c e fit• 01 fJ ❑ ❑ c o' n n77 \' - ,.J/'1 -I D r'C� '1f�F7 C II� f'i O'- [5` C3_, '`, 7 C'•-- C�I�-1 ��� � � ] .�..E• I II`r�J--y-''],� f _ - � - �'�� . _ r-�,� .�'-7: (i �p tt L= 7 {.�`��.1,,�•7 r 1 -rI L, L1� Y�..5 .r�r '4 i aJ� __,J',I , _ •_ ..� E"� lJ ALJ r-�JII J ��C l .� J -�� ,,IJ L J ] I'. r�, fC- T, _ r, \ _ 4'� 4 s-' n n o o y ° C C._� [] C • ❑11 G`� ra`� o�i--� -� ? '� ❑ a 3 LI'�1%% CD T 0 r` CI,'� k]� [] r� L CI ] C� l _ _l II �t� ° n 0 4 �rj � . o _1 _ 0 ono qq I- IyIy tr �j, ru.^ `r •=ter- _ ISI ❑ G' 'J U-- - - 'J C7 r- - .�,.a. "?. „� •f"-� -mss- -�•�', _ l _ C �rr� � ",�i� `,� • a f�� M1� ]- [j nt'v r L J a ��] C`f J ❑ ` o Q'�J 1,` P i,, L'rr-----`.J- �. fl ``�� r -, C��❑ c❑ � C ❑ `f.�y., ❑4i �C� c J a D LJ [ D o fS ! C t r-.- © LL'T =�'J O L1 �' o o ] J c 1 'J a , I� �J �C L - _, 1 �� L 1c❑- r r , r.' C n I� I-II n n ❑ F❑ r. r,a� , r '- n n n n n r LJ n = n C i I� � . r� � n o n I � >� � �' L � • � I, � a I n — ❑a�J J= r 11 ] In O �ZJ-� 1 r r1 D qtr - _� � iI � I�• rte" � ' - '�- :e���Jd �o - U LJ LI r _ - . �u I i� '�� n jVl I. - - - - ❑C! �, �: I I ^ j- - -r . J11 e II' - ' "'�, � . • _ 1 °o L IL -`/ Q ©c J © r�C- r� i h � - rjjI I-1 Jn '� i nnl�; 1--, n I-1 4� 1 -_ ' 1 � 4 r � Jr lb ! i nY L 11 I �, 1 �i I��.l-1 i�°rl I `��.� r �/r _ ` � - -1.0 �rr,-r� I � I�j 4 I u IJ .'� j r � r - i 1'I � n �n I.� nn nL _ ti. r --- �` t' r L a IC[ nI ❑ �I I]n n ] �� n n FII f ,- L� r s i�I a r [I �I tti rrl Cl I`L- - ' `:�ti _ TJ` r rL--I �li� uL��C ��' -III �4J L�� ���5'�i+-lll 1 7 l-_1 L \ -� � - l illlLl r 1 �J �❑ D o l - J S ll BAR EA 'A` \ - _ " , _ l ❑� �� ❑� ❑a ❑�I , al , ., \�. 1 C'C 0= C E= ❑° nC� D° 0 ❑° D ❑° D 0 ❑° .� ��`A'" 34.4 ALC. \ ` ❑� D ❑� ❑� 0 0 ❑° D ❑° ❑Q D �� ' -� r7 0 ,2° 7n . = n❑ y Flq� '1�-w- C r-, 7-7 BUFF F� MF -� _ ;,}�--II ,�+,;�--I - ' .141- C4} :U . -I ' ".J n '-' '4J - �rr I � �S \ � � � *� ���, ❑❑ 1 ,`h� ( I�i I. 1� ] n �'� n n n J 11c, 11c,r ° r' ", n 0 o f `� � � '`♦ I;.!16 jj 11 U i J `' o� 'I • � ,�� o TT pp /1 O m 24 26N. 27 \ v Jx Jla ,❑ a u c is I,ar ` 23 �ti ` ,�\ `�` /} ` 1 -❑� o ,I.1 rr ' 1 22 42 � 2$ 1 1 y 011 011 FrL� C }ti-._ - - _ - i , �vJ J -sr. If I inn n n n 20 'r , 29 30 31 32 , 33 ` II I 1...F 41 n n n n �❑ ❑❑ � v __ 1 // r/ •� • y,1 3� - �- - 1 1I `� - � Il ( Vit• I �,� �'� � n� n n n 2 1s �i ."U$ARE I �- -j- .+/-5.3 8 0 oa o / o _I 18 �►C7 SU1F /A RISA 'D' n4 ,D►. j�I s D J� q ❑ ❑ ` 7 e{, o c aQa J ° C \ �J 3 97 +T� �.7 J`1�. i�3 IU5 1Q7 n , } f �% G n` �` 17 Jl , I b o t �r _ f .. >> q��lil r - - 3b I I a G n T—D Fr C �i 35 k ❑ ( nn 1 96 1 r-❑ n rJ� I 48 1 49 50 51 S2 ' y �... n n ZA nn ��nnr L_ - - I 34 94 93 92 Q a s a a a r _ �, I -I n STI 1 Q /� Q 1 - _ _ - _ '" f tC Lr� P�1 I 4 SUL7A�lEA lcl - L� �(�� �_ �) a ❑ CJ � I 7- __ n1Jll u� �� o C I CD ©Q.4 VD � f� �n 7n n � 7 �] 1. Il 0 J +/- L.8 Ac. - - - — -- `" '.J-� n r 4 o a L [� r , f f I� J I �. SUBAREA E ❑ L_ :�ti na aAl dD, +1- 8,3 Ac t , ----- - - - --- •�I 0 I �_ �L ❑ ���� �n �� C �n n' 57' � 5C I 55 � 54 ' 53-� a� n 7 �r�; o r, n n _ _ I ❑ I I G' C ".' u�, �,� n �� ]` til, LZ'JI , n ❑ non � I 5 I 471 0 0 o n F•1 II II II -- I I ti A� � L I I o •�r� 14 II l # I' 58 70 III --�� � T I�r 1 S 2 - ,A,J J` t /� ♦ I I 1 � I { j �_�1�i tip• ❑ a 5.6 Ac. - — - 83 kil _ I,_j J��' - - 79 17 ?`. 7i ° I J � II I 59 1 69 - °n �� 0 _� °❑ 1 I I I - I - - -- - - - - - _ - - ny- 68 60 01 N Lr 12 I � � � IPI I. I h -,, I — - - 61 I 6i I � ' I � - L� I _ � 7 J r l Ifs VIII iJ ,' 0 n - 1 r - - - -I I I i '� , 1 �� -, n —� ❑ I -I I u _ i 1 I 63 64 6S ' II + 1 ,cl Ilii o I t1 I I I 62 � 1, 1' L L _ i J_ II- �L EI a ❑ JL _ 5 0 e CJ a ° 7 " :" ❑ p o 0 0 ❑ n �, ❑ �, n- D-��-r 10 9 8 7 6 J - J o 7r� : �Isy ❑ .�`L� + - �- Ill'_' J 1 ti� 1L� n Jr"L� _a �n�sM•� h n - o o �,-'_ ]I , �'-' �! � " n�� � L I I J � �y L,,� ` �--� � J, T`� �'� _� n � u -u �� Ir ; � I_ 4. J ,-� =1 =-j � I � � n tl .. r P1 ; I � - II 1 �,. ;.� G� • �i _ -1 � � f.. ?J_ . _ C� _mm C7 7 y Pr "n � � "�. . d r .. o - i z 1 - -_ _. __ _ -�� � .� _ ........�.�w� � - ��� i L, ,--� � J� - _ L - ,' [I ' � ,, 0 b �J 7h❑ � ❑� � �}} �7 IU L L=L__ LC] 13 C] J LI,_ L9jnl ` u LJ x 710� 0 Clfl �I D J _ _ _ ]_ _ ❑_ _D n 11f I_ '`.�__ _ n -L �L� ORIGINAL ZONING- SUBAREA PLAN D and E SUBAREA USE DESCRIPTION UNITS A PARK HOMES 60'- 80' Width x 125' Depth 33 B-1 and B-2 VILLAGE HOMES 55'- 60' Width x 125' Depth 39 C CLUBHOUSE NA NA D TOWNHOMES 24' Lot Width x 104' Depth 36 E NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 39,700 SF NA TOTAL UNITS 20 108 TOTAL OAK PARK ACREAGE OPEN SPACE 61.39AC GROSS DENSITY F 1.76 DU/AC OPEN SPACE 55' Min. Width x 130' Min. Depth 31.3 AC I � ii I II I II it PROPOSED ZONING I I I I I I I I I II I 11 'v I �11Its SUBAREA A \ \ rr f ♦ ` W � \ ``, fJ \ \ i NIL .......................... rr 0 _1 f I • r�, S\ AREA V _ SUBAREA `D' 71� ii I Jf I � i I l All F L--- SUBAREA T. `! __- ----- ----1----- -- .� c I F__7: II II I II I I ii II I II II II II II II I II II II I I II II I ' II II n II II II II II I I l I II II II 1f rl l 1, II I I s [ I I p �� I— .+...�wr �F Ir --c � N 1 }r p-1i� II i i �I II II - - - -__ --- ---_ -_---- - - -- -=-- _-- - ,_„-�.� -� SUBAREA T- -1 F' t' n 11 - u _ L _ r 1 1 ! 1 I 11 I I u ,I SUBAREA fB2' 11 li I• I I i ! I I I 1 ti, � u il_ - - - II ----------------------------- F 11 11 III II I: - / i� �r I I I I I I I �nrn 1 Win - E419 RE -ZONED SUBAREAS D and E SUBAREA A�� USE DESCRIPTION UNITS A PARK HOMES 60' - 80' Width x 125' Depth 33 B-1 and B-2 VILLAGE HOMES 55' - 60' Width x 125' Depth 39 C CLUBHOUSE NA NA D VILLA HOMES 55' Min. Width x 104' Depth 20 E OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE NA F A Q PROPOSED VILLA HOMES 55' Min. Width x 130' Min. Depth 12 TOTAL UNITS 104 DU TOTAL OAK PARK ACREAGE 61.39AC GROSS DENSITY 1.69 DU/AC OPEN SPACE 31.8 C a Q� U ”' � - -0 C = � O M C N � 6M O N =O N 00 06`5 O c E � N � O = t2 0 = 0 o 0 L 0 o U > � rn � L6 V; Z O N D 00 O i cLOL LU LU tfi C O V a.d t v DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 SHEET 7/11 A a A�� i W a a � � 0 A Q a Q� U ”' � - -0 C = � O M C N � 6M O N =O N 00 06`5 O c E � N � O = t2 0 = 0 o 0 L 0 o U > � rn � L6 V; Z O N D 00 O i cLOL LU LU tfi C O V a.d t v DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 SHEET 7/11 • NMI 1� ♦ � v \ \� � 1 1 1 ♦ 1 1 1 N 6 %WN 4 w - �JL ►yi Q0 i . TIN NN ro ♦ • .t , ,�! W � w -fi • OAK PARK RESERVES KEY NAME/USE OWNER MAINTENANCE RESP. ACRES NOTES Public Streets- Previously PUBLIC STREET CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN N/A Dedicated Large Open Spaces RESERVES E. F, H -OPEN SPACE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 24 Surrounding the Development RESERVE K- ISLAND CITY OF DUBLIN OAK PARK HOA* 0.16 Small landscape island Reserves N and O (.Ob8 act RESERVES G, L, M, N, O -OPEN SPACE OAK PARK HOAR` OAK PARK HOAR` 3.67 replaced B and C (0.228) RESERVES I AND J OAK PARK HOA' OAK PARK HOA* 1.76 1 Private Alleys RESERVES A AND D OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC OAK PARK DUBLIN LLC 3.46 Existing Commercial Reserves OAK PARK RESERVES KEY NAME/USE OWNER MAINTENANCE RESP. ACRES +/- NOTES PUBLIC STREET CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN N/A Public Streets- Previously Dedicated W RESERVES E, F, H -OPEN SPACE CITY OF DUBLIN CITY OF DUBLIN 2A Large Open Spaces Surrounding the Development RESERVE K- ISLAND CITY OF DUBLIN OAK PARK HOA* 0.16 Small landscape island RESERVES G, L, M, N, O -OPEN SPACE OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 3.67 Reserves N and O ( .068 ac) replaced B and C (0.228) a RESERVES I AND J OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 1.761 Private Alleys RESERVES P AND Q -OPEN SPACE OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 0.66 reserves (0.33 ac each) created RESERVES R AND S OAK PARK HOA* OAK PARK HOA* 0.56 Two private streets (0.28 ac each) OAK PARK HOA* = OAK PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION GRAPHIC SCALE DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 0 15 30 60I SDEET Iinch =30feet 9/11 A a z ASII W w a O x QaW�CG0 x o aFzI�Q a a aWx z dlv`O oCOOa Z N / ISI a DATE January 29, 2020 SCALE As Noted JOB NO. 20190713 0 15 30 60I SDEET Iinch =30feet 9/11 P6d-9 IN'Eli U @ IIII / rilkol Ef 4aft, es rll� t tFd rdUfPr kC'" I Re I f6rP.ld1• f Q i �. 61 Etb &If tilIE fl E(Iif44 I I.41'EEiI'� k pf<.1fEtl8r IfE@bl' I-Pl-tlu.r Ptfecrtl:IR-* a i Dublin Jemme High School s a O ktw Dri: North OaklrccD Sm Po"' e x A. I ` a - t�„ 1 ti Ll k1l. s rL .. __ _.. OakM Uox'Drn-e i 4f_ M1 d Rte. i i f• - J C 1, _I'lemani Dr — - Iry u lie i'y _ 1`r l a 1.1 der ahlF li ,mr.rk _ z Q r i wJ.0> c ,� o acW mmw z �rnd 00 NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS ARE FOR E,LUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. SEE TEXT FOR LIMITATIONS ON DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS. DATE Novemher 21, 2019 M No1N d EnD. 28190]13 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 IN IW SDREr 11/11 1 loch - 100 hct " &rhoPa Cronsing H land -C o a -No — O ktw Dri: North OaklrccD Sm Po"' e x A. I ` a - t�„ 1 ti Ll k1l. s rL .. __ _.. OakM Uox'Drn-e i 4f_ M1 d Rte. i i f• - J C 1, _I'lemani Dr — - Iry u lie i'y _ 1`r l a 1.1 der ahlF li ,mr.rk _ z Q r i wJ.0> c ,� o acW mmw z �rnd 00 NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS ARE FOR E,LUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. SEE TEXT FOR LIMITATIONS ON DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS. DATE Novemher 21, 2019 M No1N d EnD. 28190]13 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 IN IW SDREr 11/11 1 loch - 100 hct I Reserve R Oaktree Drive North PARK/OPEN SPACE 30 33 Ac Reserve P k� ...,...4��a� Chinkaoin Oak Lane cLa Oaktree Drive South Reserve S 0 a I7" z 0 .r x PARK/OPEN SPACE t3 33 Ac. Reserve O l z AZZ ep 9=W a � Q F a 5424-�-s o£�Qa*m L r_ _ W s4 r rl,Lr �o a �E°U_ © a, i< / DATB a ✓✓✓ Janaars,29,2020 >�� 4CALE - �� �•� �.� t 3 g As NoteL SITE DATA: .wen0. t NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS ARE FOR Rezoning Area 3.48 2029D713 ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. SEE TEXT FOR Lots: tz Du LIMITATIONS ON DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS.GRAPHIC SCALE Open Space 3 0.60 ac 81. re 30 3 Impervious Area Per Lot 00% 10/11 1 inch =30 feet Oak Meadow Drive r • y+. m pmem-- . . L V 1 I -lip �'� •� 4 �f --------------- Dnie a X4.:1 �� ld,Y�E. i, fa• „W Ile fie. AY[ 40 a gp 0 I! b� 1 ' pyA,V ',�. �jy�,�,'•_�•,,� � r w�1 ., �Y-k ??•ya: Vim. 3IV, p 1�y 4 �f --------------- Dnie a X4.:1 �� ld,Y�E. i, fa• „W Ile 40 gp 0 I! 3IV, p 1�y l Wdcox Rd r` ' Gleouillage Dr rr I ... IF I 1 .� — • . • • u 1_MMEno �l Ti - 1�� ` `7 -1 .• I I _ a lk r m r4a I M • a ~ _ 4� h � • i -' R 'tel •1p Z}I'i E M H11T WILLOW GROVE: WILLOW GROVE LANE (PRIVATE) DUBLIN VILLAGE: REAR ALLEY (PRIVATE) CORTONA : PERSARO WAY (PRIVATE) MAGE LOACTI O N OAK PARK PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN a '•. , s4. t _. &_*�V-rJA MAGE L OAC TION DUBLIN STREET EXAMPLES WITHOUT SIDEWALKS .T i a i� kwiL— �rb -.16 . 2/4 ti MAGE LOACTI O N Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists N L W ^.C✓ �g ij�. q J Y l as l s yi a _ x �&�"lrk a Fimi-OAWm.- 3 111111111111111 �+ INTEGRATED CURBS AND SIDEWALKS f q Z$� v i f \" 1 2 Z(AJ +fj I f+I rl {'r r{ • L '•I 5y,. SII 'Idkb.. 'I I 'III •� I � r r v ,i 'M IE± � s .,Z�4e; r _ r s. 1r L -- Carson W� r i r Y w• s.•r� ! I J i ♦i y� u `, oT 3- •.�4fI1 � .aais, . `j � -:: .f�.f \ �'. �.. va, c ry � ii h. _ ?ii •,�� r- eF I t 1 i ••R' h Jf r r r y1 _ r l• 1r Q `k..� `\I .. �{�`i`hT 73� ''F4 `\ �'�, � _ _� V -• I 4. 1 ✓ I.. .. 6/ y / �Z EMHlT SIDEWALKS WITH TREE LAWN HEATHER GLEN NORTH: INNOVATION DRIVE (PUBLIC) OAK PARK PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IMAGE LOCATION 071 .`' DUBLIN VILLAGE (PUBLIC) DUBLIN VILLAGE AND HYLAND DRIVE +y .k r, IMAGE LOCATION DUBLIN STREET EXAMPLES WITH sioEwnLKs 4/4 Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists RECORD OF ACTION Cityof Iblin Planning & Zoning Commission a° o. o5A Thursday, December 12, 2019 16,30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2, Oak Park 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard 19400Z•PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: Rezoning ±3,47 am within the Oak Park neighborhood ,currently a portion of Subarea E) from commerdal to residential to allow 12 single- famlly homes and 0,66 acres of open space, Location: West of Hyland -Croy Road, southwest of the Intersection with Brand Road. Request: Review and recommendatloa of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153,050.153.056 Applicant: Christopher Cline, Attorney—Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis Planning Contact, Chase Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I Contact Information: 514,410,4656, cridge@dublln.oli Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gcvlpzc/19.100 MOTION; Ms, Kennedy moved, Ms, Call seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Rezoning with a preliminary Development Plan with five conditions; 1) That the appllcant update the text and plans to create a new Subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined In Zoning code Sector 153.054(B)(5)(t); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the Final Development Plan; 4) That the applicant work with Staff to ensure that all Improvements are wRhin the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan submission; and 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed to Zoning Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan submission, VOTE; 4.2 RESULT: The Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval to City Coundl. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING 5801ShlerRings koad Ouhllo,Ohio 43016 phone 614.410,46H fax 614.410.4747 2. Oak Park 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard 19-10OZ-PDP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan RECORDED VOTES; Victoria Newell Yes Jane Pox No Warren Flshman No KrISOna Kennedy Yes William Wilson Absent MarkSupelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Chose]. Ridge, AICP ndlda d, lannerI Page 2 of 2 PLANNING 5800 Shier RingsRog Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614410,4600 fax 614,410.4147 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 2 of 32 sle] 0 1-14 011 reed 401 DU 2. Oak Park, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-100, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Newell stated that this is a request for a rezoning of ±3.47 acres within the Oak Park neighborhood (currently a portion of Subarea E) from commercial to residential to allow 12 single- family homes and 0.66 -acre of open space. This site is west of Hyland -Croy Road, southwest of its intersection with Brand Road. The following case -- Case 3, is for the same site and the request is for a recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The Commission will hear the cases together. Case Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that Case 2 is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan. Case 3 is the associated request for review and recommendation of approval to Council for a preliminary plat for the same property. The Commission will hear Cases 2 and 3 together. The Concept Plan was heard by the Commission on August 22, 2019. This site is currently zoned PUD, Oak Park, and Subarea E. It is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. The zoning history on this site includes the following: 2006 — Original Rezoning from R- Rural to PUD 2007 — Final Development Plan for single-family residential components 2017 — Rezoning and FDP in Subarea D 2019 — Concept Plan for rezoning this portion of Subarea E A significant number of residents attended the hearing on the Concept Plan in August. A neighborhood spokesperson presented the residents' concerns regarding the anticipated financial burden on the HOA, the general layout of the site and issues such as setbacks. At the Concept Plan review, the Commission was generally in favor of the request to rezone the area to allow for a change in use for the subarea; however, the Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the financial burden on the HOA, as well as the lack of connectivity to the proposed greenspaces. Proposal The current proposal is essentially the same as the Concept Plan. The plan includes 12 single- family lots and two open spaces on approximately 3.5 acres. The open spaces comprise approximately two-thirds of an acre. The proposed lots surround the greenspaces on two sides, Mall 2. Oak Park, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-100, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Newell stated that this is a request for a rezoning of ±3.47 acres within the Oak Park neighborhood (currently a portion of Subarea E) from commercial to residential to allow 12 single- family homes and 0.66 -acre of open space. This site is west of Hyland -Croy Road, southwest of its intersection with Brand Road. The following case -- Case 3, is for the same site and the request is for a recommendation of approval to City Council for a preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The Commission will hear the cases together. Case Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that Case 2 is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan. Case 3 is the associated request for review and recommendation of approval to Council for a preliminary plat for the same property. The Commission will hear Cases 2 and 3 together. The Concept Plan was heard by the Commission on August 22, 2019. This site is currently zoned PUD, Oak Park, and Subarea E. It is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. The zoning history on this site includes the following: 2006 — Original Rezoning from R- Rural to PUD 2007 — Final Development Plan for single-family residential components 2017 — Rezoning and FDP in Subarea D 2019 — Concept Plan for rezoning this portion of Subarea E A significant number of residents attended the hearing on the Concept Plan in August. A neighborhood spokesperson presented the residents' concerns regarding the anticipated financial burden on the HOA, the general layout of the site and issues such as setbacks. At the Concept Plan review, the Commission was generally in favor of the request to rezone the area to allow for a change in use for the subarea; however, the Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the financial burden on the HOA, as well as the lack of connectivity to the proposed greenspaces. Proposal The current proposal is essentially the same as the Concept Plan. The plan includes 12 single- family lots and two open spaces on approximately 3.5 acres. The open spaces comprise approximately two-thirds of an acre. The proposed lots surround the greenspaces on two sides, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 3 of 32 while the existing private drive network binds the greenspaces on the other two sides. The proposed lots range in size from 0.16 acres to 0.22 acres with a minimum width of 55 feet. Sideyard setbacks will be six feet, consistent with the remaining development. The proposed front -yard setbacks are 20 feet. In comparison, in Subareas A and B the setback ranges from a minimum of 13 feet to a maximum of 20 feet. Rear -yard setbacks will be 15 feet; they are 25 feet in Subareas A and B. Subarea D differs due to its smaller lot size; sideyard setbacks are a minimum of six feet, whereas rear and front yard setbacks are smaller — 9 and 10 feet. The proposal also calls for on -street parking on Oak Tree Drive north and south. The parking spaces are within the geographic boundary of this rezoning. The applicant is proposing sidewalk improvements outside of the geographic boundary of this rezoning. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within those boundaries. Staff also asks that the applicant update the development text and plans to indicate the creation of a new subarea. A graphic has been provided that indicates the ownership and maintenance of the entire PUD. Ownership and Maintenance Public streets are owned and maintained by the City. Approximately 50% of the space is open space. Reserves E, F and H account for 24 of the 61 acres of the site. A small ROW island is maintained by the HOA. The reserves are located in the middle of the site. Reserves G, M, H and L are HOA owned and maintained. Reserves J and I are the private drives owned and maintained by the HOA. Reserves A and D are the areas in question for this review. Oak Tree North and South Portions of Oak Tree Drive N. and S. (private drives) are within the proposed rezoning area. Criteria 7 require that there are adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities. The street width of Oak Tree Drive N. and S. was designed to accommodate emergency and fire vehicles, and it has existing straight curb. The pavement buildup for Oak Tree Drive N. and S. is identical to public street standards and provides adequate pavement strength and durability for vehicular and fire apparatus routing. The proposed development includes 4 -ft. sidewalks on both sides of Oak Tree Drive N. & S. with an 8 -ft. tree lawn width on the west side and 9 -ft. tree lawn width on the east side. Oak Tree Drive N. & S. has an inverted crown with drainage facilities along the centerline of the drives to accommodate stormwater conveyance. The applicant has provided a trip generation analysis that shows the proposed 12 detached, single-family homes will reduce the daily trip generation by approximately 74% compared to the original commercial zoning. Architecture The architecture of Oak Pak is unique in requirements and neighborhood theme. Previously approved elevations will continue to be used in this portion of the development. Any of those homes that will fit on the proposed lots is permitted. Most sites allow for court- loaded or side - loaded garages. The sites will continue the use of the hedgerow feature, which is a unique character element in this development. Overall, the architecture will be indistinguishable from what currently exists. 3. Oak Park, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-101, Preliminary Plat The same information for the preceding rezoning and preliminary development plan for this site applies to this case, which is the preliminary plat for the same development. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 4 of 32 The rezoning and development plan have been reviewed against all applicable criteria, and staff recommends approval with five conditions. The preliminary plat has been reviewed against all applicant criteria, and staff recommends approval with three conditions. Commission Questions for Staff Ms. Fox inquired if the sidewalks will be outside of the rezoning and in the right-of-way. Mr. Ridge responded that there are portions that are outside of the boundaries of this rezoning. That issue is addressed by Condition #4: "That the applicant work with staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan." Ms. Fox stated that it appears the reason it was designed that way was due to insufficient space. How would staff address that? It seems some of the sidewalks have tree lawn; some do not. Ms. Husak responded that information is provided on page 3 in the Preliminary Plat drawings. Mr. Ridge stated that there is sidewalk adjacent to the curb, and one of the conditions is that it be pushed further to the east, so that there will be tree lawn. That area begins with Lot #134 and extends along Reserve P. Ms. Fox inquired if there is anywhere else in the development where there is a sidewalk/curb combination and no tree lawn. Looking at the satellite view of the site, it appears that almost all of the sidewalks have tree lawn. Is this the only area in which the curb and sidewalk meet, and that there would be no tree lawn? Ms. Husak responded that this is the only situation in Oak Park where a sidewalk is in an alley. All the other sidewalks are with public streets, where a tree lawn is required by Code. In this case, because of the location along private drives, there is no requirement for a sidewalk nor a tree lawn. Mr. Ridge pointed out the areas where sidewalk is proposed outside the rezoning area. Those are areas where there are private drives. Applicant Presentation Christopher Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis, 300 W Wilson Bridge Rd, Suite 100, Worthington, OH 43085, Worthington, representing the applicant, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, stated that also present with him is Linda Menerey, EMH&T. They are proud to be able to present a high quality plan, which is called the "New Village Homes." There are already two subareas that are known as the "Park Homes," and the "Village Homes;" therefore, this new development will be known as the "New Village Homes." In terms of development standards, this development will be midline between the other two. History A detailed history was provided with the earlier Concept Plan review. The original subarea rezoning plan for Oak Park referred to the "Park Homes" in Subarea A and the "Village Homes" in Subareas Bl and B2. The proposed rezoning and development will replace the existing commercial retail zoning in Subarea E. The original landowner, HC Associates, required the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 5 of 32 commercial area. There were actually three developers, HC Associates, the applicant in the original rezoning; ]SDI Dublin LLC, the developer of the commercial development, if it had been developed; and Oak Park Dublin, LLC. The commercial area dictated multiple aspects of this plan. It created a requirement for private access roads to service the commercial parking lots. It also presented a requirement for a barrier to protect the single-family homes to be built by Oak Park Dublin, LLC. That barrier consisted of the townhomes in Subarea D. They were three stories high; the concept was that the vertical element would provide a barrier. When it became obvious that the commercial development was not going to move forward, they presented a proposal to the Planning Commission to replace the plan for 36 townhomes with a plan for 20 villa lots. These are 55 -ft. lots, which are typical, but they have access from the private drives, rather than having frontloaded or side loaded access, which is more typical of the homes in Oak Park. That plan and plat have been approved. The commercial area has been a drain on Oak Park and presented a risk for the Oak Park Dublin developer and the residents who were concerned that if the commercial element were developed, it would negatively impact the residents' quality of life and their property values. That risk impacted the desirability of the lots and the marketability of the subdivision. In June 2019, Oak Park Dublin was able to attain control of the commercial area. That acquisition was a longstanding goal of Oak Park and the residents, and achieving this goal was strongly encouraged by the Planning Commission when the villa rezoning occurred. Unfortunately, they were not successful in gaining control until earlier this year. That acquisition was quite costly to Oak Park in regard to money, debt forgiveness and contractual commitments, which have placed constraints on Oak Park in moving forward with this rezoning. All of the site limitations and challenges are the result of a commercial area being converted to a residential use. The applicant is attempting to fix a problem it did not create. There are standards in this subarea that do not exist in the other subareas. Subareas A and B Subarea A surrounds on the outside perimeter and backs up to the public open space. Subarea B consists of two sections, which are interior lots. In Subarea A, there are 33 Park Home lots with front lot widths of 60, 70 or 80 feet, one-third of the lots for each width. The zoning requires a minimum lot depth of 125 feet; as platted, it is 130 feet. Their side yard setback is six feet, which is consistent in all the subareas. The rear yard setback is 25 feet, which is larger than in the other subareas. The 39 interior lots in Subareas Bl and B2 have the Village Homes. They have a minimum front yard width of 55 feet, although 15 lots must be 60 feet or greater. The minimum lot depth is 125 feet, but as platted, is 130 feet; the side yard setback is six feet; the rear yard setback is 15 feet. The front yard setback in Subarea A and B is a minimum of 13 feet and maximum of 20 feet. This has resulted in some issues with front easements for sanitary sewers. On multiple occasions, there has been a conflict