No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout68-07 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES �_ Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043 Ordinance No. 68 -07 Passed 20 1 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.625 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST DUBLIN - GRANVILLE ROAD AT THE TERMINUS OF SHAMROCK BOULEVARD, FROM SO, SUBURBAN OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING - STONERIDGE LANE - CASE NO. 07- 034Z). NOW, TVEREFORE, 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. this day of .S-eP7'ehi lo v- 2007. A - Presiding Officer r1 �l 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. Douty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio ORDINANCE 68 -07 CONDITION APPENDED BY COUNCIL ON 9/4/07 Condition #5 That the light levels at the rear of the structures in Subareas A and B shall be sufficiently reduced in overall coverage during the nighttime periods to reduce and minimize the impact on adjoining properties, and that this be reviewed during the final development plan. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 M e m o (OF DUBLIN_ TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager DATE: August 30, 2007 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Rezoning Ordinance 68 -07 — Sunrise Senior Living — Stoneridge Lane (Case No. 07 -034Z) Summary: Ordinance 68 -07, a request for rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000- square -foot office /institutional use at the intersection of Stoneridge Lane and Shamrock Boulevard was introduced at the August 20, 2007 meeting. Members of City Council discussed the need for site lighting sensitive to the adjacent residents, the details of the proposed detention basin, the landscape buffer along the southern property line and the proposed plant materials. Planning and the applicant have provided photographs of detention basins within the City and on sites developed by the applicant. The applicant has revised the development text to limit the height of light poles to 16 feet. In addition, the text has been revised to clarify that when a building is built in Subarea B, the landscape buffer along the southern boundary will match the requirement for Subarea A. Planning will review the plant species selection at the final development stage. Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance 68 -07 at its second reading/public hearing on September 4, 2007. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 M e m o (OF DUBLIN_ TO: Members of City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager DATE: August 30, 2007 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Rezoning Ordinance 68 -07 — Sunrise Senior Living — Stoneridge Lane (Case No. 07 -034Z) Summary: Ordinance 68 -07, a request for rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000- square -foot office /institutional use at the intersection of Stoneridge Lane and Shamrock Boulevard was introduced at the August 20, 2007 meeting. Members of City Council discussed the need for site lighting sensitive to the adjacent residents, the details of the proposed detention basin, the landscape buffer along the southern property line and the proposed plant materials. Planning and the applicant have provided photographs of detention basins within the City and on sites developed by the applicant. The applicant has revised the development text to limit the height of light poles to 16 feet. In addition, the text has been revised to clarify that when a building is built in Subarea B, the landscape buffer along the southern boundary will match the requirement for Subarea A. Planning will review the plant species selection at the final development stage. Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance 68 -07 at its second reading/public hearing on September 4, 2007. City of Dublin, OH Detention Ponds August 22, 2007 L Ai , Southwest corner of Parkcenter and Bradenton Southwest corner of Parkcenter and Bradenton Southwest corner of Dublin Rd. and Tuttle Crossing Chicago; provided by applicant City of Dublin, OH Detention Ponds Botanical Gardens; provided by applicant Southwest corner of Parkcenter and Bradenton August 22, 2007 S` r� 1 P. # _- Botanical Gardens; provided by applicant REVISED DEVELOPMENT TEXT BASED ON CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) August 22, 2007 A. Site Description and Site Use Concept The proposed site is comprised of approximately 5.625 acres located at the southern terminus of Shamrock Boulevard and adjacent to existing Stoneridge Lane. The planning objective for the PUD is to enable the development of an assisted living facility providing residential opportunities for individuals that are able to maintain some level of independence but require around the clock support services and personal care assistance. At the present time, the subject property is zoned to allow SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses under Section 153.026 of the City of Dublin Code. The applicant seeks to preserve its right to these uses while creating a planned district to inject some flexibility into the site planning process. The assisted living facility use will fulfill a growing need in the community to serve aging citizens that have a lessened ability to function independently but are not yet ready for more skilled nursing care. Residents of the assisted living facility are semi - independent physically or mentally yet generally need frequent assistance. Alzheimer's and dementia residents may be included in this group. One and two person rooms with kitchenettes, private bathroom facilities, and beds are designed and decorated to make residents feel at home. Meals will be provided in common dining areas and numerous lounges and activity areas shall be found throughout the facility. On -site staff will provide 24 -hour assistance with daily living activities such as mobility, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, health care monitoring, laundry service, housekeeping and maintenance, and socialization and activity programs. These residents will typically not have their own automobiles. A 14- passenger van is provided for transportation of residents. The assisted living facility will provide an appropriate transitional use between the residential uses to the south and the retail, office, and service- oriented development to be found in the recently approved Shamrock Crossing project immediately to the north. In designing the structures to be found in this PUD, the developer intends to capture the high level of architectural quality of Shamrock Crossing with a theme that is complimentary to that project. At the same time, the applicant recognizes the development's proximity to its residential neighbors and has located open space and designed architecture and landscaping with this relationship in mind. B. Development Standards Development standards are being provided for two subareas within the PUD: Subarea A, consisting of 4.0± acres located on the western portion of the site, and Subarea B, consisting of 1.6t acres located on the eastern side of the property. All development within this PUD shall comply with the design guidelines of the standards set forth in this text. In the event that a development concern is not addressed in this document, the provisions of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. IMI t I 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea A: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Densi : A maximum of 66,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. In addition to this square footage, a maximum of 8,500 square feet of unheated porch areas shall be permitted. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of eighty -five (85) feet and a minimum pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea A. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea A. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one hundred (100) feet from the western boundary line of Subarea A. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea A. 4. Parking and Loading: a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living Facility Use: A minimum of forty-eight (48) parking spaces shall be required to serve an assisted living facility use in this subarea. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. c. Screening of Service and Loading Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from off -site view by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 5, Circulation: a. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access between Subarea A and Stoneridge Lane shall be from a single full movement curbcut in the approximate location shown on the preliminary development plan. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and/or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. d. Fire Access: A pavement loop shall be installed in the southeastern quadrant of this subarea in the general location shown on the preliminary development plan. The purpose of this pavement loop shall be to provide access for fire safety vehicles provided, however, that it may also be used by other vehicular traffic on the site. At the time that development is completed in Subarea B, a portion of the pavement loop in Subarea A shall be removed and a vehicular access drive shall be constructed to connect the remaining portion of the loop to Subarea B for the purposes of providing fire access to the southeastern area of the building in Subarea A and vehicular access between the two subareas. 6. Waste and Refuse; Screeniniz: a. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from off -site view by a stone or brick wall in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building. 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscapin Plan: lan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the southern property line of this subarea in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. Screening shall be provided along this entire property line in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet. 8. Lighting_ a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. If approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, lighting may vary from the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines when necessary to ensure that it is not intrusive to adjacent properties to the south of the site. b. Lighting Plan: lan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light _ Trespass: Site lighting shall be designed to minimize or eliminate glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. e. Light poles: Light poles shall be limited to a maximum of sixteen (16) feet in height. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the preliminary development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Height: The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Si ng_age: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. 0 b. Signage Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number; Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea A from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be a joint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign Base: The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground - mounted fixtures. D. SUBAREA B 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea B: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Densi : A maximum of 34,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea B. There shall be a minimum building setback from the rear property line of Subarea B of fifty (50) feet for single -story buildings and eighty-five (85) feet for buildings that are taller than one story. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of thirty-five (3 5) feet for buildings and fifteen (15) feet for pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea B. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the western boundary line of Subarea B. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea B. 4. Parking and Loading_ a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living Facility Use: Parking for an assisted living facility or related use in this subarea shall be provided at the minimum rate of six tenths (0.6) of one parking space per residential unit. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. c. Screening of Service and Loading Areas: Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from off -site view by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 5. Circulation: a. Vehicular Access: At the time that Subarea B develops, vehicular access to and from Stroneridge Lane shall be provided via a second curbcut that is in addition to the curbcut found in Subarea A. The curbcut in Subarea B shall be located as shown on the preliminary development plan and shall align with the curbcut on the north side of Stoneridge Lane. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and/or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. 6. Waste and Refuse; Screening: a. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a stone or brick wall in accordance with the 6 Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. . 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the entire southern property line of the subarea in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. This screening shall not be required to be installed in this subarea until such time as a building is constructed therein. When installed, screening along the southern property line shall be provided in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet. 8. Lighting: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. If approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, lighting may vary from the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines when necessary to ensure that it is not intrusive to adjacent properties to the south of the site. b. Lighting Plan: lan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light Trespass: Site lighting shall be designed to minimize or eliminate glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. e. Light poles: Light poles shall be limited to a maximum of sixteen (16) feet in height. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the final development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Height: The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Signage: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. b. Signage Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number, Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea B from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be a joint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground- mounted fixtures. CrrY OF DUBLIN_ TO: FROM: DATE: INITIATED BY: RE: Summary: Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo Members of City Council Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager August 16, 2007 Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Ordinance 68 -07 — Rezoning — Sunrise Senior Living, Stoneridge Lane (Case No. 07 -0342) A rezoning request for the Sunrise Senior Living development, encompassing 5.625 acres located south of West Dublin - Granville Road at the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard, is being forwarded to City Council. The request is to rezone the acreage (preliminary development plan) from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows for a 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of office /institutional use. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning on July 12, 2007 with four conditions, which are provided in the attached Record of Action. The applicant has addressed conditions 3 and 4 by modifying the development text. Planning staff will ensure that conditions land 2 will be fulfilled entirely by the final development plan stage. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier -Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance 68 -07 at the second reading/public hearing on September 4, 2007. PUD I CC PUD > CC M D a L > PU CC R -4 Dubiln= Granville Road -- �m ° - Y - V O L .L CC PU U) PUD PUD SI t er R -12 a9 ! PUD R -2 R -2 R -2 PUD �WIIY-Mar•Court-,w M ) a R -2 M PUD X R -2 L O0 Mart in -Road 07 -034Z N City of Dublin Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Land Use and Sunrise Senior Living Fee Long Range Planning Stoneridge Lane 0 250 500 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Ot 0 REVISED DEVELOPMENT TEXT BASED ON PZC COMMENTS SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) August 1, 2007 A. Site Description and Site Use Concept The proposed site is comprised of approximately 5.625 acres located at the southern terminus of Shamrock Boulevard and adjacent to existing Stoneridge Lane. The planning objective for the PUD is to enable the development of an assisted living facility providing residential opportunities for individuals that are able to maintain some level of independence but require around the clock support services and personal care assistance. At the present time, the subject property is zoned to allow SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses under Section 153.026 of the City of Dublin Code. The applicant seeks to preserve its right to these uses while creating a planned district to inject some flexibility into the site planning process. The assisted living facility use will fulfill a growing need in the community to serve aging citizens that have a lessened ability to function independently but are not yet ready for more skilled nursing care. Residents of the assisted living facility are semi - independent physically or mentally yet generally need frequent assistance. Alzheimer's and dementia residents may be included in this group. One and two person rooms with kitchenettes, private bathroom facilities, and beds are designed and decorated to make residents feel at home. Meals will be provided in common dining areas and numerous lounges and activity areas shall be found throughout the facility. On -site staff will provide 24 -hour assistance with daily living activities such as mobility, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, health care monitoring, laundry service, housekeeping and maintenance, and socialization and activity programs. These residents will typically not have their own automobiles. A 14- passenger van is provided for transportation of residents. The assisted living facility will provide an appropriate transitional use between the residential uses to the south and the retail, office, and service - oriented development to be found in the recently approved Shamrock Crossing project immediately to the north. In designing the structures to be found in this PUD, the developer intends to capture the high level of architectural quality of Shamrock Crossing with a theme that is complimentary to that project. At the same time, the applicant recognizes the development's proximity to its residential neighbors and has located open space and designed architecture and landscaping with this relationship in mind. B. Development Standards Development standards are being provided for two subareas within the PUD: Subarea A, consisting of 4.0± acres located on the western portion of the site, and Subarea B, consisting of 1.6t acres located on the eastern side of the property. All development within this PUD shall comply with the design guidelines of the standards set forth in this text. In the event that a development concern is not addressed in this document, the provisions of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. C. SUBAREA A 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea A: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Density: A maximum of 66,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. In addition to this square footage, a maximum of 8,500 square feet of unheated porch areas shall be permitted. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of eighty -five (85) feet and a minimum pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea A. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea A. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one hundred (100) feet from the western boundary line of Subarea A. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea A. 4. Parking and Loading: a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living Facility Use: A minimum of forty -eight (48) parking spaces shall be required to serve an assisted living facility use in this subarea. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. c. Screening of Service and Loading Areas: Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from off -site view by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 2 5. Circulation: a. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access between Subarea A and Stoneridge Lane shall be from a single full movement curbcut in the approximate location shown on the preliminary development plan. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and /or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. d. Fire Access: A pavement loop shall be installed in the southeastern quadrant of this subarea in the general location shown on the preliminary development plan. The purpose of this pavement loop shall be to provide access for fire safety vehicles provided, however, that it may also be used by other vehicular traffic on the site. At the time that development is completed in Subarea B, a portion of the pavement loop in Subarea A shall be removed and a vehicular access drive shall be constructed to connect the remaining portion of the loop to Subarea B for the purposes of providing fire access to the southeastern area of the building in Subarea A and vehicular access between the two subareas. 6. Waste and Refuse: Screening: a. Waste and Refuse All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from off -site view by a stone or brick wall in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building. 