between the platted building area and the utility easement. They want to avoid a similar problem here. Subarea E In this new subarea, there are 12 lots with a minimum lot width of 55 feet, which is identical to the existing Village Home lots. Of the 12 lots, only four lots are 55 feet; two lots are 59 feet, 8 inches; two lots are 63 feet; and four lots are 69 feet. The size of the home that can be built is dictated by the lot width, so a 69 -ft. lot has a broad building envelope. The minimum lot depth is 130 feet; the rear yard setback is 15 feet; and the front yard setback is 20 feet. Although the binder accompanying the original zoning provided five renderings each for the Park and the Village Homes, any of the model homes could be built on any of the lots provided it fit and met the development standards. There is no difference in quality between the homes. Any of the 20+ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 6 of 32 model homes can be built in this new subarea, as well. The concept of this conservation subdivision is that the homes will be concentrated within a limited area, surrounded by extensive open space. Sidewalks have been included in the alley reserve areas. The private streets within those reserve areas are significantly wider than traditional alleys, and are available for any access, including vehicular. Because the Commission has no authority over area outside the area to be rezoned, they have agreed to Condition 4. However, it is unusual for a development to include alleys within the development. Of note, these private streets are 20-22 feet wide; alleys are typically 15 feet wide. The sidewalks to the east and along Oak Park Boulevard are within the lot area, and that is atypical; typically, sidewalks are provided within the right-of-way. This change has been requested by Engineering, and they have agreed to it. Existing Private Streets There are existing private streets that are not part of this Subarea, which are the homeowner association's responsibility. This was part of the original zoning. The new rezoning will create new reserves. Approximately 500 feet of new pavement will be added, and two new greenspaces will be added. At the Concept Plan discussion, the private streets were a significant issue for the homeowners. They asked if the private streets could be converted to public streets. That is not possible, as it would require destruction of the existing streets, curbs and utilities infrastructure and construction of completely new streets. Although the private streets have the same road beds as public streets, their drainage is different. They are inverted crown streets. The cost of removing and replacing the existing private streets with public streets would be $365,000. All of the streets would need to be the same to provide consistent drainage within the development. That is assuming the City would allow the cul de sac traffic circles to remain; if not, the cost would exceed $440,000. That is not a reasonable cost for 12 additional home lots. Typically, a new addition to a developed subdivision follows similar development standards with similar architecture as the existing development. The new lots will be the same or better than the existing lots. Developers are very interested in providing a dominant front door with defining characteristics for a housing development. This subdivision has been missing an attractive, inviting front door, but the proposed development will provide that. Oak Park's attractiveness, marketability and home values will increase if this rezoning proposal is approved. Questions for Applicant Ms. Fox stated that at the previous meeting regarding this proposed development, the applicant was asked to meet with homeowners. Did that occur? Mr. Cline responded that he did so. He met with some of the residents for approximately two hours and explained the reason his client was not able to give on most of the issues. He believes that meeting achieved a glimpse into the economics of this issue. No one will gain a significant investment. He explained that if the applicant was not able to develop these subareas within the Oak Park development, he would have to develop it separately, not as part of Oak Park. He does not believe the residents preferred that option, as it would be beneficial to include it in the Oak Park HOA declarations. Ms. Fox requested clarification regarding the front -loading versus side -loading garages. Mr. Cline responded that the Concept Plan text no longer exists. The development will follow the City's residential development standards. They will continue what has already been a success in Oak Park. All of the garage doors are carriage type. Mr. Fishman inquired the anticipated price for the new homes. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 7 of 32 Mr. Cline responded that, currently, they have been experiencing sales above $500,000. Similar sales are anticipated, particularly if the commercial development threat is removed. Mr. Supelak inquired who is currently responsible for the landscape maintenance. Are these lots already mowed by the HOA? Mr. Cline responded the commercial landowner of Subarea D did nothing. To date, the home developer has handled all of the maintenance without reimbursement. Public Comment Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, Dublin, OH, stated that she is representing the Oak Park homeowners' concerns with this development. She is a member of the community. When she spoke on behalf of the residents at the August 22 Commission meeting, several concerns were raised concerning the developer's proposal for rezoning of the commercial lots, including the burden on the HOA for maintenance of the private roads and the closeness of the proposed homes. The residents requested that the developer bring back previous Option A, which was a comprehensive development plan. It would have included the redevelopment of the townhomes and the commercial lots and conversion of all the private roads to public roads. The Commission indicated that Option A could not be considered, as it was no longer being proposed. The Commission also encouraged the developer to work with the homeowners to gain support for the rezoning. The Commission also raised concerns about the safety of the private roads, including the lack of sidewalks. Although the developer never reached out to the residents, a group of residents did reach out to the developer's representative. At that meeting, the homeowners asked that their concerns be shared with the developer and that a meeting be facilitated between the residents and the developer. Although they were provided his name, they were given no specific contact information. The developer's representative indicated that the developer would make no changes in the proposed plan and that it was a "take or leave it" proposal. The burden on the HOA for the maintenance of the existing private roads and those in this new subarea continue to be a concern, although the lack of sidewalks appears to have been addressed. The lot width of the proposed lots, the number of driveways leading to the main boulevard, the lack of tree lawn space between sidewalks and the curbs are also a concern. She believes the private alleys surrounding the commercial lots are a rezoning matter for the following reasons: 1. The developer is proposing improvements with the alleys, thereby making the alleys part of this proposal. 2. The alleys were intended to support the commercial use, so should now be converted to support for the residential use. 3. As proposed, they would not be connected to the existing sidewalks in the community. Staffs condition does not appear to look beyond the immediate parcel. 4. The two additional sidewalks and tree lawn maintenance would become the responsibility of the HOA. Although the additional greenspace in the new development is desirable, they are willing to give it up for the purpose of widening the alleys and the home lots. The latter is also beneficial to the developer, as it will make those lots more marketable. Why is the tree lawn space proposed to be an HOA responsibility? Currently, each Oak Park resident is responsible for maintaining the tree lawn space in front of their homes. Because the residents have been unable to discuss their concerns with the developer, they have a signed petition to submit to the Commission. The residents request the Commission not approve the rezoning and preliminary plat at this time. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 8 of 32 Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to accept the document into the records. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call, yes. [Motion approved 6-0.] Ms. Houseman stated that 94% of the residents do not support this rezoning due to the burden on the HOA for maintenance of the additional private roads and greenspace, as well as the proposed configuration of the development, including the lack of tree lawn space, the lot widths and the driveways off the main boulevard. The residents understand that if this application is not approved, the lots would remain as commercial lots with the possibility of being developed as such. The residents suggest that the Commission table the application on the condition that the developer work with the residents to address the issues. They thank City staff members who took the time to come to the community and speak with the residents. Commission Discussion Mr. Fishman expressed appreciation to the residents who attended this meeting to express their views. Public involvement is what makes Dublin a great City. As Mr. Cline is aware, Dublin's mantra has been that if a developer is economically unable to build a development the right way, then it should not be built. For many years, the City has discouraged building private streets, as they inevitably become an undue burden for the homeowner associations when some years later, they require extensive maintenance. At that point, HOAs petition the City for assistance. The burden then becomes the City's. Mr. Cline has indicated that the cost would $300,000 to convert the private roads to public roads. That is approximately $30,000 for each of the proposed homes. Perhaps a special assessment could be used. Also, in Dublin, many HOAs have sub associations to address particular issues within the development. Perhaps if the residents feel strongly about the private road issue, they could form a sub association to handle the private road responsibilities. Mr. Supelak inquired what the amount of the current HOA fee. Ms. Houseman responded that it is $95/month, or $1,152/year. Mr. Supelak stated that there appear to be two options regarding the private roads -- either Engineering agrees to accept them as private roads, or they would be rebuilt as public roads. Mr. Boggs clarified the process for converting a private street to a public street. While there are Engineering standards that the City Engineer would require be met before recommending acceptance of a private street as a public street, ultimately, it is a City Council decision. Per City Code, the Commission acts as a recommending body on the rezoning and preliminary development plan that is being discussed. The Commission does not make the final decision on either; City Council has the final determination. City Council has tasked staff and the Commission with evaluating proposals against City Code requirements before providing a recommendation to Council. Ms. Husak stated that there is Code that defines what a public street is required to have. It is not as simple as making a recommendation that the street be made public. Mr. Boggs stated that Engineering staff members are present and able to explain the distinction between the private streets in this development and the Code specifications for public streets. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 9 of 32 Mr. Supelak stated that the Commission does not have the purview to address the existing private streets. In the other matter related to the anticipated cost to the HOA, currently, the maintenance of the greenspace is being handed by the developer. To avoid the responsibility for the maintenance for two additional parks, the residents suggest the proposed additional greenspace be used to widen the lots. That potential negotiation also may not be within the purview of this Commission. Mr. Boggs stated that the Commission has been presented with two applications -- a rezoning with a preliminary development plan, and a preliminary plat. The City's Code sets forth the criteria under which the Commission is charged to make its recommendation. There are 16 criteria that address the configuration of buildings, use, and development standards for the site. Per the Code, the discussion should address how those factors influence the Commission's recommendation. All other matters are not a question before this Commission. Mr. Cline stated that, although the maintenance issue is not a matter before the Commission today, it is an issue for the residents. It is very unlikely that the City Engineer would recommend to City Council that these roads be accepted as public roads. However, there is an alternative. City Council can accept maintenance responsibility for the roads. They took such an action with Caplestone Lane — a street on which former Council Member Kranstuber resides. He has shared that information with the residents as an option for them to consider. He reached out to the Council ward representative, but has not received a return call at this time. The ward representative would have to take the lead on such an action. Mr. Fishman stated that he was present when the decision was made regarding Caplestone, and that decision was made very reluctantly. That previous action was taken only because of a hardship situation. The residents were financially unable to repair the street, which was seriously deteriorating. At that time, Council indicated that they would not be setting a precedent for any similar action in the future. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Caplestone Lane should never have been constructed as a private road. Therefore, Mr. Fishman indicated he would not be in favor of setting up a similar unfavorable situation. Mr. Cline stated the Caplestone situation and this one are similar. In both cases, the developer who initiated the projects no longer existed when the private road issues arose. The main difference between the two is that Caplestone Lane did not meet municipal road specifications; this roadbed does meet municipal specs. He understands that City engineers do not support inverted crown streets, but the City is already maintaining pavement, curbs and gutters and snowplowing. Nothing different would be necessary in this case. Paul Hammersmith, City Engineer, stated that the information about Caplestone Lane is not factual. It is likely a meaningless debate as it is not germane to the rezoning discussion. If the residents want to submit a request to City Council, it would need to occur separate from this discussion. Ms. Newell inquired if it would be possible to make the portion of the roadway that lies within the rezoning area a public road. Is there a way to "marry" City specs for a portion of the roadway to an adjoining private street? Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 10 of 32 Mr. Hammersmith responded that if she is referring to Oak Tree Drive N. and S., staff has discussed that. Although the pavement composition would be similar, the drainage is different. With inverted crowns, water runs to the middle of the roadway. With a conventional street with curb and gutter, the subgrade under the pavement is graded to drain to the outside edge. There is no way to modify the existing private street to adapt it to public street standards, and the City would not want to accept some inferior adaptation, which ultimately would become a public burden. It is actually the developer's responsibility to convert the street to City standards, and to make the private street a public street, it would have to be reconstructed. The City requires the same of everyone. Ms. Call stated that she appreciates the residents coming before the Commission. A year ago, she was before the Commission herself regarding one of her properties of much less value but with an HOA fee that is five times higher than theirs. The Planning Commission has a narrow scope. It is tasked with reviewing an application and determining if it meets Code. Staff reports outline the request; list the pertinent criteria that must be met; and indicate if the application meets the criteria, or if it would meet if a condition were to be added to the approval. Planning staff accurately identifies when an application does not adhere to Code. The Commission considers ambiguous items or items approved by previous Commissions or Councils that are inconsistent with the existing direction in which the City wants to proceed. We prefer not to have phased -in developments. Some developers want to construct and sell homes first and add amenities later; unfortunately, "later" amenities never occur. Either the residents or the City are left "holding the bag." City Council does have more purview than the Commission. The Planning Commission's scope is very narrow. She requested that staff highlight the criteria for which conditions must be met for them to meet Code. Ms. Newell requested that staff list the review criteria and the condition to meet it. Mr. Ridge stated the following five conditions for approval of the preliminary development: 1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new subarea -- Subarea E, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the Final Development Plan; 4) That the applicant work with staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed consistent with Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan. Ms. Husak noted that the home footprints are illustrative only. The house that a buyer selects for a lot may require the garage to be located in a different location. Staff would need to see that detail later. Mr. Ridge noted that the three conditions for the Preliminary Plat include the following: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 11 of 32 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat are made in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan prior to City Council submittal; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within the geographical boundaries of this plat prior to review and recommendation of the Preliminary Plat by City Council; and 3) That the applicant revise the drawings to reflect the correct on -street parking dimensions prior to review and determination of the Preliminary Plat by City Council. Mr. Ridge noted that the on -street parking, as shown, is one foot too short. Ms. Kennedy, referring to an earlier citizen comment, inquired if the maintenance of the sidewalks on this property would be the HOA's responsibility. Mr. Cline stated that he looked into that matter. City Building Code requires City -maintained sidewalks, unless a property owner has been abusive and caused damage to it. Most sidewalks are in the right-of-way or an easement. The Code appears to indicate that it is the City's responsibility to maintain the sidewalks, but because these sidewalks are within a private area, the City attorney would need to provide clarification. Mr. Boggs stated that the Code would apply to public sidewalks in public right-of-way owned by the City or in areas where there is a right-of-way easement held by the City. It would not apply to privately owned sidewalks. Mr. Fishman stated that as Ms. Call has stated, the Commission can only apply the Code. Could the Commission, however, add a condition recommending to Council that they consider making the private streets public streets? Mr. Boggs responded that the Commission can either recommend Council approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the request. The Commission also could convey to Council what they believe to be an important consideration. That would be a separate motion; it would not be a recommendation to approve with that condition. When Council has this item before them for consideration, they will also have the benefit of draft or adopted minutes of this meeting to learn the tenor of discussion. Ms. Fox, as Council's liaison, would also convey additional insight on the discussion. Ms. Kennedy referred to the residents' petition requesting denial of the application. The reason stated in the petition is the undue burden on the HOA with respect to maintenance of private roads and additional greenspace. Does the HOA currently have the responsibility of maintaining other greenspace within the community? Ms. Houseman stated that she recently spoke with the management company, and they indicated that the HOA currently bears 50% of the burden. It is not accurate that the developer is maintaining everything. She presumes maintenance of the commercial lots is not being handled by the HOA; however, in regard to the remainder of the community, the management company indicated that the HOA is paying for 50% of the landscaping maintenance. Ms. Husak stated that a graphic was provided in the packet information (page 8), which depicts the maintenance responsibility for the various areas. The City is responsible for the 24 acres of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 12 of 32 greenspace on the perimeter of the entire development [Reserves E, F, H and K]. The HOA is maintaining 8 acres [Reserves G, L, M, N and O]. Ms. Kennedy inquired if the HOA fee covers maintenance for those 8 acres. Ms. Husak responded that their fees cover the land, clubhouse and the stormwater pond in Reserve M. They also contribute to a reserve fund that is being built up for when the residents take over the maintenance that is currently being handled by the owner. Ms. Kennedy noted that the additional greenspace that would be added to the HOA's responsibility in Reserves P and Q is minimal -- .66 acres. Mr. Cline stated that, currently, the money being paid in HOA fees is being banked, and there is $300,000 - $350,000 built up in the HOA account. The developer continues to handle all of the HOA maintenance responsibility without taking any of the HOA's funds. The only item that the HOA is handling is the additional landscaping the HOA desired that was over and above what the developer was willing to provide. The developer included the additional landscaping in the contract, but the cost of that additional landscaping is taken from the HOA dues. The HOA financial statements are open and available for the residents to understand what their HOA is spending, which is not very much. Ms. Newell stated that this situation is not unique. There are other developments within the City with private streets for which the HOA has the maintenance responsibility. Ms. Rauch stated that is correct. Ms. Kennedy stated that the second reason stated in the HOA petition is the configuration of the proposed redevelopment. She requested confirmation that the configuration of the proposed development meets the Code and is consistent with the surrounding development. Mr. Ridge confirmed that is correct. Ms. Newell requested that staff display the Code review criteria, upon which the Commission must base its approval. [Slide shown] Ms. Fox stated that if this is not rezoned, the development will proceed no further. Planning Commission can consider the criteria in Code Sections 153.053 through 153.056. It can also look at history, staff reports, comments and request expert opinions and request additional information or revisions with a rezoning. Many of the elements in this plan are similar to the existing development text for Oak Park. The issue is that when the development was created, it was a mixed use. There was a particular reason for having these properties close together. The original text calls for a variety of things, including a traditional village, diverse housing, preservation of natural features and highway connections with pedestrian friendliness. The commercial element gives a completely different feel to the front door of a development. The residential element had a mixture of townhomes, Village Homes and Park Homes. There was also 31 acres of parkland. Applied superficially, this application meets the criteria. However, the commercial element has been unable to develop in the holistic and cohesive manner in which it was intended. There are some lots with six-foot differences between them with a lot depth of 125 feet. The roadways are a Council issue. They should not be a burden to the HOA. This is a half -finished development, and the Commission is attempting to work with the developer to finish this development. Earlier, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 13 of 32 the Commission had requested that the developer work with the residents on a preferred Option A, but that did not happen. Therefore, the Commission approved an alternative plan. Now, however, the residential developer owns both pieces. At the Concept Plan review, the Commission requested that the developer work with the residents to resolve some of the issues. It seems that some modifications could be made to this plan without too much difficulty. Perhaps it is not possible to fix the private streets issue, but it is possible to address how the plat is laid out to make it conform better with the existing development and to achieve an attractive front door to this development. She does not believe the developer spent sufficient time on working through this design with the homeowners or made an effort to bring any other options before this Commission. This is the same design as shared in August. The Commission needs to be shown some options, more information from Council on its position of private versus public streets, and information from experts on the actual cost of maintenance. At this point, we do not know if the costs would be practical or reasonable. She believes some of the criteria, although close, are not met. We are not dealing with the same development as in the beginning. Because this development has occurred in a piecemeal fashion, the design needs more refinement to become a front door to Oak Park. The ingresses/egresses on Oak Park Boulevard are not well defined. Finally, nearly 100% of the residents in the neighborhood do not support the proposed development. Without achieving more clarity on some of the issues, she is not supportive of approval. Ms. Newell inquired what review criteria she does not believe has been met. Ms. Fox stated, per Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and determine if it complies with the approval criteria set forth in 153.055(a). However, the Commission also can take into consideration any submitted staff reports, comments and expert opinions when reviewing the application. She believes the Commission does not have all that information and should request it. Ms. Newell stated that the residents' representative requested that this application be tabled, The Commission cannot do so without the applicant's request. Mr. Cline responded that he does not wish the case to be tabled. They have a certain palette to work with, and they have a good design. They would not have obtained staff's recommendation for approval if they had not produced a good plan. The issue of private streets is not before this Commission tonight. The only issues before this Commission tonight are the two new private streets and Subareas R and S. They do agree to all the conditions for both the Preliminary Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat. Ms. Fox stated that there were other issues identified, including the sidewalks and greenspace. She does not believe some of the Code requirements have been met. Ms. Call requested that she list the items she does not believe have been addressed in the conditions. Ms. Fox stated that the relationship of the buildings, which is mentioned in 153.055(A) 9. The sidewalks will look dissimilar. The issue is that commercial alleys are being turned into residential byways. Ms. Newell inquired if she is referring to the fact that there are sidewalks without tree lawn space. Ms. Fox responded affirmatively. Ms. Newell inquired if one of the conditions required that the sidewalks be moved. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 14 of 32 Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. The sidewalks will not be immediately adjacent to the curbs; they will be set back outside of the reserves, which will provide a small amount of grass there. The request was to move the sidewalks out of Reserves I and 1, and they agreed to place them within the boundaries of the rezoning area. Ms. Call requested confirmation that this item is addressed by Condition #4. Mr. Ridge confirmed that is correct. Ms. Fox stated that Criterion #14 has not been adequately addressed. It states: "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." The Commission is looking at this in a piecemeal fashion. The residents are unhappy with the proposed plan, and she believes the developer should spend some time meeting with the residents to resolve some issues, as was requested at the previous review. Ms. Husak responded that staff had determined that this criterion is not applicable, because the applicant is not phasing in this development; it will be completed in one phase. For a larger mass of land, that criterion would be applicable, as phasing would be required. For a 3.5 -acre development, phasing is unnecessary. Mr. Fishman inquired if private roads would be added at the entrance. Ms. Rauch responded that if he is referring to the two traffic circle sections — those are existing private drives. Mr. Fishman stated that 94% of the residents object to the rezoning and development, due to the fact that the developer did not work with them to address any of their concerns. Does that not violate a Code requirement? Mr. Boggs responded that the Code does not establish a threshold regarding public support or opposition. There is no criterion for this Commission to require a pre -meeting between the developer and the surrounding property owners. Staff always encourages collaboration between the prospective property developer and the surrounding property owners, because experience shows that leads to a better product. It is not, however, a Code requirement. Ms. Newell stated that the criterion that comes closest to the private road versus public road issue is Criterion #7, which states, "Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided." Staff indicates that the applicant has worked with staff to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure is available. Ms. Fox referred to the criteria for the Preliminary Plat, which looks at the plan holistically, requiring consistent treatment and development criteria to ensure standards in a comprehensive manner. This plan is such an anomaly. A rezoning should not do anything that would be a detriment to the existing development. We asked the developer to look at potential options on how this development could be laid out to make it more attractive. None were offered. Some of the things this Commission suggested in terms of density and setbacks could have been accomplished. Mr. Cline stated that they could have proposed multi -family or apartments is this area; however, they believed single-family lots would be consistent with Oak Park. The lot sizes are dictated by the development standards that are already in place for the rest of Oak Park. These lots must be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 15 of 32 of a certain size with certain development characteristics consistent with the development standards. The number of those lots that would fit on this land is then determined. There is nothing else they can do in terms of configuration. Ms. Fox inquired the lot width for these 12 lots. Mr. Cline stated that the minimum lot width is 55 feet. In actuality, only four are that width; the other eight lots are much larger. Everything remains consistent with the existing development standards in Oak Park. Ms. Fox stated that the residents have asked that all the homes not look exactly the same at the entry to the community. Driveway access onto the boulevard is not addressed in the conditions. Mr. Cline stated that the access is addressed in the development text. The access from the boulevard was designed for 40,000 sq. ft. of retail and with on -street parking. This application proposes a much smaller impact on the infrastructure than the commercial development would have imposed on the neighborhood. Mr. Ridge stated that there is a diversity matrix for this proposal, with the only exception being that those two bookend homes on the end could be the identical model. Mr. Cline stated that appears to work well; this occurred with the villa lots, as well. The diversity matrix for this development was reviewed and approved by staff and included in the packet information. For 12 lots, there are 20 — 40 design options for the homes. Ms. Fox stated that the villa lot development provided fencing as a screening/buffer to the anticipated commercial lots. Are those fences required? Ms. Husak responded that the fencing served a two -fold purpose: these houses are alley -loaded, so they have their open space, patio areas to the rear of the homes, potentially facing an alley. Fencing was suggested to give those lots some privacy. Fencing was also suggested along Hyland Croy Road at the entrance into the neighborhood. However, the fences are not required. If a homeowner wished to install that fence, there are fence standards in the text that identify where they can be located and material requirements. Ms. Fox inquired if the HOA would have responsibility for the fence maintenance. Ms. Husak responded that it would be the homeowner's responsibility. Mr. Cline commented in regard to the fences at the back of the lot. There was concern that there would be varying diligence in staining the fences every 3-4 years. Therefore, it was determined that the HOA would be responsible for the painting of those fences. Because those fences are in Subarea D, they are not an issue to address tonight. The development text for that earlier rezoning provided that fences would be dealt with in the Final Development Plan. This was done purposely to leave a door open, should the commercial element be eliminated in the future, and fences at the back of the lots was an item no longer desired. In that case, the requirement could be removed at the Final Development Plan phase. Ms. Fox stated that fences, which may be no longer be needed, would be another cost to the homeowners, if not eliminated. She would request more information about the cost, possible options for this Plat, and the ability of the residents to have some input with the developer on what those options might be. She would not be in favor of approving the rezoning this evening. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019 Page 16 of 32 Ms. Call pointed out that sidewalks have been added around the parcels, as was suggested at the previous discussion; she appreciates that addition. In regard to the private streets versus public streets, the Code states that for, "Streets built and all or nearly all abutting parcels developed for acceptance as a public street, it is required that public streets generally meet these standards... At a minimum, for acceptance as a public street, the following standards shall be met: street width, curb and gutter, pavement thickness, sidewalk installation." Ms. Kennedy moved, Ms. Call seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions: 1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the Final Development Plan; 4) That the applicant work with staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed consistent with Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. Ms. Fox, no. Ms. Fox indicated that she believes the following review criteria have not been met: "relationships of buildings;" cohesiveness of the overall acceptability to the development plan; and opportunity for the Commission to take into consideration previous comments and history. Mr. Fishman indicated his "no" vote was for similar reasons. [Motion passed 4-2] Ms. Kennedy moved, Ms. Call seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City Council with the following three conditions: 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat are made in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan prior to City Council submittal; 2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within the geographical boundaries of this plat prior to review and recommendation of the Preliminary Plat by City Council; and 3) That the applicant revise the drawings to reflect the correct on -street parking dimensions prior to review and determination of the Preliminary Plat by City Council. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes. Ms. Fox, no. IDu CrTy of blin OHIO. USA 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan of a f3.5 -acre site within the Oak Park neighborhood from commercial to residential to allow for future construction of up to 12 single- family homes and 0.66 -acre of open space. Next Steps Upon approval a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the application will be forwarded to City Council for review and final approval. Planning and Zoning Commisison December 12, 2019 Zoning Map Site Location The site is located on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, approximately 650 feet southwest of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Property Owners Oak Park Dublin, LLC Applicant Christopher Cline, Attorney — Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.050-153.056 Case Manager Chase I Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I (614) 410-4656 cridge@dublin.oh.us City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 1. Context Map 1 P 0 155 310 Rezoning/Preliminary minary De Development Wan monoME::= Cl of Dublin Oak Park, Subarea E Feet �,7 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Background CurrentApolication The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal, non-binding feedback on a concept plan for a portion of Subarea E in Oak Park, on August 22, 2019 for the potential development of 12, single-family homes where commercial development is currently permitted. The Commission was generally in support of the request to rezone the area to allow for a change in use. The Commissioners expressed concerns regarding existing private streets, including maintenance and current conditions. The Commissioners discussed the potential future cost burden to the HOA and the residents, and the extent to which the HOA would be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the private drives. The Commission discussed the proposed layout of the site, as well as their desire to see increased connectivity to the proposed open spaces. The Commission suggested that the applicant work with neighborhood residents to find a plan that worked for both the applicant and the residents. A resident of the Oak Park spoke as a representative of the neighborhood and gave a presentation outlining the issues the neighborhood has with the proposal, including the future costs to the HOA of maintaining the private drives and the general layout of the site. A majority of the neighborhood supported the presenter. Previously Approved Applications City Council approved Ordinance 52-17 for the rezoning with preliminary development plan to convert an area previously approved for 36 townhome units to single-family lots within Subarea D on September 11, 2017 based on a recommendation of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 13, 2017. Prior these approvals, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal feedback for three options to convert the 36 approved townhome units to single-family lots within Subareas D on November 10, 2016. The Commission supported the conversion to single-family homes and encouraged the applicant to pursue developing this and the commercial properties together. With the subareas under different ownership, it was determined that this was not feasible to do so at the time. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved an amended final development plan to modify the development text to allow a one -foot front yard setback for the townhome units located in Subarea D on August 7, 2008. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a final development plan and final plat for the subdivision and development of 108 residential units on a 61 -acre site on March 15, 2007. City Council reviewed and approved Ordinance 74-06 to rezone 61 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park) for the development of 108 residential units, approximately 40,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space on November 20, 2006. Site Characteristics Natural Features The site is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Historic and Cu/tura/ 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: PUD: Oak Park (Single- Family Residential) East: PLR: Planned Low Density Residential District (Single -Family Residential) South: PUD: Oak Park (Single -Family Residential) West: PUD: Oak Park (Single -Family Residential) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site consists of two reserves, located between four private drives and divided by Oak Park Boulevard, which is a public street. A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site and runs north and south along Hyland -Croy 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 the zoning and development of 12 single-family lots, two new open space reserve and associated site improvements. The site is currently zoned PUD — Oak Park, Subarea E which allows for commercial development including small-scale retail and restaurant uses, among others, up to 39,700 square feet. Community Plan/Future Land Use The Community Plan shows the Future Land Use for this site as a Mixed -Use Neighborhood Center, based on the land use approved when the Plan was most recently updated. This designation is intended to provide daily retail uses and personal services for the convenience of neighborhoods in which they are located. Integrated residential uses are highly encouraged, and neighborhood centers should coordinate with surrounding Low and Medium Density Mixed Residential uses to provide support and pedestrian activity. This proposal necessitates a rezoning to allow for a change in permitted uses from commercial to residential uses. Additionally, this proposal would result in less impactful uses on the area than what the current zoning allows. Neighborhood Contact Staff has been in contact with the residents of Oak Park throughout this process and met with residents at the proposed site in October of 2019. The residents made Staff aware of several concerns with the proposal including, but not limited to, the financial burden of maintaining private drives, the general site layout and the proposed side yard setbacks. Staff has encouraged the residents to attend any public meeting for this application. Neighborhood concern regarding the financial burden of maintaining additional private drives is significant. Both the applicant and the neighbors have discussed this issue with little to no resolution. The drives were approved as part of the original zoning in 2006, the expected maintenance of the drives included the potential commercial tenants, however that area is limited to the ±500 linear feet. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan With exception of portions of Oak Tree Drive North and Oak Tree Drive South, the private drives are outside of the geographical boundaries of this rezoning. Due to this fact, the issue of the private drives is not under the purview of the Commission and is outside of the geographic and legal boundaries of this case. Any requests regarding the conversion of private drives to public streets may be addressed through a separate review process at City Council. Proposal Details Layout This proposal includes a portion of the existing Subarea E. The proposed site is rectangular in shape and consists of two vacant parcels with little vegetation and no significant natural features. The parcels are separated by the existing Oak Park Boulevard. The site is located west of Hyland -Croy Road and is bound by Acorn Lane and Bur Oak Lane on the north and south sides, respectively. The proposal is for 12 single-family lots on 3.47 acres and two open spaces, accounting for 0.66 -acre of the site. The lots surround the green spaces on two sides, while the existing street network surrounds the other sides of the greenspaces. Eight of the lots will face Oak Tree Drive North and South (private drives) while the remaining four homes will face Oak Park Boulevard (public). The lots range in size from 0.16 -acre to 0.22 -acre in size with widths ranging from 55 feet to approximately 70 feet. Lot depths range from 130 feet to 135 feet. A sidewalk connection is proposed around the entirety of both parcels, with portions of the sidewalk directly adjacent to the private drives. The applicant has proposed sidewalk improvements outside of the boundaries of this rezoning and preliminary development plan. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within the geographic boundaries of this plan. Subareas The proposed rezoning with preliminary development plan is applicable to a portion of Subarea E, specifically Reserves A and D. The remaining portions of Subarea E will remaining under the existing zoning. Staff recommends the applicant revise the text to create a new subarea, Subarea E1 and provide updated maps illustrating the two parcels being rezoned, prior to City Council review. Traffic/Access The main access to the site is from Hyland -Croy Road along Oak Park Boulevard, which provides access to the homes through the various drives and streets adjacent to the site. A portion of the homes have driveway access on a private drive in the development. Twelve on -street parking spaces are proposed on Oak Tree Drive, six on Oak Tree Drive North and six on Oak Tree Drive South. Sidewalks are proposed along the Oak Tree Drive and Oak Park Boulevard frontages, as well as along the private drives. The applicant provided a trip generation analysis that shows the proposed 12 detached, single- family homes significantly reduce the trip generation compared to the original zoning. Therefore, the change is not expected to impact the public infrastructure. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Stormwater Management/Utilities A series of detention basins were constructed as part of the original Oak Park development to accommodate both water quantity and water quality per the requirements as defined in Chapter 53. The proposal is encompassed within the East Subarea as defined in the original Oak Park stormwater management report, which drains to the existing east basins along Hyland -Croy Road. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed 12 single-family lots will add less impervious area than originally programmed as part of the original Oak Park development and has demonstrated compliance with stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53. Existing sanitary and water mainline has been constructed as part of the original Oak Park development. The proposed improvements include abandoning existing water and sanitary services that are no longer needed in addition to new services that were not originally constructed in order to provide water and sanitary service for all 12 proposed single-family lots. Development Text The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for the site including uses, lot requirements, architecture details, and materials. The applicant has provided a development text with standards specific to this PUD Subarea, but largely consistent with the development standards approved within Subarea D. Uses Detached single-family homes and open space reserves are the only permitted uses in the proposed development text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in the written development text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this area. Development Standards Twelve single-family lots are proposed with a minimum lot depth of 130 feet. The lots will have a minimum width of at least 55 feet. Lot sizes range from 0.16 -acre to 0.22 -acre. These requirements are largely consistent with the rest of Oak Park; however, these lots are deeper than those in Subarea D. Lot coverage is limited to 60% of the total lot area. This is the same lot coverage permitted for all single-family lots within Oak Park. The proposed front yard setbacks are a minimum of 20 feet, rear yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet, and side yard setbacks are a minimum of 6 feet. The proposed side yard setbacks are consistent with the rest of Oak Park. The proposed rear yard setbacks are smaller than the rear yard setbacks for most of Oak Park, with the exception of Subarea D. Most of Oak Park has 25 feet rear yard setbacks, whereas Subarea D has 10 feet rear yard setbacks. The proposed rear yard setback is to accommodate the 20 feet minimum front yard setback, where most of the neighborhood - with the exception of Subarea D, has a front yard setback that ranges from a minimum of 13 feet to a maximum of 20 feet. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Window wells may encroach into the required side yard setback with a maximum of 3.5 feet, provided that the side yard is at least six feet and there is a minimum of eight feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Air conditioners and other HVAC or service structure units may encroach into side yard setback a maximum of 2.5 feet, provided the side yard is at least 6 feet and the structure is screened per Code. Landscaping As described in the landscaping section the proposed text, two new open space reserves will be provided, each approximately 0.33 -acre in size. These spaces will be owned and maintained by the Oak Park homeowners association, to be consistent with the remainder of the neighborhood. Four trees are proposed to be removed from the site. A tree replacement plan was not provided at this time, therefore staff recommends the tree replacement plan be provided with the submission of the final development plan. Fencing and landscape hedge requirements are unchanged from the original Oak Park development text for consistency. Architecture The Oak Park development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements and the neighborhood theme, which is inspired by English and Irish garden cities with a park -like ambience and sense of quality. The newly created lots shall conform to the same architectural standards as the rest of Oak Park, with minor changes or exceptions. Exterior materials in this area will remain consistent with the rest of Oak Park, and four-sided architecture shall be required. The proposed text includes language that would permit mirror image versions of the same model of home if located at Oak Park Boulevard and either Oak Tree Drive North or South. This is proposed to create an entry feature into the neighborhood when entering from Hyland -Croy Road. ;ria wnaiysi. Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Analysis [§153.055A] 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. The applicant should update the text and plans to create a new Subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood. 2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Criterion Met. The proposal was deemed to be largely consistent with the Community Plan and Thoroughfare Plan recommendations as well as the existing development character of the neighborhood. The proposal would result in a less impactful uses on the area than what the current zoning allows and the Future Land Use designates for the site. 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. It is consistent with the existing design standards of the neighborhood. 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 area. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; Criterion Met. The existing Oak Park PUD contains approximately 50% open space. This proposal contains an additional 0.66 -acre of open space. 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; Criterion met with Condition. The proposal will have to adhere to Code for any removal and replacement of the limited vegetation on site. A tree replacement plan was not provided at this time, therefore staff recommends the tree replacement plan be provided with the submission of the final development plan. 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 provision of infrastructure is available. 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. Primary access to the proposed site will be from existing adjacent public streets and private drives. This proposal also reduces the intensity of uses from commercial to residential uses. 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Criterion Met. The proposal includes setbacks and development standards that are largely consistent with the existing standards in the Oak Park PUD. These standards maintain the image of Dublin as a quality community. 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 existing storm sewer and existing retention basins. The proposal also reduces the impervious surface area of the site. 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 includes design standards largely consistent with the existing standards in the neighborhood for a consistent, 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 not Applicable. The proposal does not include any contributions to the public infrastructure. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Case 19-100Z/PDP — Oak Park Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 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 applicant update the text and plans to create a new Subarea, to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood; 2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f); 3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant work with Staff to ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and, 5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways are able to be constructed to Code standards prior to the Final Development Plan. Ciryof RECORD OF ACTION Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission °'^II,, I(A Thursday, August 22, 201916:30 pm The Planning and toning Commission took the following action at this meeting, Oak Park, Subarea 1 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard 19.060 Concept Plan Proposal, A Concept plan for the construction of 12, sing) a•famlly lots and associated site improvements, The 3A7 -acre site is zoned Planned Unit Development District, Oak Park Subarea E. locai West of Hoard -Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the intersection with &and Road. Request: An informal review and feedback of a future development application. Applicant: Christopher T, Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers A Postalakis Planning Contac; Chase 1. Ridge, Planner I Contac Information: 614.410.4656, crdp@dublIn,oh.us Case Information: www.dub1lnohlousa,gcvjpzc/19.060 RESULT, The Commission reviewed and provided non-binding comments on an application for a Concept Plan as the first step for the rezoning of Subarea E in the Oak Park neighborhood for the poterdlal development of 12, single-family homes where commercial development is currently permitted. The applicant gave a presentation and background of the history of Oak Park, including the rezoning of Subarea D, from townhome units to single4amily homes. The applicant de%dbed the proposed site lay 4 architecture, and design, A resident of the Oak Park neighborhood also gave a presentation outlining the issues the neighborhood has with the current proposal, Including the future costs to the HOA of maintaining the private drives and the general layout of the site, There were approximately 25.35 residents In attendance from the Oak Park neighborhood in support of the presenter, The Commissioners expressed their concerns with the private streets, Including maintenance and their current conditions, The Commissioners discussed the future cost burden to the HOA and the residents, and the extent to which the HOA would be responsible for malntenarce and upkeep of the private dnves. The Commission discussed the proposed layout of the site, as well as their desire to see Increased comneclvity to the proposed open spaces. The Commission suggested that the applicant work with neighborhood residents to find a plan that worked for both the applicant and the residents, PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Rod Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 6144104747 Bublinohiousa,gov Oak Park, Subarea E 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard 19-060CP Concept Plan MEMBERS PRESENT; Victoria Newell Yes ]ane Fax Yes Warren Fishman Yes Kristina Kennedy Yes William Wilson Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes STAFF I ! TIFICAT�N �I Chase 1. Ridge, Planner I PLANNING S800Shier R'ngsRud Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4660 fax 614.410.4747 bublinohiousa,gov Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 2 of 28 1111F. Supelak-, 1111F. Wilsen, 11119. Gall, 1111F. Fishman, 11119. F -ex, y2ftLe! Newel', yes; 11119 yes; Kennedy, yes yes; yes; yes; yes; • 0417 1111F. Supelak-, 1111F. Wilsen, 11119. Gall, 1111F. Fishman, 11119. F -ex, y2ftLe! Newel', yes; 11119 yes; Kennedy, yes yes; yes; yes; yes; • CASES 2. Oak Park, Subarea E, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-060CP, Concept Plan This is a request for the construction of 12, single-family lots and associated site improvements. The 3.47 -acre site is west of Hyland -Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road. The site is currently zoned Planned Unit Development. Case Presentation Mr. Ridge stated that this is a request for review of a Concept Plan for a rezoning in the Oak Park neighborhood to allow for the construction of single-family homes where commercial development is currently permitted. The Concept Plan is the first step of the PUD process, by which the Commission provides informal and non-binding feedback. This site is currently zoned PUD, Oak Park, Subarea E. It is located on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road. The site is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. History On October 20, 2006, City Council reviewed and approved Ordinance 74-06 to rezone approximately 61 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park) for the development of 108 residential units, 40,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space. In 2007, PZC approved a final development plan and final plat for the subdivision and development of 108 residential units. On November 10, 2016, PZC reviewed and provided informal feedback for three options to convert 36 townhome units into single-family lots within Subareas D and E. It was determined, due to differences in ownership between Subareas D and E at the time, the option for a rezoning of Subarea D and Subarea E together was not possible. On July 13, 2017, PZC formally approved the rezoning and final development plan to convert 36 townhomes in Subarea D to 20 single-family lots, and on September 11, 2017, Council approved Ordinance 52-17 for the rezoning and final plat. Proposal Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 3 of 28 This proposal is for 12 single-family lots on 3.47 acres and two open spaces, accounting for 0.52 acres of the site. The lots surround the green spaces on two sides, while the existing street network binds the two other sides of the greenspaces. Two lot sizes are proposed. Eight of the lots will be approximately 0.16 -acre in size while the remaining four lots will be 0.19 -acre in size. The larger lots front Oak Park Boulevard, while the smaller lots will front Oak Tree Drive. The smaller lots are 55 feet in width and 130 feet in depth. The larger lots are 65 feet in width with the same depth of 130 feet. All of the proposed home sites can accommodate either court -loaded or side -loaded garages. Oak Park is unique in its architectural requirements and neighborhood theme. The applicant has indicated that previously approved elevations will continue to be used. Most sites allow for court -loaded or side -loaded garages. The sites will continue the use of the hedgerow feature, which is a unique character element. Staff has proposed the following questions to guide the discussion: 1) Does the Commission support the request to pursue the conversion of the commercial area to single-family lots? 2) Does the Commission find the proposed site layout and design harmonious with the existing Oak Park neighborhood? 3) Does the Commission support staff's preference that there be additional connectivity throughout, including along the alleyways that lead to the proposed greenspaces? Other considerations by the Commission. Commission Questions Ms. Fox stated that the proposal would use two of the house styles included in the original development — the Park Home, which is 2,500 - 3,800 square feet, and the Village Home, which is smaller. Would the Park Home be placed on the larger lots and the Village Home placed on the smaller lots in this proposal? Mr. Ridge responded that the smaller home style would be used. Ms. Fox inquired if all 12 homes would be the smaller home style. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Ms. Kennedy inquired about the connectivity of the site. Mr. Ridge displayed a graphic showing the connectivity throughout the site, including bikepaths and sidewalks. Ms. Fox stated that in Subarea D, she was unable to determine the architecture style or home sizes. Is the Village Home reflected in Subarea D, as well, or does it contain homes of an entirely different architecture? Mr. Ridge responded that it is the same — the Village Home. Ms. Fox inquired if both Subareas D and E would contain the Village Home style. Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively. Applicant Presentation Christopher Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis, 300 W. Wilson Bridge Rd, Suite 100, Worthington, OH 43085, Worthington, representing the applicant, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, stated that also present is Linda Menerey, EMH&T. Ms. Menerey will address the technical aspects of the plan. He will address the history and land use. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 4 of 28 The lengthy history on this case is very important and is the reason the case is before the Commission tonight. This is a revision of the PUD rezoning, which occurred in 2006. In 2005, the partnership, chiefly composed of Solove family members, owners of the land, became interested in selling it. This Oak Park development originally was planned in another location. However, the City determined that that they desired to change the zoning in that area and requested that the applicant withdraw their application and locate the project elsewhere. His client is New Jersey centered, Atlantic Realty Hallmark Homes, and Oak Park is a joint venture of that organization. Due to family relationships in the area, they desired to develop a project in central Ohio. They identified this property on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, approximately 650 feet southwest of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road, adjacent to Dublin Jerome High School, which they wished to purchase. Unfortunately, the proposed purchase would carry a condition that the seller, HC Associates, retain a certain amount of the land for commercial development of a retail center within the proposed single-family residential development. HC Associates and two different developers were involved in this matter. The commercial part of the site was owned by Jerry Solove. The PUD design was based on the City's Conservation Design preference. That design concentrated the residential uses more closely together with a large amount of surrounding open space. The plan had approximately 50% open space with the larger homes located on small lots. Although two home styles were offered, buyers wanted the larger homes and so the distinction between the two homes was eliminated. Homes in the development being sold today are in the $550,000 range. The architecture is distinctive, and the homes have four-sided architecture and four-sided materials. The four-sided materials made the homes more expensive and made it more difficult for the developer to compete with the same size house being built by other developers. All of the land between the currently zoned retail site and Hyland -Croy Road was dedicated to the City as parkland. The 50% open space that surrounds the residential area is owned and maintained by the City as parkland. The space the HOA maintains is smaller. The commercial reserves presented a significant problem. Per the current zoning, Subarea E is Neighborhood Commercial, but the Permitted Uses allowed anything in Neighborhood Commercial and in Community Commercial, with the exception of 12 uses. Permitted as Conditional Uses in the middle of this neighborhood were auto -oriented commercial facilities. A lengthy list of retail uses were permitted on this commercially zoned land that are not Neighborhood Commercial. This made it difficult to market the residential subdivision during the next 10 years. Although the commercial plan was beautiful, it made the site so expensive that the developer was never able to develop it. The commercial landowner was obligated to pay a portion of the infrastructure costs, such as sewers and roads, if the commercial development occurred. He was required to sign a mortgage note for $1.8 million for that share (slightly less than 50%) of the project. When the detailed land purchase agreement was entered into in 2005, there was little other development on the area. A significant level of development exists today in the Glacier Ridge area that has a character not anticipated when this commercial use was envisioned. As the greater area evolved, it developed as primarily single-family and empty nester uses. Empty nesters prefer single -level homes, not 3 -story townhouses. Because the currently zoned 3 -story condos were envisioned as a buffer for the residential development, Planning staff was not supportive of their efforts to develop single-family homes here. As zoned, the commercial area had a 200 -ft. setback from the roadway, and the signage was very limited. Commercial uses need visibility. In addition, the commercial area of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 5 of 28 40,000 square feet was too small to support a retail center. The Community Plan stated that these retail centers should be a minimum of 60,000 square feet. Consequently, the retail never developed. They were unable to develop the 3 -story townhouses, and there were only eight lots remaining in the residential area. If Council did not rezone the area to permit another home style, the subdivision would "go dark," which would not benefit the City or the residents. Planning staff agreed to work with their team, and Ms. Menerey identified the concept of villa lots. The villa lots that surround the commercial area only had 104 feet of depth, because the roads were all in. There are no new roads to be built in Oak Park. However, they decided that they could achieve a meld of traditional, single-family and patio homes. The patio homes have full backyards and are alley -accessed, but they are large homes. They may well turn out to be the same price point as the single-family homes. The lots are 55 feet wide and only 104 feet deep, but there is room for a garden or a patio. They had been hopeful to get assistance from the City in the form of a "nudge" to the commercial developer, but they were not able to secure that. The Informal Review proposal reviewed by the Commission in 2016 contained three proposals. Option A, if they had been able to get control of all of the land -- both the townhome lots and the commercial area -- would have permitted a development of 32 single-family lots with no alleys, which would have been consistent with the rest of Oak Park. Option B was the villa lots, and Option C was what is being proposed tonight. Although they made many attempts, they were unable to gain control of the commercial portion, so they proceeded with Option B, the villa lots. They are pleased with the villa lots, which will appeal to empty nester buyers. The commercial area continued to present a problem, however, because the villas would back up to the commercial area. To provide a buffer from any potential commercial uses, the Final Development Plan provided six-foot fences along the alleys. Because they are not part of the zoning, the fences could be removed with a minor amendment to the Final Development Plan. The zoning text for the villa development enshrines staffs ability to modify the home plans if a buyer requests it. They have continued to attempt to work with the commercial developer, and in 2018, Jerry Halprin, the Oak Park residential developer and Jerry Solove, the commercial developer, met and crafted a settlement that would transfer the commercial property to Oak Park. That agreement was not signed until May 2019 and came at a significant cost, as the interests of three parties were involved. The global deal involved the cancellation of the $1.8 million mortgage and a $700,000 mortgage with some exchange of money to satisfy the different obligations. At that point, the residential developer owned the commercial land, as well, but as part of that global agreement, they were required to file and complete a rezoning for the 12 single-family lots within 270 days. Additionally, the villa lots are enshrined in the agreement. There has been extensive effort to get to this point. While they would have preferred to have developed Option A, they did not have that option. They have worked with the land they could control. The proposed development will create an attractive front door to Oak Park, which has been missing. Since 2007, this commercial area could have been developed, but it was not. That is an indication the commercial land use did not make sense here in this residential area. Approval of the proposed rezoning would require an amendment to the Future Land Use, which shows these two reserves as being mixed residential neighborhood center. He is hopeful that the Commission will see the value of rezoning the retail as single-family residential. If that occurs, any of the 15-20 home models currently available in Oak Park would be available here. The density of the entire subarea would be 1.44 du/acre, which will decrease the overall Oak Park density to 1.77 du/acre. Ms. Menerev, Associate, EMH&T, Inc., 5500 New Albany Rd., Columbus, Ohio, 43054, stated that all of the roads, alleys and utilities are in place. The two reserves on either side will be totally Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 6 of 28 encompassed by already constructed roads. The 12 proposed lots will be comparable to the perimeter lots. There will be a lower density with less units and an additional 0.5 -acre of open space. They were asked to complete a traffic impact study, which showed a significant traffic reduction by replacing 40,000 square feet of commercial with 12 single-family homes of the existing palette. The entry here will be a replication of that approved previously for the villa development, creating a consistent look along the boulevard. Commission Questions for the Applicant Ms. Fox inquired if there would be a 60% lot coverage with the proposed development. Mr. Cline stated that these 135 -foot depth lots are actually five feet deeper than the 125 -foot depth that is standard in Oak Park. Ms. Fox stated that it is essential to look at the entire development holistically. Mr. Cline responded that, essentially, the conditions in the rest of the subdivision would be the same here. Because the lots are a little deeper, there may be less lot coverage. Homeowners in this subdivision tend to put the larger homes on the smaller lots, so most of the homes built here are on the setback lines. That is the style of this subdivision. Ms. Call stated that there is a 6 -foot sideyard setback, a 15 -foot rear setback and a 20 -foot front setback. Is that consistent with what is expected in this area? Mr. Ridge responded that setbacks have not been set necessarily, but the intent is to keep it consistent throughout. Mr. Cline stated that the setbacks for the rest of Oak Park are not less than 13 feet or greater than 20 feet. That caused a problem, because the utility setbacks were 20 feet. They will probably specify the setback, which is likely to be 20 feet. Ms. Menerey stated that with 55 -foot x 130 -foot lots, the buildable area, excluding the setbacks, would be 59%. However, the entire buildable area would not be built. There would be some additional greenspace, making it comparable to the existing development. Ms. Fox inquired if the villa development is the same. Mr. Cline responded that he believes the lot coverage was a little higher. The villas have detached garages; whereas, most of these homes will have a garage incorporated into the structure. Ms. Call inquired about connectivity. There is no sidewalk along the upper and lower edges of the 12 lots. She does not like the shared -use roadway, especially in a neighborhood immediately off a main road. She would encourage them to add connectivity throughout the development. Mr. Cline responded that they would work on that issue; however, they do not have a right-of- way. Typically, sidewalks are in the right-of-way. These are private streets, so there is no public right-of-way. Ms. Menerey responded that there is a sidewalk extending from Hyland -Croy Road within an easement with a handicapped crossing. The entire perimeter block is very consistent with all the other perimeter blocks throughout the development. Where there are alleys, it is difficult to add sidewalks. The assumption was that people could walk a few feet along the alley past a couple of lots and access the greenspace. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 7 of 28 Ms. Call stated that in the remainder of the development, it is possible to access the greenspace from an adjacent sidewalk. Along the perimeter of all the homes, there is a sidewalk. Open space is usable space for the residents, but if they do not live in the five homes that abut the areas, they must walk in the street to access it. Ms. Menerey responded that the alleys are already in place. It would be necessary to walk only 130 feet to access the greenspace; however, they will look at that situation again. Mr. Wilson requested clarification regarding the difficulty in adding sidewalks when they own the property. Ms. Menerey responded that the lots extend to the end of the alleys and the alleys are in reserves. Adding a sidewalk in there would shrink the lot space. The sidewalk ends up being in the side yard setback or the building pad is reduced. Mr. Wilson stated that, typically, alleys are for vehicles, particularly in larger cities. While they can be used by pedestrians, having separate spaces for each is preferable for safety reasons. Therefore, that will be necessary in this project. Ms. Fox stated that she understands that the original intent was that the commercial developer would be using and paying for the private streets. However, that situation has changed, and maintenance of the private streets will become a burden for the residents. Normally, it would be necessary to provide residential streets with sidewalks and ability for vehicle parking, but due to the previously anticipated use as alleys, these are now narrow streets. She is not opposed to a rezoning to residential, but has an issue with the difficulties of squeezing residential into what was a commercial space with alleys and expenses that will become a burden for the homeowners. Mr. Cline stated that there are issues when the developer does not build alleys to the appropriate specifications. In this case, all of the public and private streets in Oak Park have the same roadway specifications. They have been in place since 2007 and were built to municipal street standards. The only difference between the private and public street is the inverted crown streets — the drainage runs to the center rather than the curb, but they have the same drainage underneath the streets. The existing alleys are already part of Oak Park and are the HOA's responsibility. Currently, the developer has been paying for all the expenses of Oak Park. The HOA currently has $260,000 in their account because they have not yet been asked to contribute to the general maintenance and upkeep of Oak Park. When the project for the villas came before Council for consideration, Council asked them to review the future maintenance costs. They provided a cost breakdown for future Oak Park that indicated a monthly HOA fee of $70/month. Although the residents are paying $98/month in HOA fees, there are many communities in Dublin that have an HOA fee of $250-$300/month. Due to the quality of these streets, following the same 10 -year street maintenance schedule as the municipality should be sufficient. Although interest has been expressed in having the City assume the maintenance of these private streets, in the past, the City has not done so because, typically, private streets have not been built to municipal standards. Ms. Menerey stated that Oak Tree Drive North and South was planned to accommodate head -in parking, so there is an additional 20 feet. They are suggesting taking 10 feet of that and providing parking on one side of the street. The fire hydrants, water lines, sanitary and storm sewers are already there. There is an opportunity to provide parking, and sidewalks could be installed in the easements, not public right-of-way. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 8 of 28 Mr. Cline clarified that because this particular land is currently zoned for commercial, it is not part of the HOA. It is not subject to the deed restrictions and covenants of Oak Park, which was established by the residential developer. If approved, the proposed 12 homes will be incorporated into the HOA. The deed restrictions and covenants will be amended accordingly, and the HOA will have the HOA fees from these 12 homes. Ms. Call stated that it appears that sidewalks were installed as the development took place within the existing neighborhood. In this case, the alleys are existing, so sidewalks would need to be added. However, that is what, typically, has occurred. Mr. Cline responded that, due to the heavy construction equipment, one of the last tasks to be completed is the sidewalk installation. PUBLIC COMMENT Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, Dublin, OH, stated that she is representing the Oak Park homeowners' concerns with this development. She is a member of the community, and the proposed redevelopment of the townhome and commercial lots is directly in front of her home. Unfortunately, she and the homeowners received communication that the action of the homeowners would be an intentional interference with the contractual obligations and rights of the developer as well as other parties. That communication was clearly meant to discourage the homeowners from exercising their rights as residents of the City of Dublin to come before the Commission, and it undermines the very purpose of this public hearing. Ms. Houseman provided a slide presentation. There are two main issues with this redevelopment: (1) the development inconsistencies, and (2) the undue burden that will be placed on the HOA for maintenance of the private roads. The homeowners would like to propose that the developer's Option A be brought back with the Commission's indication of support and that all private roads be converted to public roads. Background: Oak Park originated in 2006 as a mixed-use development. In 2017, the developer requested the rezoning of the townhomes. In the PZC minutes of 11-10-16, Commissioners indicated a need to do something to prevent the residential development from going dark and their recognition that the commercial development would not occur. At that time, there was no ability to put pressure on the absentee landowner (of the commercial area). Today the facts are different. Both Subarea D, the townhomes, and Subarea E -- the commercial lots, are owned by the same developer. As of today, there has been no construction activity in either subarea, and no plans have been submitted by the developer for construction of homes in Subarea D. Because one developer now owns both areas, the homeowners ask the Commission and Council to discontinue the piecemeal approach to rezoning in Oak Park and ensure that the redevelopment of Subarea D and E is consistent with the existing development. This would address the cluster problem and guarantee that the HOA is not overburdened with the maintenance of the private roads. The Developer's statement regarding Option A, submitted to the Commission in 2016, indicated that including both the commercial and townhome lots (Option A) was the best alternative. "It yields 32 single- family lots of a 125 -foot depth and similar lot frontage to existing Oak Park lots. This option would continue Oak Park in a fashion similar to the initial phase in terms of unit size, architecture and quality of materials...." He also stated that because the residential developer did not control the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 9 of 28 commercial land, that option was aspirational. A different statement in that same document was that a separate development of Option B and Option C yields the same number of residential units as Option A; however, the resulting value is less if Options B and C are developed separately. Option A would address all the inconsistencies. All of the lot depth would be consistent; the lot width would vary but be consistent with what exists in Oak Park. It would eliminate the cluster problem, because the 55 -foot width lots would be spread out. The front and rear yard setbacks would be consistent with those of the current homes in Oak Park. The lot coverage for new homes would not exceed 60%, and the garage location would be consistent with existing Oak Park homes -- most on the front of homes with a variation for the corner lots. No fence would be needed, four alleys would be eliminated, and there would be an interior park open space that is consistent with existing Oak Park. When Option A was presented to PZC in 2016-2107, the Commissioners expressed support for Option A. Option A offers both the developer and the HOA positive results. The larger lots will make the homes easier to sell. As a mother, she would not want a villa home with a street immediately in front and an alley immediately behind. When she purchased her home in Oak Park, she was told that the developer expected empty nesters to be drawn to the community. Today, Oak Park is filled with families with young children. The villa homes will not be attractive to families. Option A would not reduce the number of homes the developer wants to build — 32 homes. It would eliminate the undue burden on the HOA. When the Oak Park plan was approved, it was anticipated that the Subarea D (townhomes) and Subarea E (commercial) would use the two adjacent reserves for ingress and egress. It was also anticipated that the HOA would own and maintain those reserves, and the HOA and the owner of the commercial lots would enter into a cost-sharing agreement to maintain those private drives. In the homeowners' declaration, there are two references to a cost-sharing agreement for the costs of maintaining the private drives. When she purchased her home, she anticipated that 108 lots would be contributing to the HOA; that there would be a cost-sharing agreement between the HOA and the owner of the commercial lots; and that the owner of the commercial lots would maintain the two roads that are parallel to Hyland -Croy Road. After the rezoning of Subarea D (townhomes) and with the proposed rezoning, there will only be 104 members contributing to the HOA, and the HOA would be wholly responsible for those reserves and alleys and for two additional private roads. As a result of the 2017 rezoning and the current, proposed rezoning, there would be no cost-sharing agreement to offset the cost of maintenance of the alleys, only increased costs for the HOA. The maintenance of private roads is a recurring topic. With the original rezoning ordinance for Oak Park, Ordinance 74-06, there is a memo from the City Manager that states, "At the November 6, 2006 City Council meeting, the issue of costs for private street maintenance becoming a burden for homeowners in the Oak Park development was raised. The applicant has supplied information addressing this issue." In the minutes from the first Council hearing on August 14, 2017, the following statements are reflected: - Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it had been the City's practice to discourage private streets. By standardizing the streets, it would make it easier for larger trucks to come into the neighborhood. These streets (the alleys) are much narrower than the balance of the streets. - The Vice Mayor stated that maintaining roads is expensive for HOAs, and he does not want the taxpayers to have