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the southern property line of the PUD in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. Screening shall be provided along this entire property line in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet. 8. Lighting_ a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. If approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, lighting may vary from the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines when necessary to ensure that it is not intrusive to adjacent properties to the south of the site. b. Lighting Plan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light Trespass Site lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the preliminary development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Heim The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Signage: a. General Standards Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. b. Signa e Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number; Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea A from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be ajoint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign Base: The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground - mounted fixtures. D. SUBAREA B 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea B: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Density: A maximum of 34,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea B. There shall be a minimum building setback from the rear property line of Subarea B of fifty (50) feet for single -story buildings and eighty -five (85) feet for buildings that are taller than one story. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of thirty-five (35) feet for buildings and fifteen (15) feet for pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea B. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the western boundary line of Subarea B. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea B. 4. Parking and Loading a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living Facility Use: Parking for an assisted living facility or related use in this subarea shall be provided at the minimum rate of six tenths (0.6) of one parking space per residential unit. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. c. Screening of Service and Loading Areas: Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from off -site view by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 5. Circulation: a. Vehicular Access At the time that Subarea B develops, vehicular access to and from Stroneridge Lane shall be provided via a second curbcut that is in addition to the curbcut found in Subarea A. The curbcut in Subarea B shall be located as shown on the preliminary development plan and shall align with the curbcut on the north side of Stoneridge Lane. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and /or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. 6. Waste and Refuse; Screening: a. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a stone or brick wall in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. . 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the entire southern property line of the PUD in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. Screening shall not be required along this property line until such time as a building is constructed in Subarea B but, when required, shall be provided in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet behind any and all structures found in this subarea. 8. Lighting: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. If approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, lighting may vary from the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines when necessary to ensure that it is not intrusive to adjacent properties to the south of the site. b. Lighting Plan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light Trespass: Site lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the final development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Height: The maximum height of structures shall be thirty -five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Signage: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. b. Signage Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a pail of the final development plan. c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number: Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea B from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be a joint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign Base: The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground - mounted fixtures. Sunrise Dublin text(5) (alu) (8/1/07) CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Ranee Planning SK0 Shie-Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016-1236 Ph one /TDD: 614 -410 -4600 F.:61" 0 -4747 Web Sile:w .dublin.oh.us NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed. Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointment for a pre - submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ® Preliminary Development Plan (Section 163.053) ❑ Other (Please Describe) II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address: 0 Dublin- Granville Road Tax ID /Parcel N umber(s):273- 008265, et al. Parcel Size (Acres): 5 625± Existing Land Use /Development: Undeveloped Proposed Land Use/Development: Senior Citizen assisted living facility Existing Zoning District: So Requested Zoning District: PUD Total Acres to be Rezoned. 5.6251' III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the following sections. A. Please briefly explain the proposed rez a d v. nnme hi a re uest is for a rezonin of the subject property from an �ugur{3an Bice an Institutional Districct designate PUD, Planned Unit Developmez.t designation. The intent is to allow for the develo a senior citizen assisted living facility. B. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicin :TThe d velo m Ent ,is oc ed b twe n res'd nt' 1 dev o t to the south and rock Cross rga a3.1 and office e devegopmen oie norli. proposed uses por ,ow nsi y transition between these developments and incorporate site planning C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, If applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 163.062(6)1: See attached statement f. D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Dsvelopm"erft Pla apgv�Tiiy the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in [Section 163.065(A)l (SEE ATTACHMENT A): , ;1/ ` I 1 :" 14 See attached statement r%F P1 IrZI IN t� rs January 2007 EXHIBIT LLB" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER 06 -07 CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION ntoa ment of vide principle n the are Page 1 of 5 _U USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ❑ Yes Z No If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3): IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24X36) and small (11X17) sets of plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be folded. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. ❑ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ❑ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ❑ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of the site (Maximum Size 11X17). Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parcel number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address (Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance . ❑ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ❑ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITE /STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building /unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres /square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of -way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. ❑ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and /or Stonnwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ❑ MATERIALICOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and product number. � 03y Page 2 of 5 LC 'ti I _. !NG V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNFR(SI' Thiw saatinn m„at ha aamniatnA Gruaeu .... t. �w.n,r.... �, e,........ o _....w..., Name (individual orOrganization): Shamrock Crossing, LLC Mailing Address: 565 Metro Place South (Street, City, State, zip Code) Dublin, Ohio 43017 Daytime Telephone: (614) 764 -9981 Fax: (614) 764 -2207 Email or Alternate Contactinfowation:matt@stavroff.com VI. APPLICANT: Please complete If applicable. This Is the person(s) who is requesting the zone change if different than the property ownerlsl. Name: Laura Hester Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Sunrise Development, Inc. Mailing Address: 48945 Van Dyke Ave., Suite 12 (Street, City, State, zip Code) Shelby Township, MI 48317 Daytime Telephone: (586) 997 -3951 Fax: (586) 977 -3211 Email or Alternate Contact Information: VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will receive correspondence regarding this aopllcatlon. If needed. attach additional sheets for muldnla mnraaa,tlativaa- Name: Glen Dugger and Aaron Underhill, attorneys organization: Smith & Hale Mailing Address: 37 W. Broad Street, Suite 725 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Columbus, Ohio 43215 Daytime Telephone: (614) 221 -4255 Fax: (614) 221 -4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: gdugger @smithandhale.com aunderhill @smithandhale.com G}-03V c . Page 3 of 6 ,\.;, Vlll. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant Is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. Shamrock Crossing, LLC the owner, hereby authorize the attorneys with the law firm of Smith & Hale to act as my applicant /representaeve(s) In all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, Including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: By: A uj ""'';t;D' S�(n1 �60/� GG bSfl ley / LP L IDate: ? Title: A4 bd , hG r'lvty -, ✓ J O Subscribed and swam to before me this State of r)� 'CJ '!, County of T( E) Ili 4 /1 l / Notary CRISTINA E. YATES Notary Publib', State of Ohio Delaware County My Comm. Expires Nov. 26, 2011 IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner /Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewerfacllities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized I Aaron L. Underhill , the 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 the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant orauthorized representative By; �;/— Dater /o7 Subscrib and sworn to before me this D—A day of )1 , 20 ,5,E State of `` /} G I. County of fy lJ ntlin Notary Public � iU NZ; v. 1�7RfCK s' Notary' sm of (Milo J "rt . 