to pay this expense in the future. - Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumed the expense of maintaining private roads would be shared with the commercial property owners. At the September 11, 2017 meeting, it was noted that there had been an Oak Park alleys condition evaluation, which indicated the following: Crack sealing and patching would be needed in the next one-two years for an estimated cost of $10,000, and pavement mill and fill would be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 10 of 28 necessary in the next 8-10 years for a cost of $120,000. The question was raised regarding who would be responsible for paying that cost. Unfortunately, there was no cost-sharing agreement in place between the commercial property owners and the residential property owners, even though that was included in their declaration. At the same Council meeting, Ms. Salay stated that the City "has tried to prevent rezoning or redevelopment like this, because it would create an undue burden for the residents. This has occurred a number of times, and the neighborhoods then come to Council for request relief. For that reason, the City now avoids having private streets in developments." The issue of private roads is significant. As a homeowner, hearing that there will be a cost of $120,000 in the next few years is very concerning. It does not matter that there is some money in the reserve fund, because that fund will not last indefinitely. They conducted a HOA fee survey of some of the other communities in Dublin. She has provided a handout to the Commission that provides a comprehensive list of the HOA fees. For instance, the Westbury annual HOA fee is $125, and they maintain 5 acres of land, fence and an entrance sign and landscaping. The Tartan Ridge fee is $800/year, and they maintain 46 acres of land and ponds. A $500,000 home in Muirfield is $1,100/year. In Oak Park, the homeowners pay $1,152 a year for 4 acres of common area, a clubhouse and pond. The rezoning of Subarea D, the commercial area, as proposed by the developer, will increase the burden on the HOA. For this reason, they ask that all their private roads be converted to public roads. They have obtained signatures from 96% of the homeowners (65 of the 68 built homes) on a petition in support of the developer's Plan A. [copies provided to the Commission.] In view of the minutes excerpts provided, if the developer had presented the currently proposed rezoning to the Commission and Council in 2006, it is certain it would not have been approved. In summary, these are the HOA's requests: 1. Bring back the developer's option A. That plan is no longer aspirational, because the developer owns both areas. Option A would solve all the development inconsistencies, and it would eliminate the four alleys and the fences, which ultimately would reduce costs for the HOA. 2. Affirm that the Commission is supportive of such a plan. 3. Convert the private roads to public roads to prevent an undue burden on the residents. The City, developer and the homeowners have a tremendous opportunity to make the community of Oak Park a better place. The best possible outcome will be achieved by evaluating development opportunities at Oak Park in a comprehensive, holistic manner that will ensure consistency with the existing homes and eliminate an undue burden on the HOA. Commission Questions to the Applicant Ms. Kennedy inquired if the Commission is to assume that the developer is not in agreement with Option A. Mr. Cline responded that the matter before the Commission is the rezoning of the two commercial reserves. That is the only matter which the Commission has the power to address with this application. If the rezoning is not approved, the commercial reserves will remain. Originally, Option A was their preference, but despite their efforts, they were not able to get control of that land, nor were they able to get the City to put pressure on that commercial developer. They proceeded with what they could do and developed the villas. Because the originally planned townhomes would have had no setback, the villas were an improvement. The Village homes all Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 11 of 28 have 5.0 -foot setbacks on the sides, which is the minimum amount for Fire Department access. The Park homes did have a 6.0 -foot access. At this point, there is no opportunity to return to Option A. The money has been paid, and there is now a contract that will address all the issues. The only issue that is unresolved is if the Commission will approve the elimination of the retail and replacement thereof with the proposed 12 single-family homes. Everything else is zoned and approved. Ms. Newell stated that the existing Oak Tree Drive South extends through both of the subareas proposed for rezoning, and inquired if the Commission had the authority to require the streets included in the proposed rezoning area to be made public streets. Mr. Boggs responded that he does not know from the depiction in the Concept Plan proposal that any or the entirety of those private streets are within the reserves under consideration at this time. He does not have the materials to evaluate that independently. Ms. Newell inquired if staff is able to answer that question. They appear to be within the proposed rezoning area. Ms. Husak responded that it is not as simple as requesting that these streets be made public. They are existing, built streets and are not built to public street standards. There is a Code in place that regulates how a private street can be converted into a public street, and as they exist today, these streets do not qualify for such conversion. Ms. Newell responded that she understands the City's standards for public streets vs. private streets. There are other condominium communities with private streets, which the HOAs must maintain. However, because the streets here are in a proposed rezoning, it is valid to consider what impact that would make on the HOA fees in this community. Private streets can be reconstructed to public street standards, and with this rezoning, that seems an appropriate measure. She understands that unless the applicant submits a request to rezone the surrounding properties, the Commission cannot rezone it. What the Commission can control is what occurs with the parcels within the proposed rezoning. Mr. Cline stated that Ms. Menerey has pointed out that there is no access to a public street from the two private streets. They connect to the entrance boulevard but not to Snowdrop Court. The land within existing Reserve J lies between the two. The question posed is if the Commission could approve the rezoning with the condition that the private streets be reconstructed to public street standards. The next question would be if his client would accept that, and he does not believe he would. If that is the case, unfortunately, the commercial site will remain in the middle of the subdivision. Ms. Newell stated that it is equally odd to have Snowdrop Court, a public street, extend into a private street, and from the private street, connect back into Oak Park Boulevard. Mr. Cline responded that the bulb is actually part of the reserve; it is not a public street. The boulevard is a public street, but the two circular bulb sections are not. In his opinion, the one 24 - foot wide street that is constructed to the same roadbed standards as a public street could become a public street, if that were Council's direction. There is little difference between dual gutter streets and inverted crown streets, although there is a preference for the latter in Dublin. It is doubtful that the City Engineering Department would find that Oak Tree Drive North and South would impose a greater maintenance burden on the City. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 12 of 28 Mr. Hammersmith responded that he does not believe that street was built to a public street standard. Mr. Cline responded that he has those plans with him. All the streets in Oak Park were built to the same roadbed standards as public streets. His point is that these streets are not going to fall apart as have many of the streets in private developments in Dublin. Ms. Newell stated that does not address the maintenance cost concerns for her. It is evident that there was to have been a shared maintenance agreement for those private drives. Mr. Boggs stated that he is not aware of anything other than what has been presented by the two parties. However, the question before the Commission tonight is the Concept Plan. While, historically, there has been a concern regarding the wisdom of private streets and accepting public dominion over formerly private streets, he is unable to discern whether the private streets are within these subareas and within the scope of the rezoning request before the Commission at this time. If they are, in fact, all in the previously rezoned Subarea D, that would not be part of the application before the Commission. At this Concept Plan stage, it is the initial opportunity for applicants, the public and the Commission to review the Concept Plan. Detailed drawings and development text would come with a Preliminary Development Plan review, which is the next step. At this time, nothing the Commission or applicant says binds their action with the Preliminary Development Plan stage. Mr. Fishman stated that hearing the citizen representative's presentation made him proud to be a resident of this City. This type of citizen involvement is what makes Dublin what it is. In Dublin, traditionally, a certain percentage of the residents and the developer are in agreement before a rezoning occurs. In this case, 96% of the residents are in opposition to the proposed rezoning. He would suggest the Commission table the case to allow the residents and the developer an opportunity to meet. When the applicant returns with a Preliminary Development Plan proposal, they will have achieved some agreement. He is not supportive of private streets. A developer should not be permitted to install private streets and, ultimately, the City end up becoming responsible for them. In such cases, the City has had to rebuild private streets to public street standards. The developer has not considered reducing the number of units in order to change the street configurations. Ms. Newell clarified that only the applicant can request their case be tabled. Mr. Boggs reminded the Commission that a Concept Plan review provides an opportunity for the Commission to provide early feedback on a plan. The applicant takes the feedback and determines whether or not to submit a Preliminary Development Plan. Ms. Call stated that, ultimately, she is in favor of rezoning the commercial area to residential. However, the proposed plan is not yet what it should be. She would encourage the developer to work with the Oak Park community, as they will be living next to the proposed development. Ms. Fox stated that the rezoning proposal criteria asks whether the rezoning would negatively impact those adjacent to the rezoning site. In this case, the residents have voiced their concerns clearly. Eliminating the commercial is a good idea; residential would be appropriate in this area, but she is concerned about the negative impact of the proposed rezoning. The Commission needs to consider how to convert private streets to public streets. They are too burdensome for HOAs to handle; it is not in their purview. As for the site itself, she has some suggestions: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 13 of 28 1) Address the inconsistencies in the setbacks and rights-of-way. 2) On Oak Park Boulevard, there a landscape buffer and four of the driveways on that street empty into the buffer. There is very little space for ingress and egress. 3) She agrees with the concern regarding connectivity. There are some lovely greenspaces here, and it is necessary to provide ability for children to get off the roadways, regardless of whether they are alleys. The site is overwhelmed with children on skates and bicycles. We do not want children going to a park via a road that has driveways emptying into it. She would encourage the developer to look at opportunities for making this a safer environment for the residents. 4) In her review of the past minutes, it was clear that the intent was that Oak Park Boulevard provide a long-distance view to the Community Center, which is a lovely structure. The proposed landscape plan obstructs that view. Because the roadway is narrower in some parts than others, her suggestion would be to have landscaping on the perimeters of Oak Park Boulevard that has a focal point. Upon entering the Oak Park community, the long distance view to the community center needs to be enhanced. 5) In reference to the greenspace, the Oak Park development text refers to the appearance of an English -Irish cottage setting. Because of the lack of connectivity, these greenspaces seem to separate. When those spaces are developed, it would be nice to have a feature similar to what exists behind the Community Center, something to draw the neighborhood to it, such as a path or a fountain. 6) Finally, she cannot support a rezoning proposal that does not have the support of the residents in that neighborhood. Mr. Fishman noted that he did not hear the residents' objection to the "right kind" of commercial development. The developer stated that what was originally proposed was an obtrusive type of commercial, such as auto repair and fuel services. Now that one developer owns all the property, perhaps a type of light commercial could be identified that would be acceptable to the residents. Mr. Cline stated that if the proposed rezoning does not go forward, the commercial lots could be sold to another developer. Ms. Newell pointed out that anything that is permitted to be developed on that property today as it is currently zoned would continue to be permitted on that property, unless an applicant brought a different proposal before the Commission. That is one of the issues the Commission considers with a rezoning. Mr. Cline stated that would not be a positive result. This entire process has been confronted with having to making choices that were not the preferred choices. Mr. Fishman responded that he understands that. At this time, however, he is not supportive of the closeness of the houses, the private streets, and the HOA having the burden of the private street maintenance. Mr. Wilson stated that he concurs with the statement that it is important for the developer to have conversations with the residents and ensure that the result is a plan on which everyone agrees. He is supportive of rezoning the commercial area to residential. Due to its distance from the street, it would seem more appropriate for it to be a residential community. He is not supportive of the proposed layout, but because one developer controls the area, he is hopeful Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 14 of 28 they can identify a more suitable layout. It is important to ensure better walkability and accessibility within the community. Mr. Fishman stated that although fences are not on the property proposed for rezoning, he reminded the Commission of its intent never to create a situation where fences are needed. It has been previously stated that trees improve when they age; fences get worse. They require maintenance that creates a burden for an HOA. Mr. Supelak inquired in what stage is the development in Subarea D. Ms. Husak stated that the Concept Plan is the first step in a rezoning request. If the developer were to develop it commercially, as it is already zoned, it would be in the final step — the Final Development Plan. Mr. Supelak responded that would be the case with Subarea E. Subarea D is the villa development, which has been approved. Ms. Husak responded that the development in Subarea D is in the Building Permits stage. Mr. Supelak stated that he concurs with fellow Commissioners regarding rezoning the commercial subarea to residential. In the past, we have been ambitious regarding commercial pockets; ultimately, they have proven to be hard to market. The right commercial entity has to be identified. Private streets are very unfortunate, and the developers had many opportunities to avoid creating the problem in the first place. That is a burden that is now falling on the homeowners, which is very problematic. In Subarea E, sidewalks will be important. It will also be important to have a development that will maintain the character of the lot size, architecture and aesthetics of the greater community. It will also be important not to add any extra expense to the HOA, but rather to reduce it. Ms. Kennedy thanked Ms. Houseman for her presentation. It is meaningful to the Commission to hear from the people who live in that area, and is important for the Commission to keep those comments in mind as the process moves forward. The residents requested that the Commission bring back Option A, but according to the developer, that is no longer an opportunity. In regard to private roads, the Commission will not be able to identify a resolution at this time, but the Commission has attempted to make its desires known on the residents' behalf. Unfortunately, the Commission does not have the ability to impact the areas of change that the residents request. In regard to other areas, such as sidewalks and connectivity, the Commission does have the ability to influence the process. Ms. Newell stated that there are ways to create the desired connectivity along all of the private streets. In terms of the area along Oak Drive, there was testimony that within the subarea, at a minimum, the road needs to be designed and constructed as a public street. It is extremely odd to have a public street tying into a private street that will tie back into a public street. She understands how it occurred, but it needs to be addressed differently in this rezoning. Mr. Cline stated that it may have made sense at the time because the road provided access to the commercial area, which that developer owned. Ms. Newell stated that she is supportive of rezoning this area to residential property as it is in the best interest of this community. Her experience as a Dublin resident and a Commission member has made her aware that most of the areas with commercial development within residential Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019 Page 15 of 28 neighborhoods have not done well in the long run and have become problematic for the neighborhoods. Mr. Cline thanked the Commission for their input. Ms. Newell thanked the residents for their interest and involvement. [A five-minute recess was taken.] -- ---- -- - - -- - - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- - ------ -- - - -- -- - -1#11 - - ft..- - -- - -- - -- -- - 110. Jill • - - 41 A' ffiffio • - NI I Will -- ---- -- - - -- - - -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- - ------ -- - - -- -- - -1#11 - - ft..- - -- - -- - -- -- - 110. Jill • - - 41 A' ffiffio • - NI I Ordinance No. 52-17 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Passed 20_ AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK, SUBAREA D) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK, SUBAREA D) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF 36 TOWNHOME UNITS IN SIX BUILDINGS TO 20 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITHIN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (CASE 17-028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, 2 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. This Ordi nce shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest d by la}r this Officer Clerk of Council 2017. PASSED SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 [VOTE 7-01 WITH ADDITIONALCONDITION THAT BY MAY 1, 2018 THE APPLICANT HAVE THE DIRT PILE LOCATED ON RESERVE F HAULED AWAY AND RESERVE F GRADED AND SEEDED RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council asxxert emn�xs.wrne..mm� � .. September 11, 2017 Page 4 of 30 Mayor Peterson expressed council's appreciation to Mr. Moloney and his staff for their efforts and commitment to our community. Council looks forward to continuing to partner with them on this project. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterson asked if any Council member requests removal of an item proposed for the Consent Agenda. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she has one small correction for the August 28 meeting minutes. On page 13, in her comments regarding the stonewall adjacent to the turf at the Golf Club of Dublin, she would like it clarified that the inspectors "would have required a railing to be in place.' There Is no railing in place there, because the grade was lowered so that a railing would not be required. Mayor Peterson moved approval of the two items on the Consent Agenda with the August 28 meeting minutes amended as indicated. Vice Mayor Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes. • Approval of Minutes of Council meeting of August 28, 2017 • Resolution 65-17 (Introduction/public hearing/vote) Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Bridge Maintenance - Dublin Recreation Center and Bridge Improvements - Muirfield Drive at Dublinshire Drive Project. (Project No. 17-023.0-CIP and 17-026.0-CIP) Ordinance 52-17 Rezoning Approximately 2.9 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) for Amendments to the Approved Development Text to Permit the Conversion of 36 Townhome Units in Six Buildings to 20 Single- family Lots within an Existing Residential Development. (Case 17- 028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP) Mr. Stang presented an overview. The ordinance was introduced at the August 14 Council meeting. At that time, Council requested supplemental information regarding the following: (1) the expiration of the zoning approval; (2) verification of the private alley construction standards; (3) estimated HOA maintenance costs; (4) details regarding the future commercial development. In response, a staff report was provided in Council's packet with: (1) Zoning expiration - a detailed overview of the Code procedures for the zoning expiration for a planned development district, along with analysis as to how this development addresses the outcomes that are outlined for a City -initiated rezoning. Based on the zoning provision, it is staffs interpretation that this development would not qualify for any of the three outcomes that are outlined in Dublin's Zoning Code. (2) Private alley construction - Exhibit A provides the approved construction details for all public and private streets and alleys within Oak Park. The document confirms that the construction build-up of the private alleys is identical to that of the public streets. There are two alley types within Oak Park that have a 24 - foot and a 20 -foot width, respectively. (3) Estimated HOA maintenance costs — (a) An estimate was provided based on the open space and the private alley maintenance for which the HOA is responsible. During the original rezoning, the developer used the conservation design principles to provide over 50% of open space within the development. The City owns and maintains the majority of that open space, which amounts to approximately 28 acres. The remaining four +/- acres are maintained by the master HOA and include the community center, some interior open spaces and the Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 5 of 30 landscape features that are a part of Subarea D and part of this rezoning application. The estimated annual costs for open space maintenance are based on the City's contracted standards. This cost would be distributed across the 92 residential units at full build -out with this new rezoning. (b) Exhibits B and C provide both the monthly report for Oak Park with itemized expenses and an evaluation completed by staff on the condition, timing and estimated costs for repairs for the private alleys. (4) Exhibit D consists of six documents that depict the layout and architectural style of the commercial subarea. [PowerPoint slides of conceptual layouts of the commercial subarea were shown.] At their July 13 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan, as well as the preliminary and final plat. Council discussion: Mr. Lecklider: Stated that, with Council's concurrence, he would like to request that staff review Code Section 153.053(D)(4) and provide a draft amendment that would eliminate potential repetition of this situation. As the history reflects, and as the Council members serving at the time would attest to, the proposal for this commercial parcel does not meet the intent of what Council was trying to accomplish at that time. The City has experienced previous conflicts between commercial development and adjacent residential, and this proposal is not what was intended. He would like staff and Legal to draft a Code amendment that would avoid a future occurrence where the construction activity within the residential development saves the commercial developer from having to begin construction activity for the commercial portion. Ms. Amorose Groomes Inquired if the request for amendment would delay this project, or if it would be applicable only to future projects. Ms. Readier responded that such a Code amendment would apply only to future applications. Mr. Lecklider continued: • Requested clarification of the estimated alley maintenance costs, which appear daunting. Under the Oak Park Alleys Condition Evaluation, the costs estimated are crack sealing and patching - $10,000; and pavement mill and fill to occur within 8-10 years - $120,000. What is the start date and who is responsible for paying the $120,000? Mr. Stang responded that the evaluation is made on current conditions, and therefore the crack sealing and patching would take place one to two years from today, and pavement mill and fill would occur 8 to 10 years from today. That is based upon the fact that those alleys have experienced minimal use because the adjacent development has not yet occurred. The alleys are owned and maintained by the master homeowners association, so the HOA would be responsible for the cost at that time. Mr. Lecklider stated that at the last meeting, discussion occurred regarding whether those expenses potentially could be shared with the owner of the commercial parcel. Was there a response to that question? Mr. Stang responded that per the plats, the reserves for the private alleys are owned by the master HOA. There is no indication detailed in the plat documents that the commercial parcel owner should provide some funding for the maintenance of those. There are portions of other alleys that are solely the responsibility of the commercial property owner. At this time, they do not have a definitive answer regarding whether the commercial subarea would share responsibility for these alleys, as well. That will need to be worked out between the commercial property owner and the HOA. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the commercial propertyownerwould need to utilize these alleys for access. Mr. Logan responded affirmatively. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,Nfmrlea - _ wx•crr uum��s-nnnac•n��� Haid September 11, 2017 Page 6 of 30 Mr. Lecklider stated that, typically, during a rezoning process the City would evaluate the burden on the HOA in proportion to the number of homes. Is there another neighborhood of this size that bears a similar potential financial burden for roadway maintenance? Mr. Stang responded that he is not aware of such an example, but he can research that question. Ms. Salay stated that the City has tried to prevent rezoning or development like this because it would create an undue burden for the residents. This has occurred a number of times, and the neighborhoods then come to Council to request relief. For that reason, the City now avoids having private streets in developments. Ms. Alutto stated that she reviewed the total maintenance costs for open space, streets, fencing, etc. for this neighborhood and attempted to calculate the annual cost for each of the 92 homes. It is approximately $1,000. Those costs will increase over time. Will the HOA routinely increase the HOA fee to meet the rising costs? At some point, the maintenance costs will likely exceed what the homeowners are able to pay, and some of the maintenance may not be done. Has there been any planning for future maintenance costs? Mr. Stang responded that the applicant could best respond to that. Over the last ten years, the developer has been placing funds into a reserve for later transfer to the HOA. Ms. Alutto inquired what amount is currently in the reserve fund. Mr. Stang responded that it is approximately $150,000, based on the expense report that was provided. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if there is any community involvement with the developer at the present time. Often, there is a transitory board, which monitors the expenses and planning. When it is later turned over to the HOA, the HOA is able to work efficiently due to the experience the board has already had. Mr. Stang responded that he does not know if a board has been formed at this time. Currently, the developer maintains the sole ownership. He does not believe the residents are actively involved with the HOA. Mayor Peterson invited the applicant's representative, Chris Cline to comment on this issue as well as those Ms. Houseman raised earlier. Chris Cline. attorney. Blauarund Kessler Myers & Postalakisnoted that Linda Menery, EMH&T and Brent Cantrell, Oak Park construction superintendent, are also present to respond to questions. • In terms of HOA finances, sometimes developers will take the HOA fees and use them to maintain the subdivision while they still have ownership of the reserve areas. His clients have not done so. All of the monies that the residents have been paying in since the first homes were built in 2008 has been deposited In an HOA account, which has not been used. In the meantime, the developer has continued to pay all of what otherwise would have been the HOA's costs. If the subdivision were turned over to the HOA today, they would begin with a reserve fund of $152,000. • Regarding maintenance costs, a cost breakdown has been prepared and shared with staff, which is based on the actual costs that the developer is incurring. The developer is presently paying for the mowing of the commercial area. Their breakdown indicates annual costs of approximately $650-$750 per home to maintain all of the items — fences and snow plowing of the private streets. Their forecast cost of maintaining the private streets Is $32,000 every ten years. For houses costing in the range of $500,000, the monthly $96 HOA fee is small. The HOA can also raise that fee in the future, if needed. At this time, the HOA consists of solely his client. Typically, the developer does not relinquish control of the subdivision until the last home Is sold. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA fee is adequate to cover the maintenance of the private alleys. Minwes field RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 11, 2017 Page 7 of 30 I Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. At this time, there has been no maintenance of either the private or the public streets. The private streets are already the responsibility of the HOA. Nothing new is proposed. If the rezoning is not approved, the remaining 72 existing lots will have the maintenance responsibility for those private streets, per the existing zoning. Such is also the case with the commercial area. The only way in which that would change is if the additional 20 proposed lots are approved. If there are 92 homes instead of 72 homes, more would share that financial responsibility. The proposed project would not change any of the zoning that is in place; all of the streets I are already installed. Mr. Keenan inquired if the commercial development would participate in the HOA. Mr. Cline responded that because the commercial area is located adjacent to the residential development, it should participate; unfortunately, no agreement was worked out in advance. The developer could refuse to allow the commercial development to use the private alleys unless there is some maintenance cost-sharing agreement. That would be an incentive for them to agree to do so. The alleys will be used primarily by the commercial development, not the residential. Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA is solely responsible for maintaining the alleys, could the HOA restrict access to them? Ms. Readier responded that they could not do so. However, the commercial development will need a final development plan review and approval at a future date. That will provide an opportunity to consider how it is laid out and the anticipated traffic that will be generated. Mr. Cline stated that they considered the possibility of the private alleys in the proposed residential development, but determined it would not succeed. The approved plan and existing rezoning is what they must deal with. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Ms. Houseman asked Council to consider three issues. It appears there would be a greater density with this portion than for the remainder of the subdivision. Mr. Cline responded that the standards remain consistent throughout — a minimum standard of 55 feet wide lots. However, most lots are wider than that. All of the lots in the surrounding village homes are 55 feet wide. It was suggested that the applicant eliminate two lots. His client has responded that he has already reduced the plan from 36 to 20 lots, which was very significant; there is no ability to give up any additional. The Planning Commission noted that there were two reserves on either side that could provide some opportunity. The application was tabled, re -worked and it resulted in a very nice plan that reduced the originally wider lots to 55 feet, created a new reserve and used setbacks creatively, and eliminated four parking spaces that the commercial development did not need to provide, resulting in another nine feet. The changes provided the opportunity for a landscape entry feature. The Planning Commission believed the goal was met and recommended approval of the project. Ms. Salay stated that these are 55 -foot wide single-family lots. In the past, townhomes were considered in that area, correct? Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay stated that, in her view, the neighbors are now receiving a significant upgrade with the new single-family lots, which will essentially mimic what already exists versus the townhomes that would have surrounded non-existent commercial development. Mr. Cline expressed concurrence. The current application better serves the residents' interests. The townhomes would have been on 22 -foot wide lots, had no setback and were three stories in height. They were intended to serve as a buffer/screen for the commercial development. Because that concept did not materialize and there were no more residential lots, the limited depth (104 feet) townhome lots were re -worked.. The villas, or patio homes will have a small space for outdoor living and will be similar in price to the existing homes. PZC required the same quality and value of homes. Because the architectural standards are included in the existing zoning, no changes were possible — RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minmes of _ Dublin City Council September 11, 2017 Page 8 of 30 they were required to meet those standards. PZC approved six architectural models, although the text allows them to create more, if there should be a diversity issue. Ms. Salay stated that is the reason she prefers pattern books for a neighborhood. The detailed architectural standards resulted in excellent architecture, building materials and quality that are not found elsewhere. Mr. Cline stated that he does not understand the earlier comment about the look and feel of the subdivision. The residents have referred to the neighboring Dominion development, which has large lots. This subdivision was designed under the conservation design standards, which resulted in 50% open space and smaller lots with larger houses. They must remain consistent to that design. Originally, the townhome design had no setback. The applicant's plan for single-family homes had a six-foot setback. The residents wanted a 20 -foot setback, but 20 feet was not available as the lot depth was only 104 feet. The same quality and price home is required for these lots, consistent with the existing neighborhood. They did increase the setback to nine feet, but at a cost to the homes' design. Mayor Peterson inquired whose responsibility is the pile of dirt referenced by Ms. Houseman. Mr. Cline responded that is the construction dirt that is on the City -owned reserve. One issue that has not yet come before Council is the Intent for an active outdoor space for children in this neighborhood, per earlier planning work with Parks Director Mr. Hahn. That City -owned lot is the most likely place for it to be located. The dirt will be moved. Ms. Salay inquired the location of this lot in the subdivision. Mr. Cline responded that it is at the rear corner. Mayor Peterson noted that the applicant has indicated this situation would eventually be rectified. Mr. Cline concurred. As a side note, the homeowners adjacent to that lot do not want that space to be an active play area. However, that it is the only space sufficiently sized for an active play area. The City has programmed it in a future Parks budget. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the lot is the City's, but who owns the dirt dumped on the lot? Mr. Cline responded that it is the responsibility of the developer. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks needs dirt for a mountain bicycle track, which will be constructed in the next phase of the Metro Park renovation. Perhaps that is a possible solution for moving this dirt. Mr. Cline requested that the contact information be forwarded to him, and he would make that contact with Metro Parks. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if this project is nearing its end. Mr. Cline responded that they are nearly out of single-family lots. Of the 72 lots, eight remain uncommitted. The completion of this development is nearing, and his client needs to do something with the commercial area. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this commercial space is attractive and would be a lovely amenity for the neighborhood, but it is also architecturally extravagant. If the applicant finishes the resident portion, what guarantee is there that the commercial portion will ever be developed for the residents? Mr. Cline responded that the applicant has no ownership in the commercial portion. Part of the original land purchase agreement was that the partnership would retain three acres for commercial development. His client, Oak Park Dublin, has a mortgage for $1.8 million on that land. Because of some of the issues, the City suggested that they attempt to acquire that commercial land. They were interested in doing so, as it would have helped them produce a better project. However, they were unsuccessful in obtaining control of that land. Minutes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meeting mis-wnc«.mnn smne�o. September 11, 2017 Page 9 of 30 Vice Mayor Reiner stated that, even though concepts of a commercial development were provided in the packet, there is no assurance that any of it will be built in the future. That is a concern. Mr. Cline stated that if the final development plan did not comply with the images, the Planning Commission would not approve it. Final development plan approval is essential. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that in view of the complexity of the architecture and materials, he finds it hard to believe that it would be possible to build these shops and generate sufficient cash flow. Mr. Cline responded that they have heard from developers that the cost of doing that plan makes it cost prohibitive. When this was envisioned in 2005, the environment in the northwest area of Dublin was very different. Currently, a lot of retail is being developed. The cost will be prohibitive for a commercial area set back 200 feet from the road with limited signage. Even with the 40,000 square feet of allowable uses, from a business standpoint, they do not believe it will ever be a reality. Vice Mayor Reiner inquired about the potential for this site. Mr. Cline responded that they presented three plans to the Planning Commission: the first was the best -case scenario with the 55'x 130' lots; the second plan is the one presented tonight; and the third was a plan for how the commercial subarea could develop with the same type of product as shown tonight on these 12 lots. Mr. Cline noted that a number of small park areas in the subdivision are aggregated to meet the open space requirements. They will be placing two mirror images of the Ashbom home model on either side of the landscaped park area in the middle. This provision will now be included in the text. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if a condition could be added to require the relocation of the soil that is on the City -owned parcel. Discussion followed regarding an appropriate timeframe for the condition to be satisfied. Mr. Cline noted that he would like to explore the Metro Parks suggestion. Ms. Salay noted that whatever is objectionable about the dirt pile would be less so during the winter, She is intrigued by the idea of moving the dirt to the Metro Parks area. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks has not completed their plans, so they will need time to put the plan together. Mr. Peterson suggested April 1 as the timeframe for the dirt removal. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whose responsibility it is to grade and seed the area. Mr. Cline indicated that it is the developer's responsibility. Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that seeding season would end approximately May 1. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the rezoning with the additional condition that by May 1, 2018, the applicant have the dirt pile located on Reserve F hauled away and Reserve F graded and seeded. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Mayor Peterson moved to approve the preliminary and flnal plats. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 50-17 Adopting the Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan (2018-2022). Mr. McDaniel stated that a follow-up to the CIP meeting was provided at the August 28, 2017 Council meeting. There have been no subsequent changes. Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms, Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Mimues RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin CU Council ;i.n• �xs•oromie,nuo August 14, 2017 Page 7 of 15 Ms. Readier stated that this is an update to Dublin's Code In order to be consistent with Ohio law. She gave a brief history of the changes that have taken place with these regulations. Breed specific prohibitions are frequently being eliminated from these regulations. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she pulled this from the consent agenda because she felt it is important for the public to know Council was considering this and planning to vote on it. Dogs are a part of many families in Dublin, and she felt it was important enough to warrant a few moments of conversation. Ms. Salay stated she sees this legislation as a smart update -- not calling out specific breeds, but rather the behavior of some dogs. She asked whether dogs who attack other dogs are considered vicious and where the City stands on that issue. Ms. Readier responded that the Ordinance which mirrors Ohio law mainly speaks to injuries to persons; however, in the definition of dangerous dog, it includes a dog that has killed another dog. Otherwise, injuries to dogs from other dogs could be handled as a civil matter. There may be other violations if, for example, a leash was required and not used. Ms. Salay commented on the safety issues that result from using retractable leashes for large dogs. Mayor Peterson stated that this is Interesting. If a dog kills another dog, the financial burden ends, but if a dog severely injures another dog, it may require costly medical care. Ms. Readier stated that the remedy would be a civil action against the dog owner. Mr. Keenan stated that approximately 50% of every general liability dollar of homeowners insurance relates to a dog bite. Mayor Peterson stated many people don't have the financial resources to hire an attorney to recover costs of medical care. Mr. Keenan stated that for some dog breeds, many insurance companies will not underwrite a homeowners policy due to the risk. Ms. Readier stated that in light of recent court cases and as Ohio law is today, the City is constrained to follow this. Mr. Lecklider added that unleashed dogs continue to be a problem. There will be a second reading/public hearing at the August 28 Council meeting. Ordinance 52-17 Rezoning Approximately 2.9 Acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea D) for Amendments to the Approved Development Text to Permit the Conversion of 36 Townhome Units in Six Buildings to 20 Single- family Lots within an Existing Residential Development. (Case 17- 028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP) . Preliminary and Final Plats Mr. Lecklider introduced the Ordinance. Mr. Stang stated that this development is on the west side of Hyland Croy Road at the intersection of Oak Meadow Drive and Oak Park Boulevard. The proposal is to rezone subarea D of the Oak Park Planned Unit Development to allow for detached single-family homes. The Community Plan has two future land use designations that this site overlaps: the first is the Mixed Residential Low Density, which is intended to provide a mix of housing options; the second is for the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center providing retail uses and personal services. This proposal complies with the recommended land uses by providing a smaller size residential lot within the existing development and allowing for the commercial portion to develop under the original zoning approval. Mr. Stang provided an illustration showing that the site is located within a Special Area Plan. The Northwest/Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan provides a conceptual layout for future development that is consistent with the layout for the Oak Park development and addresses all recommendations. No improvements will be needed in infrastructure as this is a decrease in density. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Alimires nj Dublin City council Adeeting Mw.xrwwn.%-nArn ,. w c Mw Held August 14, 2017 Page 8 of 15 Mr. Stang described the proposal as the rezoning and development of six townhome -- building sites to 20 single-family residential lots and two open space reserves. The site encompasses the vacant lots platted during the original approval, amounting to 2.9 acres in total. The site is serviced by an existing roadway network provided on a series of public streets and private alleys with public utility connections. The residential homes will contain rear -loaded garages using the private alleys for access with frontage on public streets and will utilize similar architecture to the existing development. The development was designed and developed under the Conservation Design Principles and was able to I achieve over 50% open space with the majority of homes directly adjacent to open space. Mr. Stang stated that included with this resubdivision of the site is the approval of a preliminary and final plat. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and the preliminary development plan at their July 13 meeting with one condition. They are recommending approval at Council's second reading/public hearing. Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat with two conditions. Staff also recommended approval. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the fencing portion of the development standards - specifically referring to the section that addresses privacy fences, stating, "the rear of any lot shall be six feet in height and connect to a four -foot high fence on the side of an adjoining private street. Fences may span open space or side yard set back between adjoining buildings including within easements..." Are fences allowed to be built on the property line? Mr. Stang responded affirmatively. It will be a requirement that all property owners install a six-foot fence between the garages and against the private alley. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding two different fence heights being joined together, Mr. Stang stated that the last two feet between a four -foot and six-foot fence will be of a lattice design where it meets at the corner. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that the four -foot fence and the six-foot fence are solid material. Mr. Stang stated that the material is solid only up to four feet. From four to six feet it is a lattice design. Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed her concern that it appeared from the site layout that there were many points where a four -foot fence would meet a six-foot fence. In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding which of the streets are private, Mr. Stang listed the private versus the public streets. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it has been the City's practice to discourage private streets. Mr. Stang stated this largely related to working with the existing infrastructure that was already in place. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that he understands a reason for fences from an architectural standpoint but inquired whether there are maintenance requirements stipulated. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is the homeowners association responsibility for maintenance. Mr. Stang stated that the fences will be on private property, but the intent for consistency is that the HOA will help to maintain the fences. Vice Mayor Reiner asked if the HOA was funded adequately to carry out this maintenance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council meeting August 14, 2017 Page 9 of 15 Mr. Stang stated it is adequate. In response to Vice Mayor Reiner's question regarding the HOA fees per unit, Mr. Stang was uncertain of the amount that will be charged, but offered to check and report back. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this was a concern of Council because quite often the burden falls on an underfunded HOA. Mr. Lecklider asked for confirmation that the four -foot fence meeting the six-foot fence is in a perpendicular fashion. Mr. Stang stated that was correct. Mr. Lecklider stated that he has had a number of conversations with staff with respect to another parcel that was formerly the Shoppes at Athenry and is now the Shoppes at Muirfield. Council was adamant about the mixed-use portion being developed simultaneously with the residential porton so that these problems will not occur in the future. He expressed concern that this proposal is guaranteeing future complaints. He recalls that it was a requirement when this rezoning was approved that building commence within two years. It has been staffs interpretation that because the residential builder commenced in two years that the condition was satisfied. He believes this to be problematic and, at the very least, requires a Code change. If construction does not occur within two years, the approval should lapse, because the conditions change. Putting a mixed-use development in this now does not work. There was a different intention of Council at the time of approval, based on the problems that occurred with the Shoppes at Athenry. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed and stated that the private streets are another concern. Mr. Lecklider stated that if there wasn't different ownership, perhaps there would be public streets. However, the private streets won't have City plowing and other services. He could envision future complaints. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whether staff has information about the standards to which the streets were built. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would have to check on that, but he assumes if they are private drives, they are not built to City standards. He shares the same concern with the commercial use. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested it may be less costly to address the issue now and require the streets be brought up to City standards versus waiting and having to fix it later. Mr. McDaniel will check on that and report back to Council. Mr. Keenan stated that it seems reasonable to go from 36 townhomes to 20 single- family lots, but the residents will likely have more concern with the commercial development. Is there a way to formalize the buyers' understanding about future commercial development that will take place? Mr. McDaniel stated it could be included in the records, but enforcement could be an issue. Vice Mayor Reiner recalled complaints about noise from trash trucks picking up in the early morning hours at the Shoppes at Athenry. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that by standardizing the streets, it would be easier for larger trucks to come into the neighborhood. The drawing indicates these are much narrower than the balance of the streets. Mayor Peterson invited the applicant to present. Chris Cline, representative for the applicant, stated that the two open areas in the middle are owned by another party. His client is Oak Park and the seller preserved those areas for commercial development. The three-story townhomes were meant to buffer the residents from the commercial development. However, an empty nester is not Uinutcs RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 14, 2017 Page 10 of 15 interested in a three-story townhome. All the streets are installed and, to his knowledge, built to City standards for that area. City staff took the initiative and asked to review their marketing materials to be certain that appropriate disclosure was provided that commercial development would occur in the future. It became clear that they could not market these lots unless there is a clear delineation between the rest of the lots and the commercial use. Regarding the fences and cost to maintain, he stated that the HOA can assess that expense within the fee structure. He pointed out that they did attempt to obtain control of the commercial portion, but were unable to do so. In response to Mayor Peterson, Mr. Cline stated that the unit cost is pushing $500,000, but they anticipate them to be closer to the range of $430,000-$470,000. Mayor Peterson asked whether they are still trying to control that land. Mr. Cline stated that they are committed to this development and have eight or nine lots that remain vacant. Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes the previous zoning has lapsed for the other parcels. In response to Mayor Peterson, Ms. Readier stated the approval under the Planned Development District Code is for three years. She asked Mr. Stang whether there was any specific condition on the original zoning that required anything in addition to the planned district time limits. Mr. Stang responded there was not any such condition; however, with the final development plan, one of the conditions that was added in regard to the commercial component was to file an application for a final development plan. It did not require that the final development plan be approved, but only to be filed. The application was filed, but has remained dormant. Ms. Readier stated that there is an independent section of the Planned Development District Code that states if an applicant does not proceed with approval on a final development plan within three years, then the City can rezone the property. She believes the criteria had been met, and therefore she would not recommend that the City rezone the property. Mr. Cline stated that most cities have a sunset provision in their Code that states if the property has not been built upon within a certain amount of time, then it reverts to its previous zoning. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested a memo from Ms. Readier about why she believes the criteria has been met and therefore not subject to rezoning. Mr. Lecklider reiterated that he does not believe the condition being met ultimately was Council's intent. Mr. Cline stated that the applicant is doing what they can with what they have to work with. There will be a second reading/public hearing of the ordinance at the August 28 Council meeting. Vice Mayor Reiner stated he would like to have information on the HOA funding so that Council can be assured it will be maintained. Mr. McDaniel stated staff will review the maintenance costs and make some projections. Mr. Keenan requested that the private road maintenance issues be reviewed as well. In response to Mayor Peterson regarding renderings of the commercial area shown during the rezoning in 2006, Mr. Cline stated that they are beautiful, but now would be difficult to execute and compete on a commercial basis. MGrvres RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 14, 2017 Page 11 of 15 Mayor Peterson stated that expectations are critically important and he would like to make future residents aware of what to expect. Vice Mayor Reiner stated that maintaining roads is expensive for HOAS. He doesn't want the taxpayers to have to pay for this in the future. Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumes the expense of maintaining private roads would be shared with the commercial and other property owners. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING/VOTE—RESOLUTIONS Resolution 60-17 Approving the Petition for Special Assessments for Special Energy Improvement Projects Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1710 (5500 Frantz Road Project), Mr. Lecklider introduced the Resolution. Ms. Gilger stated that for the past 18 months, the City has been sponsoring energy audits for this area for an office competitiveness program. Staff hoped that by sponsoring these audits, building owners would learn of some improvements that could be made to their buildings and make them. This program is new for the City, but not for the State. PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) is a financing mechanism that enables low cost, long-term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation projects. Within central Ohio, the Columbus/Franklin County Finance Authority established the Columbus Regional Special Improvement District that allows for additional properties within the City of Columbus, Ohio and within any municipal corporation or township that is adjacent to any other corporation or township to opt in to the District. Projects between $200,000-$6,000,000 can be financed through the Finance Authority's bond fund. The City has no financial obligations related to these improvement projects. Jean Carter -Ryan with the Columbus/Franklin County Finance Authority provided a short presentation for Council. The specific project before Council is for 5500 Frantz Road, and includes $500,000 worth of improvement to that facility. There were two Resolutions before Council at this meeting and three Ordinances at the August 28 meeting, which are necessary to establish the Special Improvement District. Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the Finance Authority is excited to be involved in this program. There is a gap in the market and these improvements are hard to finance. This law that was created in 2009 allows building owners to petition the City for this assessment. This is a great opportunity for building owners to make energy efficiency Improvements. In response to Mr. Keenan, Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the money is advanced from the treasury and the amounts are anywhere from $200,000 to $5,000,000. Mr. Keenan stated that the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority does similar work for efficiency projects. Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the main difference is the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority has to partner with a bank as a conduit for funding. The Finance Authority obtains their funding from Franklin County through the Smart Energy Program. Mr. Keenan inquired whether energy consumption is monitored. Ms. Carter -Ryan confirmed that it is, and that they require an American Society of Heading, Refrigeration, Air Conditioning Engineers Society audit, which is the national society that has established national standards. In response to Mr. Keenan's question regarding who pays the cost of services for the energy audit, staff indicated that the City of Dublin sponsored a million square feet of energy audit. RECORD OF ACTION Cityof Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission onia use Thursday, 7uly 13, 2017 16:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: I, PUD—Oak Park Subarea D•Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive 17.02OZ/PDP(FDPIPPJFP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Preliminary Plat/Final Plat Proposal; A rezoning of 2,94 -acres from PUD (03k Park, Subarea D for Townhones) to PUD (Oak Park, Subarea D for single-family lots) to convert four, three-story townhome buildings with 36 units to 20 detached, single-family homes and all associated site improvements. The site is on the west side of Hyland Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the Intersection wit Brand Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153,050 and review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Preliminary and Final Plat under :he provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, This is also a request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153,050, Applicant, Christopher T, Cline, Maugrund, Kessler, Myers & Postalakh. Planning Contact: Logan Stang, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410-4652, Istarg@dublin,oh.us MOTION#1: Mr, Brown moved, Mr, Miller seconded to approve this Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan, because It meets the future lard use, thoroughfare plan, and special area plan as outlined In the Community Man along with the preliminary development plan review criteria, with one condition. 1) That the applicant revise the development text to require Lots 118 and 119 to use the same architectural model mirrored across Oak Park Boulevard, prior to qty Council review, 2) That by May 1, 2018, the appikent have the dirt pile located on Reserve F hauled away and Reserve FOraded and sealed, *As approved by City Council on September 11, 2017, "Chris Cline agreed to the above condition, VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval, RECORDED VOTES: Vktorla Newell Yes Amy Salary Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mudlell Absent Stephen Stidhem Yes MOTION #2: Mr. Brown moved, Mr, Miller seconded to approve this Final Development Plan, because it complies with the applicable review criteria and the existing development standards, with four conditions. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING 5800ShlerRings Roaa Dublin, Ohio 43016 prom 614.410.4600 fix 614,410.4747 RECORD OF ACTION cltyef Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission ON 0' USA Thursday, July 13, 2017 6,30 prn The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1, PUD—Oak Park Subarea D•Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive 17.0282JPDPJFDPIPPJFP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Preliminary Plat/Final Plat 1) That the existing nonoperational street light at the southwest comer of the Mltchell•Dewd Road/Oak Meadow Drive Intersection is made operational at no cost to the City prior to the submittal of building permits; 2) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the community center, prior to building permitting; 3) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 611) defining the location of proposed plantings, bed edges, and diversifying the landscape materials, subject to stab approval, PrIl to City Council revlew; and 4) That the applicant continue to work with staff to outline Installation requirements for the fence details, prior to building permitting, *Chrls Cline agreed to the above conditions, VOTE: 6 — 0, RESULT: This Final Development Plan was approved, RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Millan Yes Deborah Mitchell Absent Stephen Stidhem Yes MOTIONft Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded to approve this Preliminary MatlFinal Plat, because it complies with applicable review criteria and the requirements outlined In the SubdmisIon Regulations, with two conditions, 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made phot to City Council submittal; and 2) That the applicant add a note to the Final Plat outlining ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the two reserves, prlorto City Council submittal. "Chris Cline agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-01 RESULT: This Preliminary PlaVFinal Plat will be forwarded to Clty Council with a recommendation of approval. RECORDEDVOTES: Victoria Newell Yes STAFFCERTEFICATION Amy Salary Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Robert Miller Yes Yes Deborah Mitchell Absent Lagan tans g StephenStidhem Yes Planned Page 2 of 2 PLANNING S800Shier Rings Road Dublin,ONo43016 phone 614,410,46H Nx614.410.4747 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 21 The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated the following cases are eligible for the Consent Agenda this evening: TownPlace Suites by Marriott; Bridge Park, Block H; McKitrick, Subarea 1A; and Downtown Parking Garage Plat. She said there would be a slight deviation from the normal procedures this evening to hear the cases in the following order: 4, 5, followed by any cases left on the Consent Agenda and lastly would be Oak Park. She stated that she and Amy Salay have a conflict of interest with the McKitrick case so they will recuse themselves for that portion of the meeting. She said Deborah Mitchell has a family emergency and can only attend the McKitrick case. She said the cases will be recorded in the order they were presented on the Agenda. 1. PUD — Oak Park Subarea D - Townhomes 17-028Z/PDP/FDP/PP/FP Oak Meadow Drive Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Preliminary Plat/Final Plat The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for a Rezoning of 2.94 acres to permit 20 detached, single-family homes and all associated site improvements where previously three-story townhomes where permitted. She said the site is on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road. She said this is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and a review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Preliminary and Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. She stated there is also a request for a review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. She noted anyone intending on addressing the Commission for the Final Development Plan portion of this application will need to be sworn in. The Chair swore in anyone intending on addressing the Commission with regard to this case. Logan Stang reported this case was reviewed and tabled at the June 8th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. During that meeting, he said, the Commission expressed concern regarding the main entrance for the community with the loss of the open space reserves along with the fence appearance and landscape details for the private alleys. He reported the applicant has since revised the proposal addressing both the comments as well as meeting a number of conditions from the previous report. Mr. Stang presented the Planned Unit Development Process Overview and noted this application consists of all formal stages of a PUD review including the rezoning that establishes the development standards through the Final Development Plan. Mr. Stang presented an aerial view of the site and said the proposal is for the conversion of six townhome buildings to 20 single-family lots within the existing Oak Park subdivision. He presented the proposed site plan and indicated the proposal is fairly consistent with what was previously reviewed comprising of 20 single-family lots using rear -loaded garages on the current private alley system. The applicant has addressed previous conditions, he reported, requiring a 9 -foot, front yard setback as opposed to 6 feet that was previously proposed as well as additional landscaping for all fences abutting the alleys. Mr. Stang said the biggest change is at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Oak Meadow Drive and pointed that out on the slide. He explained the applicant has reduced the four lots on the north and south sides of Oak Park Boulevard to 55 feet in width in order to provide two smaller reserves at that intersection. He said the reserves allow for additional open space with a landscape treatment that creates an entry feature and accents the community center. The reserves still result in a loss of private open space but well exceeds the required open space for the community as a whole. He reported the applicant Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 21 has also determined that both Lot 118 & 119, located at the intersection, will use the same architectural model to further enhance the entrance to the community and this requirement will be added to the development text prior to City Council's review. Mr. Stang presented a rendering of the proposed Reserve Landscape Plan that showed a mixture of plant materials to provide openness and symmetry outside the community center. He said the proposal includes four benches and a landscape hedge with masonry columns to define the private realm from the public realm. He indicated that Staff is requesting that the applicant use a more complimentary bench to what exists near the community center and that the landscape details be refined prior to City Council review. Mr. Stang presented a rendering of the reserve landscaping to show the perspective from the end of the private drives as one enters the neighborhood approaching the community center in the center. This provides a conceptual idea, he said, of the proposed plantings with the mirrored architectural model. Mr. Stang said the other main concern was the inconsistent fence design and treatment along the private alleys. He presented the applicant's revised proposal of the fence details that allow only the lattice -style fence at a height of six feet in the locations noted. For the properties with additional frontage on public streets, he explained, a four -foot solid fence is permitted that is also noted on the slide, which only pertains to a couple of lots in this development. Mr. Stang added, this, in addition to the landscaping requirements, will provide a cohesive treatment for the rear of these lots while providing a screening and safety measure for when the commercial properties develop. He indicated that Staff is requiring that Lots 109 & 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas to the west to prevent backyard space from having visibility from Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Stang presented a rendering showing the appearance of the homes from the entrance at Hyland -Croy Road. He noted the rendering showed the vacant commercial property and the proposed fence details with landscaping beside the private drives. In addition, the Plat has also been updated he said that shows the dedication of reserves to the HOA for ownership and maintenance. Mr. Stang concluded there would be three motions required by the Commission this evening. He said approval is recommended for the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan with one condition to be forwarded to City Council: 1) That the applicant revise the development text to require Lots 118 and 119 to use the same architectural model mirrored across Oak Park Boulevard, prior to City Council Review. Mr. Stang said approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with four conditions: 1) That Lots 109 and 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas toward the western property line, subject to verification at building permitting; 2) That the non -operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell -Dewitt Road/Oak Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of building permits; 3) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the community center, prior to building permitting; and 4) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City Council review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 21 Mr. Stang said approval is recommended to City Council for the Preliminary and Final Plats with two conditions: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the Plat are made prior to City Council submittal; and 2) That the applicant add a note to the Final Plat outlining ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the two reserves, prior to City Council submittal. Chris Cline, attorney with Blaugrund, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis Law Firm in Worthington, representing the applicant, said Linda Menerey, EMH&T, was also present to answer questions. He asked that the aerial view be shown again to show the context of the site to the surrounding areas and he noted the measured distances to provide the Commission with a better perspective on what would actually be visible. He remarked on the amount of work involved in changing the six-foot setback to the nine -foot, front yard setback. He said they previously proposed the six-foot setback because it was written in the development text but somewhere along the line, that was changed to zero. He emphasized those townhomes have a zero setback now so they are actually going from zero to nine instead of six to nine feet. Mr. Cline clarified that fences are now required; this is not an option for the buyers Linda Menerey added that the four -foot fence is really the bottom half of the six-foot fence as it does not include the lattice portion on top. Mr. Brown asked if the four -foot fence is being required, to which Mr. Cline answered affirmatively. He said the four -foot and six-foot fences will all be consistent and the color white was originally considered but finally decided on light beige. Mr. Cline said he thought they resolved the issue of the condition in the Final Development Plan, to which Mr. Stang agreed. With regard to outdoor living spaces, Mr. Cline noted the chamfered corner, which moves the house towards that eastern building line where there is no setback because there is a significant reserve. Ms. Menerey explained how they revised the landscape plans and the green space. Mr. Cline indicated they plan to have one or two spec homes built for potential buyers to see at the initial entry and they would incorporate landscaping as well. Mr. Brown asked for Staff's perspective on Lots 109 and 128. He indicated that if the open side of those homes is not put towards the street then one is looking at a bigger, blanker wall upon entering the community. Mr. Stang said that was true and indicated Staff thought the six-foot fence would be required but part of Staff's concern was the clarity of whether the four -foot fence was optional or if it was a requirement. He said the concern was outdoor items that might be stored in the area that directly faces Hyland -Croy Road, which has high visibility for a heavily traveled thoroughfare and Staff thought that would be a detriment from the aesthetic perspective. With the additional landscaping, he concluded that Staff would be comfortable with what is proposed as the landscape will soften that viewpoint. Steve Stidhem indicated he thought swing sets might be what staff is referring to when talking about outdoor items. He said he did not share this concern with staff but figured that was the intent of the condition. The Chair called for public comment Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 21 Prasad Vempati, 7031 Greenland Place, thanked the applicant for their effort based on the number of conditions the Commission raised last time. Walking on those same streets every day, he said, the unevenness that the proposal creates, concerns his family. He explained that on one side of the street, there is a seven -foot tree lawn space from the curb to the walkway and on the other side the tree lawn space is four feet from the curb to the walkway. He said this prompts an uneven visual aspect on the same street. He added on one side of the street there is a 14 -18 -foot setback and on the other side there is a 9 -foot setback. As he imagines himself every day, living in that place, walking through the streets, he said those conditions create a very uneven view. He concluded he is concerned about resale value. He said this is a unique situation but does not want to see a situation where the City is trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Since there was no one else from the public that wanted to speak about this case, the Chair closed the public portion. Cathy De Rosa requested clarification on the comments just heard from the resident about the sidewalk and tree lawns. Mr. Cline responded he had a hard time understanding what that issue is. He stated none of the public streets in the subdivision are being changed; the only things they are changing are the setbacks from those public streets. Right now, he restated, the setbacks are zero feet and they are proposing to change the setbacks to nine feet. Ms. De Rosa asked if the setbacks are consistent. Mr. Cline emphasized that everything they are doing in Subarea D is the same at nine feet. He explained the setback in the rest of Oak Park is a minimum of 13 feet or maximum of ±21 feet. He added there is a four -foot difference between their development standard of nine feet and a minimum setback of 13 feet for the Village and Park homes in Oak Park. He said some of the homes had to be set back further based on conflicts with the current infrastructure, which could impact the perspective. Mr. Stang explained the reason for different tree lawn spaces is they are associated with on -street parking and this is one of those existing conditions the applicant has to work with. Mr. Stidhem inquired about the deterioration of fences over time and then fixed, replaced, or repainted as part of maintenance. He asked if there is an active HOA in this area and if they would enforce any reconstruction and repainting. Mr. Cline said there will be a very strong and active HOA, it just has not been turned over yet. He indicated the HOA would be the appropriate body responsible for maintaining the fence. Mr. Stidhem clarified he was more concerned with the enforcement of paint color and style. Mr. Cline said that would be part of the Final Development Plan. Mr. Stang added the fence appearance would be a Code Enforcement issue as well. Victoria Newell thanked the applicant for addressing the Commission's comments from the last meeting as well as the public's. She said that what the applicant presented for open space this evening is very nice. She said she is very comfortable with the position of units for Lots 109 and 128, especially with the additional amenities such as the fence and landscaping. She recommended removing that condition from the final development plan. Ms. De Rosa wanted the fencing requirement to be clearer. Mr. Stang indicated there is a provision in the text that addresses that issue but staff will review it with the applicant. Ms. De Rosa said it makes sense to not use a bright white color for the fencing; a creamy white will make a real difference. She emphasized the exact color name and number should be included in the text. Mr. Cline said a better place to put that information is in the Final Development Plan and will ensure that information is included. The Chair asked Staff if that was acceptable. Mr. Stang said Staff can work with the applicant to ensure those details are provided. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 13, 2017 —Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 21 Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan with one condition: 1) That the applicant revise the development text to require Lots 118 and 119 to use the same architectural model mirrored across Oak Park Boulevard, prior to City Council Review. The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 6 — 0) The Chair requested to see again the four conditions of approval for the Final Development Plan: 1) That Lots 109 and 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas toward the western property line, subject to verification at building permitting; 2) That the non -operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell -Dewitt Road/Oak Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of building permits; 3) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the community center, prior to building permitting; and 4) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City Council review. Based on the discussion, Mr. Stang suggested that condition #1 be removed and a new condition be added as follows: 1) That the non -operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell -Dewitt Road/Oak Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of building permits; 2) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the community center, prior to building permitting; 3) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City Council review; and 4) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to outline installation requirements for the fence details, prior to building permitting. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with the amended four conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Preliminary and Final Plats with two conditions: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal; and 2) That the applicant add a note to the Final Plat outlining ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the two reserves, prior to City Council submittal. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 6 — 0) RECORD Of DISCUSSION INblicityern Planning & Zoning Commission OVA 0A Thursday, November 10, 201616,30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: Oak Park PUD, Subarea D -Oak Park Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive 16-090INF Informal Review Proposal: Single-family townhomes on four acres previously approved for townhouse condominiums on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road at the intersection with Oak Park Boulevard. Request, Informal review and non-binding feedback of a proposal prior to a formal application for rezoning, Applicant: ChnstopherCline, BlaugrundKessler Myers +Postalaids, Planning Contact, Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Manager. Contact Information: (614) *4690, jrauch:dublin,oh us RESULT: The Commission informally reviewed the proposed request to convert 36 approved townhouse unit to single-family dwelling units within :he Oak Park Development and was supportive of the proposed change, The Commission expressed a desire to ensure the architedural design and Integrity of the community Is maintained with a future proposal, The Commission encouraged the opportunity to Include the conversion of the commercial area to single-family residential. Their general support of the proposed concepts aligned with Option A, understanding the biggest challenge is that properly Is under separate ownership, MEMBERS PRESENT: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Yes Stephen Stldhem Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Jennifer M. Rau r, AICP, Planning Manager PLANNING 5NGSher Rings Road gublin,Ohio 43D16 phone 614,4104600 fax 614,4104747 dubrmohloum.gov Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said the following cases are eligible for the Consent Agenda: Case 4 — Craughwell Village and Case 5 — BSD, Building C3. At the request of one of the Commission members, she pulled Case 4 from the Consent Agenda. She said the cases would be heard in the following order: 5, 1, 4, 2, and 3 but would be recorded in the minutes in the order they were listed on the agenda. 