1 , ul for'- s kr, )'xofnls **CIO NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount R c ivedd: , D( ') Application No: 7 G3u7 t L P&Z Date(s): q , , 12 _ 0 ,, 1 P&Z Action: Ctf Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: / I By: Type of Request: 1 I NOS E, W (Circle) Side of: ,�/ rGnn 1n r P cy t intersection: �LNearest Intersection: h� n va m , . b L Page 4 of 6 day of , 20 LCr:(_ I ; l rG ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA §153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA. (A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application: (1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; (2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; (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; (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; (5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; (6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; (7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; (8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the sur- rounding 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 pedes- trians; (9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains 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 accept- ability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; (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; (12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed developmentjustify any deviation from the standard devel- opment 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; (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; (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; (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; (16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. p-�L -v`3u Z-- Page 5 of 5 SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING PUD Statement of Development's Relation to Community Plan and Criteria for Planned Districts The City of Dublin has adopted the following criteria to be considered while the Community Plan update process is being undertaken. Below is a summary of how these criteria are being met by the proposed Sunrise Senior Living development: 1 ) High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place. The proposed development seeks to provide architecture that is complimentary to the architectural theme that was recently proposed for the Shamrock Crossing retail and office development to the north while at the same time accounting for the distinct use of the building as an assisted living facility. The development will continue the high level of architectural quality that is expected in the vicinity and will utilize materials and styling that make for a seamless transition between uses. The site design takes into account the unique location of the property between commercial and residential uses. Plans for the assisted living facility are responsive to the proposed future design of commercial projects to the north and are sensitive to residential uses on the south by maximizing open space and setbacks from these properties within the constraints of the property. The single building to be found in the PUD is of a low intensity which is appropriate considering the site's transitional location. 2) Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multigenerational living and social interaction. The applicant is working closely with the developer of Shamrock Crossing to identify opportunities for pedestrian connections between these projects to allow for the seemless flow of pedestrian traffic in the area. While most of the residents of the assisted living facility will be unable to walk to most of the existing or proposed businesses in the area due to their health, nonetheless visitors and employees will enjoy easy pedestrian and vehicular access to nearby shopping, entertainment, and dining venues. The assisted living facility fulfills a growing need in the Dublin community to provide residential opportunities for senior citizens in accordance with often- stated goals of city officials during the Community Plan update process. This facility will add another dimension to multigenerational living opportunities and will provide a home where seniors will enjoy numerous daily opportunities for social interaction. 3) Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality. The assisted living facility provides an appropriate use on a piece of land that lies on the fringe of commercial development but also has close proximity to residential neighbors. Rather than providing additional commercial outlets along the Dublin - Granville Road corridor, this application provides a distinct use that is important in allowing lifelong Dublin residents to remain in the area as they age. 4) Providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as aMp t n amenity to residents. The design considerations are veryy^ important. AUG 0 3 2007 FILE COPY LONG RANGE PLANNING 07-G34Z Not applicable. 5) Creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. This development will clearly expand the residential choices for citizens of the community. Serving the needs of an aging population will be a continuing challenge for the city as the years pass. The assisted living facility will help to meet a growing demand for senior citizen housing in a community where development has typically served families and other younger markets. 6) Preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape. Not applicable. 7) Developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people. The proposed development will tie into the existing and approved street system in the area and will draw on the streetscape and landscaping designs from nearby development to promote consistency in these realms. 8) Creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods. See responses to Numbers 2 and 7 above. 9) Creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. The PUD will utilize existing streets as well as those to be created in association with the Shamrock Crossing development. A lone curbcut will be located in a manner that promotes efficiency in the movement of traffic. 10) Providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community. Bikepaths and sidewalks will be provided so as to promote pedestrian foot and bicycle traffic. Connections to paths and sidewalks on adjacent properties will be provided to reduce the need for visitors to or users of the site to use automobiles for travel to nearby uses. Review of Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Each of the review criteria of Section 153.055 of the City of Dublin Code addressed below. The proposed development meets a preponderance of the review criteria and therefore should be approved. 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of the zoning code. The proposed development meets the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of the zoning code. The applicant is proposing uses that are consistent with the current underlying zoning of the property. In accordance with Dublin's past and continuing practice of utilizing Planned Development (PUD) districts where practicable, this project seeks a PUD designation in order to further clarify the development standards for the project and allow flexibility to accommodate any unique characteristics of the site. 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network. The development conforms to the recommendations of all relevant plans. The project seeks to utilize the public street system in the area that is to be significantly improved in conjunction with development to the north. No additional improvements to this street network will be required as a result of the proposed development. The developer will provide for a bikepath along the frontage of its property that will connect with the proposed bikepath system for the area. 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. The Sunrise Senior Living PUD advances the general welfare by providing unique residential opportunities for aging citizens. The proposal is for an infill development that is being designed to seamlessly integrate with proposed development to the north. 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. The proposed uses mirror those which are allowed under current zoning conditions and therefore they will no impact on property values in the area. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan. While the assisted living facility use is not a traditional sort of residential development, nonetheless it will provide for a generous amount of open space designed for residents' enjoyment. Garden areas are found to the rear of the building and will be well - landscaped. A large amount of green space on the eastern side of the property is to remain untouched with the first phase of development. 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. The subject property has very few natural resources to protect. However, the initial phase of the development is designed to leave a well - defined tree row on the eastern portion of the property undisturbed. 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The accompanying plans demonstrate that the site has easy access to the road system in the area and that there is access to all necessary utilities. Drainage and retention shall be provided in accordance with the attached plans. 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 ane pedestrians. The development is designed to ensure that vehicular and pedestrian access is provided in an efficient and effective manner that ties into the existing and propose: transportation system in the area. Assumptions relating to this site were made in th': traffic study that was approved as a part of the Shamrock Crossing rezoning proces;:a. As a result, the development of this site was contemplated in that traffic study and its impact was programmed into the numerous traffic improvements to be provided in conjunction with Shamrock Crossing. 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the FD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community. The proposed development seeks to provide architecture that is complimentary to the architectural theme that was recently proposed for the Shamrock Crossing retail and office development to the north while at the same time accounting for the distinct use of the building as an assisted living facility. The development will continue the high level of architectural quality that is expected in the vicinity and will utilize materials and styling that make for an acceptable transition between uses. The site design takes into account the unique location of the property between commercial and residential uses. Plans for the assisted living facility are responsive to the proposed future design of commercial projects to the north and are sensitive to residential uses on the south by maximizing open space near these properties. 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. The site plan and associated development standards provide for the orderly development of the site. The locations of buildings and parking are the result of careful planning designed to maximum large areas of green space, promote efficiency of vehicular and pedestrian movement, and to provide for appropriate layouts of interior spaces. 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, watercourses, and drainage areas. The accompanying plans illustrate how storm drainage will be handled on the site. These plans demonstrate that, the PUD will meet the applicable standards for stormwater management as mandated by the city. 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. The development inmost respects meets or exceeds the applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and otherrelevant documents. Any deviations from these standards are justified based on the site's status as an infill site and its transitional nature due to its close proximity to both commercial and residential development. 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. The proposed building design incorporates high quality materials that have come to be an expectation in Dublin. The architectural theme and building design recognize the recently approved architecture for the Shamrock Crossing development to the north and seek to provide an appearance that is complimentary to that 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. The initial phase of development is confined to the western two- thirds of the site and is located in a manner that preserves green space and existing trees on the east. As market demand dictates additional development may occur on the eastern portion of the property but in the meantime the site is laid out to preserve these natural features should that future development not occur. All necessary infrastructure will be provided with the initial phase of development so as that any future phase will enjoy easy access to utilities and the nearby road network. 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. The proposed development will be served by existing and future road and utility improvements from the surrounding area. Extensive improvements have been programmed for the area in conjunction with the development of Shamrock Crossing through the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District that has previously been approved. With the improvements that are being proposed by the developer of the subject site, the project will be adequately served by public improvements and will not impair that system in any way. 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. The proposed development was contemplated as a part of a larger traffic study fin: the Shamrock Crossing development. That traffic study was accepted by the city and requires numerous traffic improvements in the area. The applicant has provided additional information to supplement that study which demonstrates that this development may place less demand on the transportation infrastructure than was previously assumed. Therefore, it is clear that there is sufficient public infrastructure to serve the PUD. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING PUD Parcels included in preliminary development plan application of 5.65± acres located south of intersection of Shamrock Blvd. and Stoneridge Lane Portions of. 273 - 008265 273 - 008297 273 - 008298 273 - 008299 273 - 008300 273- 008301 273 - 008302 Sunrise Dublin Parcel List.doc (alu) (3/26107) RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2001 FILE COPY LONG I RANGF PLANNING O -03u z PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT ATTORNEY Shamrock Crossing LLC Sunrise Development, Inc. Glen A. Dugger 565 Metro Place S., Ste. 480 48945 Van Dyke Ave., Ste. 12 Aaron Underhill y Smith &Hale Dublin, OH 43017 Shelby Township, MI 48317 37 West Broad Street, Ste. 725 Columbus, OH 43215 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS T &R Properties CF Ventures Ltd. Phele Investment Properties Attn: Ron Sabatino 3895 Stoneridge Lane, 1 St Floor 4199 West Dublin Granville Road 4051 West Dublin Granville Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Donnabelle Scott Tr. Abha Jindal Shamrock Auto Spa LLC P.O. Box 191 7949 Stonehurst Drive 12100 Tailgate Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Pickerington, OH 43147 Andreas & Dara Schuster Susan Sharp Andrew M & Jennifer H George 3100 Lilly Mar Court 3140 Lilly Mar Court 3154 Lilly Mar Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Steve Masonbrink, et al 3 Nicholas & Amy Price Elbon H & Martha A Weese 3168 Lilly Mar Court 3186 Lilly Mar Court Co -Trs. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 3200 Lilly Mar Court Dublin, OH 43017 Paul B & Louise E Wolfe Harvey L Shaw Jr. Brett T & Catherine M McQuade 3220 Lilly Mar Court 3248 Lilly Mar Court 3260 Lilly Mar Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Charles W Warner Jr. & Wendys International Inc. Ciotola Family LP II Edward E Belz Attn: Tax Department 2226 Atlee Court P.O. Box 256 blin West 4199 Wes Du- Granville Road Columbus, OH 43220 Dublin, OH 43017 -0256 Dublin, Dublin National Church Residences of Dublin II Sunrise - dublin.lbl (nep) 2335 North Bank Drive 3/21/07 RDoes /s &hlabels /2007 Columbus, OH 43220 SUB -AREA `A' 4.0 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, Quarter Township 3, Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands, being on, over, and across that 5.625 acre tract as conveyed to Shamrock Crossing, LLC by deed of record in Instrument Number 200610040198601 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio), and described as follows: Beginning, at the northwesterly corner of said 5.625 acre tract, at the southwesterly terminus of Stoneridge Lane (60 feet), being on the easterly line of that 3.150 acre tract as conveyed to Ciotola Family Limited Partnership II by deed of record in Instrument Number 200310080324148; thence with the southerly right -of -way line of Stoneridge Lane, the following courses and distances: South 86° 41' 23" East, a distance of 515.99 feet to a point of curvature to the left; and with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 01' 07' 05 ", a radius of 1030.00 feet, an arc length of 20.10 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 87° 14' 56" East, 20.10 feet to a point; thence South 05' 01' 33" West, across said 5.625 acre tract, a distance of 326.10 feet to a point on the southerly line of said 5.625 acre tract; thence North 86 57' 15" West, with said southerly line, a distance of 526.04 feet to a point on the easterly line of said 3.150 acre tract; thence North 03 15' 37" East, with said easterly line, a distance of 328.19 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 4.0 acres of land, more or less. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC. EJM: = /June, 2007 4_0 ac ZN 70562.doc rTIV D AUG 0 3 2007 Gil Y OF DUBLIN FILE COPY LO i NPGF PL NNING C)7 -03y-Z— SUB -AREA `B' 1.6 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, Quarter Township 3, Township 2, Range 19, United States Military Lands, being on, over, and across that 5.625 acre tract as conveyed to Shamrock Crossing, LLC by deed of record in Instrument Number 200610040198601 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio), and described as follows: Beginning, for reference, at the northwesterly corner of said 5.625 acre tract, at the southwesterly terminus of Stoneridge Lane (60 feet), being on the easterly line of that 3.150 acre tract as conveyed to Ciotola Family Limited Partnership II by deed of record in Instrument Number 200310080324148; thence with the southerly right -of -way line of Stoneridge Lane, the following courses and distances: South 86° 41' 23" East, a distance of 515.99 feet to a point of curvature to the left; and with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of Ole 07' 05 ", a radius of 1030.00 feet, an arc length of 20.10 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 87e 14' 56" East, 20.10 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing with said southerly right -of -way line, the following courses and distances: with the are of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 04e 48' 14 ", a radius of 1030.00 feet, an arc length of 86.36 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 89e 47' 25" East, 86.33 feet to a point of reverse curvature; with the are of a curve, having a central angle of 07e 38' 38 ", a radius of 970.00 feet, an arc length of 129.41 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 88e 47' 23" East, 129.31 feet to a point; thence South 05e 01' 33" West, across said 5.625 acre tract, a distance of 335.15 feet to a point on the southerly line of said 5.625 acre tract; thence North 86e 57' 15" West, with said southerly line, a distance of 215.13 feet to a point; thence North 05e 01' 33" East, across said 5.625 acre tract, a distance of 326.10 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 1.6 acres of land, more or less; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTTO��N, INC. e' RP r.F- IMCEND EJM: mr /June, 2007 I_6 ac ZN 70562.doe FILE COPY P ilr, 0 3 2007 CITY OF DUBLIN AN" USF & c;. FI ?NNING JOSEPH W. TESTA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR MAP ID: au DATE: 3/20/07 , Y4N11 F I�NP"E[ E%IK os/IEIln3 O j W10 ' PARKING I v E ' „Ipwesxm nmmxsve PARKING ”" % eA+°�°�°1wn,.y_. PARKING IKIN PARKI G z" PARKING �• 104!V N e \ 34 - PARKING raoo-x<E�xoo — — s „a e �•' R 4S ,l O 0 IA i 8 S$3 L 'm ° n'i(xu�E :uA ofivA a A — — 1 IENLq(3iC11 Q T r Scale= 3.OQ.H b Disclaimer F @, Grid 3 `/ North This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled om recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the,public primary information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies, aSiVING i_' Real Estate / GIS Department CITY Or DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614.4104600 Fax: 614410 -4747 Web Sile: w mrh blin.ah.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: Sunrise Senior Living 07 -034Z Stoneridge Lane Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of future office /institutional use located south of West Dublin - Granville Road at the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning /preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Laura Hester, Sunrise Development Inc.; represented by Glen Dugger and Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner (614)410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application because it is compatible with the development pattern in this area, and complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the ten Land Use Principles, with four conditions: 1) That the plans be revised to correctly identify Stoneridge Lane; 2) That the potential future access drive connecting the two subareas be included with the final development plan for Subarea B; 3) That the text be revised to eliminate fencing as a screening option in favor of brick or stone walls; and 4) That the text for Subarea B be revised to require a 50 -foot rear building line for a single - story building, an 85 -foot rear building line for a multi -story building, and a 35 -foot sideyard along the eastern property line with parking to the north of the building line. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD Or ACTION July 12, 2007 7. Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan * Laura Hester agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-1. RESULT: This Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner Page 2 of 2 Mr. Ger a short rece, at 7:39 p.m. 5. Offic Building at rimeter 07- 025AFDP his Amended Fina ' rim Plan a ication was was no vote or a 'on taken. 6. Quad, Subarea 5 07- 033FDP r. Gerber swore in an Underhill, Smitl ud Hale who the conditions liste m the Planning Re t. Mr. Gerber t Devt P application becaus rt eonnplle elopmen s with the of the Dubh Zoning Code and t existing developmpl� I) That that verific 'o n of the recordi! December 1, 7Xed6 Motion and V e Mr. Gerbe made the e conditio listed abovn yes; r. Fishman, yeses; a Mr. Gerber, yes. ( Dublin P luming and Zoning Commission Jury 12,2007 — Minutes Pagc 14 01'31 6235 Perimeter Dr e Final Developmen tan prior to the meeti There Emerald Parkwa mat Development P uu /riteiiallstoetll�fiorth the applicant a ed to on to approv us Final in S ion 153.050 standards within t area, with one a lot combination this Final velopment Plan the vote was a; Groomes, , to X a ication with one ollows: Mr. Walter Mr. Zimmerman, s; 7. Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Claudia Husak presented this request for review and approval of a rezoning preliminary development plan from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to a PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of office or institutional use. She showed an aerial photo and discussed the proposed location of the site. Ms. Husak said the applicant is proposing to create two subareas indicated on the proposed site plan. She said four -acre Subarea A is in the western portion of the site and Subarea B is in the eastern portion. Ms. Husak said Subarea A contains the senior living facility which will be accessed from Shamrock Boulevard. She said the proposed facility has parking on the west and to the south. She said there is a cul -de -sac turnaround for fire which is designed with a rain garden in the center. She said there is also a stotmwater detention pond located in the western portion of that site which will be for stonnwater management for this site and potentially also the Shamrock Crossing Subarea A to the north. Ms. Husak said the western 1.6 acres are indicated with a potential office building or an institutional use in the southern portion of that subarea and parking located in the front. Ms. Husak said the preliminary development plan includes detailed architectural elevations for the assisted living facility. She said the architectural elements include turrets, dormers, and gables which are proposed on all sides of the building. She said the elevations also show portions of the building with standing seam roofing, porches, and a porte coch6re. Ms. Husak Dublin Plmining and Zoning Commission July 12,2007 — Minutes Page 15 of3I said building materials proposed are brick, stone, stucco, and Hardiplank' and the elevations indicated some beige and muted green colors to add interest to the fapade. Ms. Husak said Planning has asked the applicant to provide section drawings that show how the proposed building fits into the context of the surrounding area. She said one drawing provided shows a section looking from the north toward the south which has the adjacent National Church Residences indicated, as well as the La Scala apartments. She said there is also a view looking from the west toward the cast showing the adjacent houses in the Sunny Dale Estates neighborhood. Ms. Husak said the substantial tree rows will be incorporated to buffer the building from the adjacent residential lots. Ms. Husak said Planning has evaluated this proposal based on the criteria for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan, and it is their opinion that the criteria dealing with the adopted policies and plans, parks and openspace, the design standards and infrastructure are met with the current plan and that the remaining criteria can be met with the conditions outlined in the Planning Report. She said the ten Land Use Principles have also been considered and Planning has detennined that those principles are met, and therefore approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan is recommended with the two conditions listed in the Planning Report. Ms. Husak said correspondence received from adjacent property owners had been placed on the dais for the Commissioners to review. Mr. Gerber confirmed that Planning and the applicant had worked with the adjacent property owners. Laura Hester, Senior Vice President of Development for Sunrise Senior Living, provided the Commission with an overview presentation about who they are and the growing need for senior living communities, overview of what the proposed building will look and feel like, and of the preliminary site plan. She said much of the slide presentation had been shared with the residents along Lilly -Mar Court at a meeting in the Masonbrinks' home. She said they plan to continue the dialogue with the adjacent homes. She said that Sunrise provides assisted living for frail seniors that do not require intense medical care that fits between independent living and nursing care. She described the interior layout of the building and the purpose for each area. She said they are planning to use cut -off lighting fixtures because of their proximity to the residential areas. She said there will be walking paths around the entire building. Ms. Hester presented slides showing some of their existing facilities. She said this transitional use will give the opportunity to create a buffer between the more intense Shamrock Crossing retail and the single - family residential area to the south. Ms. Hester said since they had met with the residents and Planning, they had moved the parking and drive aisle away from the residents which will provide 50 feet of buffer to berm and landscape in the final landscape plans as they are developed. She said the hammerhead turnaround had been changed after wanking with the fire department to create a cul -de -sac turnaround where a rain garden is located. Ms. Hester said that the proposed 2'/2 -story building is 35 feet tall. Ralph Nunez, RLA, ASLA and president of Design Team Ltd., said in the past projects he had designed for Sunrise, they had exceeded all minimum landscape requirements and he said they will do that in Dublin, also. The pavement is approximately 50 feet away from the rear property line which has substantial trees. He said that they will try to work around the root systems and bring an earth berm and plantings on top of it. He said the walkway will connect to the asphalt Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunissiai July 12, 2007 — Minutes Page 16 01 path along Stoneridge Lane. Mr. Nunez said the concept will be plant diversity instead of a monoculture of plants. Ile said all the stonnwater capacity requirements will be met. Mr. Nunez said they are proposing for the perimeter shrubs and wildflowers to provide a high impact for the public view in and around the parking lot at the top, working down the sides of the slopes with more native plant material. He said the seasonal plantings will encourage wildlife. He said there will be shallow water ponds and tall shrubs to reduce the amount of geese coming into the pond. Ms. Hester presented a slide of the former plan with the single -story suburban office uses in the rear and said that Sunrise had substantially increased the setback in the rear of the site. She said they will maintain a good portion of the existing trees in the first phase of the development. She said there was an effort to maintain the level of the height moving across the site from the east to the west. Ms. Hester said they were trying to integrate into the neighborhood with the proposed height of the community. She presented an elevation slide showing the type of limestone and level of detail over the windows to be proposed at the time of the final development plan. Linda Merchant Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly -Mar Court, said over the past year, her neighbors, her husband, and she had attended a number of Commission and City Council meetings to speak about their concern that the development of the Shamrock Crossing parcel could adversely affect their neighborhood immediately adjacent to the south. She said they expressed concerns about noise, light, traffic, visual impacts, excess blacktop, and loss of wildlife habitat. She said the proposed Sunrise development may insulate them somewhat from the noise and light pollution of the sprawling extension of Sawmill Road retail establishments along the SR 161 corridor. However she said they had concerns that they were addressing with this developer which include adequate buffering of the building, lighting, and the trash container. Ms. Merchant Masonbrick asked that the developer continue to work with them to address these issues. Ben W. Hale, representing the applicant said the neighbors were concerned that there would be a final development plan and they would not have an opportunity to provide input, therefore the applicant has promised that before a final is submitted, they will meet with them to work through the landscaping issues, etc. Ms. Husak said in 2005, the south side of SR 161 was reviewed by the Commission and City Council as a Concept Plan for Shamrock Crossing, and it included that site and it had smaller office buildings throughout the site. She said it was not approved, but it was reviewed by the Commission and feedback was gathered. Ms. Husak said when Shamrock Crossing moved forward, this site was eliminated from their PUD application because the uses proposed were allowed per the Zoning Code. She said the La Scala site was reviewed as a Concept Plan as well and it had residential and a restaurant use. Mr. Gerber said this concern was infringement on the Martin Road and cul -de -sac neighbors, and he wanted to make sure to keep the area as quiet as possible. He asked if the neighbors' concerns could be satisfied through landscaping, light abatement, etc. Ms. Husak said in Planning's opinion the concerns could be addressed. She said the applicant was proposing much stricter setbacks than what currently would be allowed. She said the setback of the pavement to the rear property line allows for mounding and landscaping on them, so the mound could be wide enough to incorporate plants and trees on it. She said the current layout allows for those trees to remain undisturbed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission hdy 12, 2007 — Minutes Page 17 of 31 Mr. Gerber asked if the building was 100 feet from the rear property lines of the adjoining neighbors. Ms. Husak said the building setback on the plans and in the text is 85 feet. She said the preliminary development plan indicates the largest portion of the building is to be approximately 100 feet away from the rear property lines, however it is a preliminary development plan, so the building setback as stipulated is 85 feet and the plan indicates it at 95 to 100 feet. Ms. Husak said the residential lots along the southern property have a 50 -foot setback which is their underlying zoning requirement, and most of the houses are set -back 180 feet from that property line. She said this proposal having 50 feet for pavement and then 85 feet for the building should be adequate to allow for screening and plant materials. Mr. Gerber asked what the setback for the office uses would have been. Ms. Husak said the CDD has a rear property setback of 20 feet. Mr. Walter asked how the 35 -foot building height was measured. Ms. Husak said the 35 feet is measured to the midpoint of the roof, per Code, so therefore the top of the roof is 39 feet. Mr, Gerber said he understood, but this building appeared to be three stories. Ms. Hester said they had actually brought that down in response to some of the comments received. She said the part above the windows is designed to conceal all of their mechanical equipment. Mr. Walter asked if the Code included a definition of a "story." Mr. Gunderman said no. Mr. McCash said under the Building Code, this was a three -story building above grade, not a 2V2 -story building. Ms. Husak suggested that the Commission request that the text be revised by the applicant to call this a three-story building if that is the definition of the Building Code. Mr. Walter said that his only concern was for consistency from application to application. Steve Langworthy said that the text said the building height was 35 feet, as measured per the City of Dublin Code. He said there are two issues — the building height measured by Code which it meets and the other is that the building shall be no more than 2'/� stories. He said he heard that the Commission believed that it showed three stories in appearance. Mr. Walter said that this was inconsistent with the other applications heard tonight. He said the appearance of the height of the building could be judged by the Commission if the applicant changes for the final development plan stage. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the building met the 35 -foot criteria as proposed. He suggested that even if it were reconfigured, they would still need to do what they planned interiorly and therefore, need the 35 -foot height. Mr. McCash said the building height could be adjusted by dropping the eave line further and that drops the main elevation, which is what they had done to get the 35 -foot height. He said if the eave height were dropped another two feet, it would be a 34 -foot building height. Mr. Zimmerman agreed that the building had a appearance of 2' /z stories but it was not 2%2 stories tall. Mr. Gerber agreed also. Dublin Planning and 7Aning Commission July 12,2007 - Minutes Page IR 01 31 Mr. Saneholtz addressed Subarea B, which was 1.6 acres and the proposal for up to a 34,000 square foot building. He asked if that met Dublin's density requirements. Ms. Husak said the density requirements are the ones stipulated in the development text. She said Planning asked the applicant to lay out a potential footprint for the building and parking. She said the applicant is currently not sure how this will lay out, but Planning did not want to bring it to the Commission as a blank subarea. Mr. Saneholtz asked what did the Code say per acre for commercial use. Ms. Husak said the Code does not stipulate that, but it would require a maximum of 70 percent lot coverage. Mr. Saneholtz said his concern was that he did not recall another application where there was commercial space at an intensity of more than 20,000 square feet per acre, and he was very concerned about the square footage permitted on the maximum end on Subarea B. He said he would like to see that reduced. Mr. Fishman agreed. Mr. Fishman said he was still concerned about the height and density. He said this is an intense use on the site and it is massive for the site. Mr. Fishman asked how high the roof of the previous building was. Ms. Husak said the other building was a three -story building with 35 feet as measured by Code. Mr. Fishman asked if the applicant would agree to change the fences mentioned in the text, to walls. Mr. Hale agreed to the condition regarding the text change for walls as made for the previous case. Mr. Fishman discussed the safety of a wet pond versus a dry pond. Mr. Hale said he understood the pond had water in it, but the edges were heavily naturalized with wildflowers and bushes. Mr. Gerber said there were guidelines for the ponds in Dublin. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like on the record to avoid confusion that when it comes to the final approval that the Commission does not want to see anything like what is at Jerome High School that has become their dry /wet basin. Mr. Zimmerman requested that at the final the trash should be screened nicely from the residents to the south and that pickup not disturb the residents. He said the parking lot to the south should have minimized lighting. Mr. Gerber added a condition to revise the text and eliminate the fence and add a stone or brick wall as stated in the previous case. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. McCash asked how kitchen exhaust fumes would be handled. Ms. Hester said they will go directly up and through the roof Mr. McCash asked what kind of HVAC system would be used. He said Ile was concerned with overall noise from the air conditioning units and lie was glad to see that there was not one central chiller location on the ground located on a mound at the back side. Mr. McCash asked if the building would be uplift. She said there is a light near the exit door to meet Code. She said there will be no accent lighting. Mr. McCash said that while he appreciated limiting the times trash pickup can happen, it does not work. He suggested that the trash dumpster be incorporated further away from the neighbors or there be additional screening. FIe asked if Shamrock Crossing was having any tree replacement issues. Ms. Husak said the subarea to the north has not been in for a final development plan, but she imagined with the trees Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007— Minutes Page 19 of 71 on the site there may be. Mr. McCash suggested that as part of their tree replacement requirements, that the back upper piece becomes an ideal location to have them place the replacement trees to provide a heavier buffer. Mr. Hale said all those trees from the commercial site could not be there. Mr. McCash suggested a balance to use this for the good of the neighbors. Ms. Husak said assurance from Shamrock Crossing that they were willing to do that was necessary. Mr. McCash said the text for Subarea B has the same issue that 2'/2. stories in appearance could theoretically be a three story building and it is 50 feet away from the residents. Ile suggested either reducing the overall height of the building and restricting it to one story if it was that close, or allow them to go to two or 2% stories if they are at the 85 -foot setback. He said lie would be willing to adjust the building setback so it is 85 feet at the southern property line, but on the eastern property, 35 feet because there are already office buildings. Mr. Hale said that was okay because the office building will be one story. Mr. McCash suggested avoiding the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and looking at the Night Sky Preservation -type issues, particularly on the back side, minimizing the amount of light, but still considering the security and safety components. Mr. McCash suggested Condition 4: That the setback be a minimum of 85 feet at the southern building line, and the east side be 35 feet, but if it were to be made a single -story building, it could be 50 feet. He asked the Commissioners if they thought it was okay to have a single story building 50 feet off the neighbors. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that Mr. McCash was saying that a 50 -foot setback for a single story building and a two story building would be 85 feet, and said that was very reasonable. Steve Masonbrink, agreed that sounded reasonable to them and said lie liked the stipulation that if it was single story, the setback was to be 50 feet and if it was multi - story, 85 feet. 1ie said he would like to keep the building as one story so there would not be parking near his yard. Mr. Gerber added to the condition above: ...with parking to the north of the north building line. Mr, Masonbrink said that would be fine. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application because it is compatible with the development pattern in this area, and complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the ten Land Use Principles, with four conditions: 1) That the plans be revised to correctly identify Stoneridge Lane; 2) That the potential future access drive connecting the two subareas be included with the final development plan for Subarea B; 3) That the text be revised to eliminate fencing as a screening option in favor of brick or stone walls; and 4) That the text for Subarea B be revised to require a 50 -foot rear building line for a single - story building, an 85 -foot rear building line for a multi -story building, and a 35 -foot sideyard along the eastern property line with parking to the north of the building line. Mr. Hale, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the four conditions listed above Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 - MlnLtleS Page 20 or 31 Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amoroso Groomes, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 1.) Mr. Walter said he voted no because lie does not think this is a two and a half story building. ZGerber 's Bar and Grille 6645 Dublin enter Drive UlCDDS onditional Use C •ridor Development ►strict Sign Review re in the who intended to sp in reg ards to this c e. The applicant, Al d to t two conditions cunt ' ed in the Planning R ort: 1) That no streat s, flags, or other dec ations be allowed on e patios and that the brellas exhibit no gos, signs, names or or advertising; and 2) That th proposed music syst i provided for the p 'os be limited to non noise levels, sub' t to Noise Ordinance nd hours of operatioi otion and Vote (Co rtional Use) Mr. Gerber moved ' approval of this Co rtional Use applicati noting that the appli it had agreed to the tw conditions listed abo e, and Ms. Amoroso. domes seconded. T vote was as follows: r. Zimmerman, yes; r. Saneholtz, yes; M'. islunan, yes; Mr. W ter, yes; Ms. Amoroso roomes, yes; and Mr erber, yes. (Conditi al Use — Approved 6 ) ion and Vote (Corr' or Development Dis ict Sign Review) r. Gerber made a otion to approve th' Corridor Developm District Sign appl tion because it compli with the Corridor De lopment District crit 'a and the existing de opment standards witl ' the area, with no c ditions and Mr. Zim rman seconded. Th vote was as follows: Walter, yes; Mr. F' man, yes; Mr. Sane tz., yes; Ms. Amore Groomes, yes; Mr. Zi merman, yes; and . Gerber, yes. Corr' or Development Di Ict Sign Review — Ap oved 6 — 0.) 9. Shell Gas Station 6695 Perimeter Loop 07- 047AFDP Amended Final Development Plan Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regard to this case. Claudia Husak presented this request for review and approval of an amended final development plan to increase the height and size of a previously approved sign for the Shell Gas Station at Avery - Muirfield Drive. She said the final development plan for this site was approved in April 1999 and the sign permit was issued in March 2000. She said the site is located in Subarea r of the Perimeter Center Planned Commerce District, and the site and all surrounding properties are also zoned PCD and are part of this center. Ms. Husak said to the north is a BP gas station and to the south is the Panera Bread restaurant. Ms. Husak presented slides showing the site which is fully developed with a gas station/convenience store, fuel pumps, gas canopies, and a car wash. She said a 12.5 -foot bikepath easement is located on the eastern portion of the site and the sign is to be located along Avery - Muirfield Drive, CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PZC JULY 12, 2007 Mr. Underhill,' While we are in agreement with all of Linda and Steve Masonbrink's insightful comments on the necessary 100' setback for both subareas A & B, the added dumpster screening and scheduled pickup hours, a more aesthetic ODNR wildlife mix for the basin, and a request for a more precise plan on controlling the light transfer from parking areas, we would like to offer two additional points for consideration. In regards to the proposed six foot opaque barrier along the entire southern property line; while this is essential for noise reduction and the blockage of headlight glare from vehicles driving/parking on the proposed emergency lane, an additional barrier is necessary for the thriving residential community to the south to maintain the same standard of view /land value which we currently have. As a proposed grading plan has not been furnished with finished floor elevations for the proposed building pads, we will have to assume that they are to be built at the same elevation as our houses. With a design height of 35', the proposed development's 85' rear setback and our roughly 180 feet of rear yard, we would need a 26' barrier at the property line to obstruct our view of the three story tall building. See figure A below 35' Building Height - Necessary Height of Line of Sight Barrier ----------------------------- 6' Eye Level 180' Rear Yard 85' Rear Setback Figure A. Calculations: 35' Building— 6' Eye Level = 29' Rise over 265' Feet. The rise at 180' is determined by a proportion of 29'/265' = X/180' Which X solves to 19.7'. After adding back the 6'of height from eye level to ground we have a 25.7' (26') barrier. If the lot line is moved to the originally proposed 100' rear setback we would need a 24.6' (25') barrier. CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PZC JULY 12, 2007 Thus, the only appropriate barricade is a large fast growing evergreen species such as the Norway Spruce. These trees should be of at least 15' height at a spacing to be directed by a third -party landscape architect. They should be planted on a seeded earthen mound of the maximum height considering erosion and the needs of the Norway Spruce root mass. This barrier is to be professionally maintained and restored as necessary until it reaches its mature height. These trees would provide aesthetic and energy saving benefits to both the owners and residents of the Sunrise Development as well as to Sunnydale Estates. Also, the other point of contention with the proposed development is that in order to cut the proposed basin as drawn so near to the residential property line it will likely be necessary to clear cut at least two dozer widths of very valuable mature trees and natural green space. This basin should be shortened and redesigned to protect these valuable assets to the Dublin community in large and the residential lots to the south. Thank you for your time, Andrew and Jemrifer George Claudia Husak - Sunr Dev elopment CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PZC JULY 12, 2007 From: "Micetro" <Micetro @columbus.rr.com> To: <AUnderhill @smithandhale.com> Date: 7/7/2007 1:13:09 PM Subject: Sunrise Development Mr. Underhill - 1 have a few initial comments on the proposed Sunrise development plans and text you recently delivered to our home. 1) 1 am concerned that the building footprint is now proposed to be within 100 feet of our rear property line. Originally you indicated that the building would be 100 feet from our property line. Why was there a change? I oppose this change since the building will be too close to our property if it is within 100 feet. 2) Subarea B has an even narrower setback proposed from the rear property line (50' for pavement and building). This unacceptable. 3) Additional screening is needed to prevent headlight glare from vehicles traveling along the south side of the building- I see that there is some planting opposite the parking area, however, as vehicles travel around the building, we will experience headlight glare, particularly as they head south before turning east toward the turnaround, and as they come around the turnaround. Dense evergreen plantings and /or a low wall with plantings incorporated would be needed. 4) 1 am also very concerned about the trash container on the southwest side of the building. It is not screened from the neighborhood, and I saw no mention about time restrictions for trash removal. It is important to have a formal restriction on trash removal to daylight hours (10:00 AM - 5:00 PM) to prevent annoying the neighbors. 5) 1 would like to see the dry detention basin seeded with a diverse wildlife mix prescribed by Ohio DNR Division of Wildlife instead of the standard swale mix. Consider that the Sunrise residents (and our neighborhood residents) would like to observe wildlife from their homes. This basin should be considered an amenity to enhance for enjoyment of the residents as well as the wildlife. 6) 1 am not convinced that cut off lighting will be sufficiently protective of our property. There is still light transfer with that type of lighting and I would like to see how you will prevent that with plantings, pole placements, etc. in the final development plan. Keeping the building and parking as far away from our property line as possible will help. But additional screening will probably be needed. 7) The southern property line screening plan should be coordinated with our neighborhood to ensure adequate buffering. It is better to work with the neighbors before plans are set. My husband, Steve and I will attend the July 12, 2007 Planning and Zoning meeting. I took forward to hear how you will address my concerns. Linda Masonbrink .,s I)tspatctr : Man rescues 2- year -o1a girt trom a retention pona rage r or z CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PZC JULY 12, 2007 Alan rescues 2- year -old girl from a retention pond He stopped his car when he saw child alone Thursday, JWW 7,20073:45AM BY MATTHEW MARX THE COLT §lfFI-5 DISPATCFI As a youth football coach, doe Tinnes learned CPR years ago. But he never needed it until yesterday morning, when he pulled a 2- year -old girl out of a retention pond at an apartment complex on the Far East Side. " It just automatically came into my head," Tinnes said last night. Aubrey Nicole Murphy's skin was blue when he pulled her from the water shortly before noon, he said. "Her eyes were wide open, but she had no pulse and she wasn't breathing," said Tinnes, 40, of Obetz. "My first thought was, 'She's dead.' All this stuff is going through your head at the same time." Columbus Police Sgt. David Sicilian credited Tinnes and his t8- year -old son with saving the girl's life. Aubrey remained in critical condition at Children's Hospital last night, a nursing supervisor said. "Adrenalin took over," Tinnes said of spotting the girl face -down in the pond. Tinnes and his son Todd had been driving on Shannon Road to Home Depot when they noticed a small girl at tI edge of the pond, splashing her feet and playing with a plastic spoon. He would later learn it was Trinity Murphy, Aubrev s sister who is a months younger than her. Tinnes was bothered. There were no adults in sight. He decided to turn around and make sure the child was safe Tinnes figures that 25 cars passed the pond, without stopping, in the time it took them to turn around, drive inb the apartment complex through the exit lane and run uphill to the pond. That's when they saw Aubrey floating in the water. His son grabbed Trinity away from the pond and called 911. Tinnes started CPR on Aubrey, covering her mouth and nose in short breaths and doing two -finger chest compressions, as he had been taught when his sons played football, he said. Todd Tinnes told W13NS -TV (Channel to) that he walked away, afraid to see what was going to happen next, bef said. "I'm still a little shook up about it," he said. At first, nothing happened. Then the girl gurgled out some water, .Joe'rinnes said. Soon Tinnes felt a pulse and i CPR until she started breathing and then crying. A woman who had stopped after the men wrapped the girl in her sweater, and they took her to the property mar By that time, paramedics had arrived, and so had the girls' father, who apparently had dozed off inside their apa pond. "He was an emotional wreck," Tinnes said. http: / /www. dispatch .com /dispatch/contentAocal news / stories / 2007 /06 /07 /rescue-ART ART 06 -07 -0_.. 6/7/2007 vispawn : Man rescues L- year -ota gin trom a retermon pona CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO PZC JULY 12, 2007 It was unclear how long she had been underwater or how she had gotten outside, police said. Her father, Matthew Murphy, didn't talk to reporters at the scene and wasp t available for comment last night. "They should put some kind of security fence around retention ponds," `r"innes said. "Stuff like that happens all tie trMe . i, Information from WBNS -ioTb' (Channel to) was included in this story. inmarx@dispatcli.com /his /s y Vf le .�. 04e, � ra 44-S p w), /��61,n' o M 43or`7 hap : /Iwww. dispatch .com /dispatch/contentflocal news/stories/ 2007 /06 /07 /rescue.ART ART 06 -07 -0... 6/7/2007 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614.410.4600 Fax: 614.410.4747 Web Site: www rlublin.oh.us PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY 12, 2007 SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION: Sunrise Senior Living 07 -034Z 4175 Stoneridge Lane Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A 66,000- square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of future office /institutional use located south of West Dublin - Granville Road at the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Laura Hester, Sunrise Development Inc.; represented by Glen Dugger and Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. ( 614)410- 4675,chusak @dublin.oh.us Case Summary: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a proposed 66,000 - square -foot assisted living facility and an additional 34,000 square feet of office /institutional use. The site consists 5.625 acres located south of West Dublin - Granville Road at the terminus of Shamrock Boulevard. It is Planning's opinion that the proposed use is compatible and fits with the character of the area and approval of this request is recommended. Case Background and History: A concept plan for Shamrock Crossing was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 1, 2005 and by City Council on December 12, 2005 (See Case #05- 114CP), which included this site as proposed Subarea C. At that time, the proposed uses for this Subarea included office and a possible residential use. Planning and Zoning Commission Julyl2, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 2 of 8 The rezoning/preliminary development plan for Shamrock Crossing was approved by the Commission on December 7, 2006 and by City Council on January 22, 2007 (See Case 06- 076Z), which omitted this site. A final plat for the extension of Stoneridge Lane that is the northern boundary of this site and included this site as Lot 2 was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 7, 2007 and by City Council on July 2, 2007 (See Case #07- 03 1 FDP/FP). The site is located south of Subareas A and B of the recently approved Shamrock Crossing Planned Unit Development District. Site Description: Project Site The 5.625 -acre