1. Oak Park PUD, Subarea D — Oak Park Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive 16-090INF Informal Review The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for single-family townhomes on four acres previously approved for townhouse condominiums on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road at the intersection with Oak Park Boulevard. She said this is a request for an informal review and non- binding feedback of a proposal prior to a formal application for rezoning. Jennifer Rauch presented an aerial view of the site and noted the Final Development Plan was approved in 2007 for the 72 single-family and 36 townhouse units. She said the review tonight relates to converting 36 attached townhouse units to detached single-family units. She said the applicant has provided three options for discussion (Options A, B, and C). Ms. Rauch presented Option A - the proposed conversion of the townhome and commercial area comprehensively to single-family. She said this option would provide 32 single-family lots with similar lot dimensions and would allow the same architecture, unit size and materials as the existing single-family development. She noted the challenge with this option, is the applicant does not control the commercial portion of the site, nor is the owner of the commercial portion an applicant for this application. Ms. Rauch presented Option B - the conversion of the townhome area only, which the applicant controls, and would provide 20 single-family lots with smaller lots and lot depth; therefore, the product and elevations would need to be changed due to the reduced lot size. She reported the applicant has provided a revised architectural design and site layout for discussion. She said the site layout for these units would be rear loaded with the front elevation facing the existing single-family lots. Ms. Rauch presented Option C — the conversion outlined in Option B for the townhome area, and then allow for future conversion of the commercial area and continue with the development pattern outlined in Option B at a later time. This option she said would provide 12 additional smaller, single-family lots and the dimensions, architecture and rear -loaded design would apply to these additional lots. Similar to Option A, she noted the ability to redevelop the commercial area would rely on the cooperation of the property owner. Ms. Rauch stated the discussion questions: 1. Does the PZC support the request to pursue the conversion of the townhomes to single-family units? And the potential future conversion of the commercial area to single-family units? 2. Does the PZC support the proposed site layout and design? 3. Does the PZC support the proposed architectural style for Options B and C? 4. Are there other considerations by the Commission? Bob Miller asked about the lot size for Option A as compared to the existing lot sizes. Ms. Rauch answered the lot sizes are similar. Chris Cline, 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Ste. 100, Worthington, Ohio, mentioned his team members that were present. He explained they are requesting an amendment to a planned district as it lacks flexibility. He said Oak Park started in 2005 and one of the key aspects is the seller retained a certain amount of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 land for commercial development. In 2006, he said two uses were approved and in 2007, a filing was made for the commercial portion but nothing has ever happened with that property. Mr. Cline presented the plat and explained the types of residential uses differed from what they had originally intended. He presented the original rendering from the Edge Group that was required for that application and have since realized there is not a demand for that product and it would be too costly. He indicated that over the years, Planning has not been receptive to altering the townhome lots because they were viewed as a transition to and a buffer from the commercial areas. He emphasized that the problem is the commercial piece has not been developed and the Final Development Plan was never filed. He presented the rendering for the commercial component from the Edge Group. He said he does not believe the commercial piece will ever develop for several reasons. Mr. Cline presented the elevations for the two-story villa lots as well as the floor plans. He said these are plainer than the existing homes as the applicant would like to economize a bit. He presented what could be done instead of commercial development. He asked the Commission to provide guidance as to how the applicant should proceed. Mr. Miller inquired about the chances of obtaining the commercial property. Mr. Cline said they have had discussions but believes the City could have done more over the years and could do more to encourage the rezoning under the Sunset Provisions. He said no pressure has been put on this developer through all this time. Mr. Miller asked if Option A is what the residents want. Mr. Cline said that is what everybody wants. The Chair called for public comment. Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, said she is one of the homeowners in Oak Park. She said the residents have met to discuss these plans proposed by the applicant. She said when they bought their home, they were told there would be a commercial area and townhomes would be built in between to act as a barrier. She stated there are many young families and the neighbors would like to see the whole area rezoned for single-family lots. She said they are concerned about the architectural integrity of the development as a whole along with safety and traffic if commercial would be allowed to develop. She said the consensus amongst the residents is that they like Option A but do not want to see it too compacted. Tom Deshler, 7023 Greenland Place, said he had seen Options A & B but not C before this evening. The Chair opened the Commissioner's discussion. Cathy De Rosa asked about the timeframe for this PUD and if the commercial activity does not happen at some point in time, then what happens. Ms. Rauch said the Code states, once a PUD has started construction they have a three-year window, whereas if it lays dormant for those three years, then the City can initiate a rezoning. She said in this instance, this PUD has been under construction since 2008. She said the PUD was placed on the whole development, and the commercial can be separated. Phil Hartmann confirmed the Code speaks to an entire planned development. Mr. Cline said he disagrees because under the Sunset Provision, it cannot be said that because the residential went forward, the commercial has no timeline requirements. He said another problem with the Code is there are three provisions in there and if you get approved and you do not build there is nothing to address that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 Mr. Hartmann said we agree to disagree on that point. The Chair reminded everyone that this is an Informal Review Mr. Miller asked what latitude we have in rezoning the commercial piece that is not controlled by the applicant if it becomes a formal application. Mr. Hartmann said we would have no latitude and encouraged the applicant to contact the commercial developer. Mr. Cline said the Commission could influence City Council and the Planning staff to rezone. Ms. De Rosa said this is a lovely development so far with quality materials and the layout is very nice. She said she can appreciate that the residents want that to continue. She said the proposals felt fairly condensed and much tighter than the property as it exists today. She indicated the architectural designs of the townhomes as proposed are lovely. She said the architectural character being proposed this evening do not share the same character and the windows seem out of scale; it feels disconnected and heard the applicant say they would like to value engineer. She encouraged the applicant to make the proposed changes feel like the rest of the development that exists today; the density would only exacerbate the look of this. Chris Brown said the residents would prefer Options A or C but the applicant is asking the Commission to leverage that other developer to modify what they want to do with that land and he is not sure that is the Commission's position. He indicated it is possible to value engineer the townhomes while keeping the basic character. He said the proposal for Option C is not to the level of detail that it should be. Steve Stidhem said it is obvious the commercial development is not going to occur and if there is something the City can do, we should do it. He said the homes that exist are amazing homes and has heavily considered buying one for himself. He agreed the applicant should go forward with the same types of homes and quality that exist. Amy Salay said she would like to see the City take a position as Mr. Stidhem suggested. She said we need to do something because she agrees that commercial is not going to happen. She said the town homes are probably not a good idea unless the commercial were to develop. She said she likes Option A because that gets us closer to maintaining the existing character. She said there is no reason to value engineer when there is a successful neighborhood that is beautiful and developing nicely. She indicated that Council will feel like something has to be done but does not know how to put pressure on an absentee landowner that does not appear to be concerned. Deb Mitchell agreed action needs to happen and Option A is her preference. Mr. Miller said he would like to see the City provide guidance to the residents for a path forward. He indicated he likes Option A and could see it playing out in Option B. Victoria Newell said she would support the conversion from townhomes to the single-family homes because it is better for the residential feel of this particular neighborhood and believes that is what the residents would like to see. She said then the commercial would not fit but does not see it getting developed as commercial, anyway. In Option C she said, if you leave the commercial as future lots could get developed but does remain commercial, the open space that is there provides a buffer. She said the architecture presented does not have the same detail and is not fair to the residents as it does not follow the same detail of the existing homes. Mr. Cline said the architectural drawing was conceptual to see if they had a product that would fit on there. He said if they do go forward the product would not be indistinguishable to anything existing. He Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 said they are not trying to do anything cheap but they are trying to compete and there is a lot of expense to this. He restated something has to happen quickly. Mr. Brown concluded that the Commission is concerned for the existing residents. He encouraged the applicant to propose a layout and product that is equal to that, and talk to the other developer into permitting the applicant to develop some of that land, then the Commission would probably support Options A or C and if not then Option B is probably viable. Ms. Newell indicated the Commission would not support any other architecture than what was approved. Mr. Miller asked if it is possible for staff to provide this group with a path forward and how to approach Council regarding the commercial piece. He said he would like to provide a course of action to pursue. Ms. Rauch said the informal this evening was the first step. She said there is an option for the applicant to go before Council requesting an Informal Review. 2. a ... ... ..-.t�Rt�RT�TIlTT7T.T.R.'iT.77T71^.T..T-1T.-Tn7ltC1�Si7Rf7LT.:TIER.TJTE177.7Wit ■- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ _- Dublin City, -Council DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 He Il 1 November 20, 2006 20 Page 3 Ordinance 73-06 (Amended) Adopting a New Compensation Plan for the City of Dublin and Repealing Ordinance 98-96 ("Compensation Plan") and All Amendments Thereto (Ordinances 11-97, 43-97, 86-97,100-97,134-97, 08-98, 20-99, 41-00, 77-00,118-00, 128-00, 26-01, 01-02, 11-03, 43-03, 83-03, 01-04, 38-04, 78-04, 06-05, and 31-05). Ms. Brautigam stated that the project team working on the Class and Compensation Study has reviewed one of the positions proposed in the 2007 operating budget, determined where it would fit in the structure, and created a job title for this position. This amendment has been included in the ordinance before Council tonight. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road pointed out Sections 6, 7 and 8 on page 9 of the ordinance. Specifically, Section 6, the special provision regarding minimum pay increase; Section 7, Mayor/Vice Mayor/Council Member compensation; and Section 8, the instant bonus program. He noted that Section 6 makes reference to "2006 employees" and Section 8 makes reference to "all employees." He asked if the Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members are regarded as City employees. Ms. Brautigam responded they are not. They are viewed as the officers of the City, which is distinguished from employees of the City. Mr. Maurer asked who decides the compensation of the officers of the City. Ms. Brautigam responded these are set by ordinance and reviewed only by the members of Council. Mr. Maurer noted that Section 8 includes the language, "demonstrates innovative or creativity in government." It is applicable only to employees, not to elected officials, as he now understands. Mrs. Boring noted that Council had agreed upon an additional review for some aspects of the Plan at future dates. Is this reflected in the text of the ordinance? Ms. Brautigam responded that will be done as part of the City Manager's evaluation each year. Mr. Keenan asked about the length of the contract for services provided by the compensation consultant. Ms. Brautigam responded that the consultant will perform some additional services this year, including training for supervisors. She is not certain whether that will continue beyond 2006. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that during the budget hearings, it was stated that this consultant would assist with implementation of the Plan for a period of time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Ordinance 74-06 Rezoning Approximately 61.35 Acres, Located on the Southwest Corner of Mitchell - Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road From R, Rural District, To PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park Mixed -Use - Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road - Case No. 06-064Z). Ms. Adkins stated this rezoning was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission at their meeting of September 21, 2006. The site is currently zoned Rural District, and the surrounding zonings are PUD and PLR. The proposal contains 108 housing units and 39,700 square feet of mixed use retail development. The site plan includes five subareas: subarea A is for single-family lots on the periphery of the site, adjacent to the Metro Park; subarea B includes smaller single-family lots clustered along the western edge of the site; subarea C is the neighborhood center, which will include a clubhouse and amenities; subarea D are townhouse units that flank the retail area; and subarea E is the retail area in frontage along Hyland -Croy Road. There are several kinds of residential lots proposed within subareas A and B, and the townhomes in subarea D are alley -loaded. The proposed neighborhood commercial area consists of two L-shaped areas totaling 39,700 square feet maximum. She shared the proposed residential architecture, noting the Planning Commission added a condition at the meeting requiring a comparable amount of brick and stone on all four sides of the building, unless otherwise approved. A theme for the development has been approved with the text. She shared the proposed architecture for the neighborhood center, for the townhomes and for the commercial area along Hyland -Croy Road. Staff is recommending approval RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ -_ _ _ - --Dublin-City-C-ouncif DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORMING 10148 H November 20, 2006 20 Meetina Page 4 of the rezoning. She offered to respond to any questions. Mrs. Boring asked how many households are needed to support the 39,700 square feet of retail? Is there a study which can be cited? Ms. Adkins responded that she does not know, but can check on this and report back. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony. Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland -Croy Road stated that as previously noted in public meetings, he and his wife they have no issues with the housing development, as they are surrounded by similar developments. They do have concerns, however, about the shopping center portion of the proposal. He was in the Muirfield area today and viewed a Center which included stores, restaurants and basic services for the area ten years ago. Today, the buildings are empty. In this development, a shopping center is proposed which will be located 2.4 miles from the Perimeter area. The Perimeter area has over 15 restaurants and many retail stores. He wonders if the proposed shopping center will eventually have empty buildings as well, similar to the Muirfield Center. Council needs to consider the direction they want to take in this regard. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she will ask the developer's representatives to address this matter at the conclusion of the public testimony. Fred Blythe, 7765 Mitchell Dewitt noted his family owns the property adjacent to the west of the development. They had several issues within the greenspace along their property line, primarily at the road. He has talked with the developers and is confident that the minor details can be worked out. Overall, they believe it is a nice development. Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant stated they have attended many meetings about this proposal and listened closely to input from the City officials. This is a neighborhood center of 39,700 square feet. It does not include big box retail. All of the architecture is highly integrated and of high quality. They have been working with Mr. Solove, who is going to be one of the developers of the shopping center, and also with Metropolitan — a companywhich has done man innovative retail centers in Y other parts of the country. Metropolitan has built a similar center in New Jersey. They are very confident there is a appropriate place in town for a number of these small shopping centers. The City's consultants have agreed that the smaller centers s are beneficial from a traffic point of view, as they service people where they live. This is a growing area of Dublin, and the retailers believe there is sufficient demand to support the center. In terms of integrating the retail and the residential architecturally, this is a good chance for Dublin to do something innovative. Jeremy Halprin, Atlantic Realtv Development Corporation of New Jersev stated that he represents the third generation of their family in this 50 -year old business. They are very excited about working in Dublin. They have been flexible in identifying a new site for this concept, after their previous site was designated as part of the future tech center area in Dublin. Their company wants to become involved and become part of the Dublin family. Their high quality units are focused on the empty nester, as most have first floor master bedrooms. They have incorporated all suggestions they have received from the City and the Planning Commission. They are very flexible and willing to work with the City. He thanked the City for taking the time to review their project tonight. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher stated that there has been discussion previously about the 11 necessary critical mass within a certain distance to have a viable commercial neighborhood center such as this. She asked him to comment. Mr. Hale responded that the retailers do consider their customer base and demographics required within a certain distance of the center. There are a large number of houses in the area and a lot of traffic along Hyland -Croy. There has been good response from retailers, and the rents are set fairly high. They have also committed in the text that the first building built will be a main one at the entry. The plan is to file the final development plan for the residential portion at the first of the month, and the retail will lag by a month or two. There will be retail tenants n s committed at the time of the final development Ian filing. p p 1 1 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ - Dublin City C ncil November 20, 2006 Held 20 Meeting Page 5 Mr. Reiner asked when this development will be concluded. He knows that there has been emphasis on the Franklin model in terms of quality. Council is expecting to see that. He was hopeful that this portion would be completed before embarking on some of the other portions of the plan. Mr. Hale responded a meeting took place today regarding the timeframe. Their engineer was present and the plan is to file the final development plan as quickly as possible. Atlantic believes that it is important to see the entire site. So they plan to develop the whole site in one phase, not separately. All of the residential will be built and all of the landscaping will be installed, all the ponds will be installed, and then they will build at least two townhouse buildings -- ten units in total - and the clubhouse. They believe it is important that enough of the plan be built so they can demonstrate to the public what this development will be. The entrances to Hyland -Croy and Brand Road will be built at the same time. Mr. Reiner asked if there is an actual timeline in months. Mr. Halprin responded that if they are able to start in June, it will take 4-6 months for the infrastructure, and they would then begin immediately with two townhouse buildings and five to ten of each type of single-family homes. He estimates this is a three to five-year type of project, depending upon the pace of sales in the market. Hopefully, the majority of what will be seen from the street will be built in 24 months. Mr. Hale added that part of this relates to the timing of the process. They have to file a final development plan and then hope to be on the Commission's February agenda with the final development plan for the entire residential site and some of the roads in the commercial site. Then the final plat will have to be processed, including final engineering. Construction would likely begin in June. Mr. Reiner asked if the elevations shown are what will be seen on the site. Mr. Hale responded that the same architect who designed the conceptuals is now doing the final drawings and they have promised to file architectural drawings for the Planning Commission, showing all sides of the buildings, with equal quality and materials. Mr. Keenan asked about the scale of the setback along Hyland -Croy. Mr. Hale responded the setback is 200 feet from the property line, and additional right of way is being provided on Hyland -Croy. Mrs. Boring stated she has heard Mr. Feasel's comments about the retail center. For future developments, she requested that staff provide figures on the population support needed for retail development. This would be useful in consideration of future rezonings. Vice Mayor Lecklider welcomed the development to the community. He is positively impressed by what he has seen. In some respects, this is a new concept. He is hopeful and confident it will meet Dublin's expectations. He asked if staff envisions any issue regarding patios with this development, and if so, how will this be addressed in the text. Mr. Smith stated that a meeting took place regarding patios and future issues. He does not have a response this evening and does not know if patios are planned for this development. Mayor Chin nici-Zuercher suggested that this proposal can continue to move forward with the proviso that Council would want that aspect reviewed and the text changed accordingly - if determined to be necessary. Mr. Gunderman responded that staff has spoken to the developer about this and they believe the setbacks for the project are somewhat different than some previously reviewed. The applicant has expressed interest at the Commission meeting in having outdoor patio space. Mr. Hale responded that with the size of the houses being built and the size of the lots, they are confident that the patios can be accommodated within all setbacks. Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that he would not want to foreclose that opportunity, as he believes patios would be appealing in terms of what they are trying to accomplish. He wants to make certain that they can be accommodated within the setbacks. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded to Mr. Feasel's comments about the Muirfield Minutes of DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148 Hel RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin laity -Council--- Meeting __ November 20, 2006 20 Page 6 Center. Council has discussed the issues about the Muirfield Center previously and why it has not succeeded. Council has learned that the residents prefer having retail centers nearby where they can walk or ride bicycles to access the services. It will be important to have the bikepath completed in this area to enhance the capacity of residents from all directions to access the area safely. The architecture does lend itself to conversion if needed at some future point. Mr. McCash asked about the financial partners involved in this development. The application indicates HC & Associates and Atlantic Realty, and Jerome Solove has been mentioned. There have been other names mentioned tonight. Mr. Hale responded that a company associated with Jerry Solove owns the land today. That company is in contract with Atlantic to purchase the residential portion. Jerome Solove, with a company named Metropolitan Partners, specifically Tim Rollins — who worked on the Easton project — is involved in this development. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnick Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 75-06 (Amended) Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Butler Animal Health Supply to Induce the Expansion of the Butler Animal Health Supply Workforce within the City of Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Gilger noted that Butler Animal Health Supply, located on Blazer Parkway is expanding and the City is offering them an incentive of five years, $27,155 — a performance incentive tied to Butler achieving pre -determined payroll growth associated with new job creation. This also serves as the local component for the Job Creation Tax Credit. Ms. Gilger pointed out that the ordinance has been amended subsequent to the first reading, with some recalculations to the withholdings. This has changed the numbers by $11,000. She introduced Eric Bosserman, Tax Manager, Butler Animal Health. Eric Bosserman, Butler Animal Health Supply thanked Ms. Gilger for her efforts in working on this agreement as well as the incentive with the State of Ohio. They are a distributor and have been looking at constant opportunities for growth. To that end, they have acquired a software subsidiary in Kentucky a number of years ago and have not been able to fully integrate their business. In order to do so, they need some assistance t current from the Cit and the State to induce people to relocate and to expand he curt Y P P P facilities to accommodate growth. He thanked the City for their willingness to consider these incentives. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that it strikes him that Butler Animal Health Supply is very generous in pointing out its interrelations with other companies. It is obviously a conglomerate. He doesn't know to what extent there is potential for "whistle blowing" of one company over another. He is not implying that is the case here. Is it safe and fair for Council to say that what transpires between the various companies in the conglomerate is not the City's business — as long as Butler Animal Health Supply makes its payments to the City? Y Y Mr. Smith responded that there are laws in place that have to be followed. The City does not investigate the people doing business to ensure they are in conformity. Mr. Maurer stated he is not concerned with impropriety. He is concerned with decision- makingand the impacts on the company being assisted b the Cit with the incentive. 9 Y Y Should he assume this is none of the City's business? Mr. Smith responded that is an accurate statement. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinance 76-06 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Saber Corporation to Induce the Location of the Saber Workforce within the City of Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Gilger stated that Saber is looking to locate at 5555 Glendon Court and the City is I Blank. Inc. Ordinance No. 74-06 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 61.35 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MITCHELL- DEWITT ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK MIXED-USE — MITCHELL-DEWITT ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD — CASE NO. 06-064Z). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of 22DU�j, 2006. Mayor - Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. De�ti y Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio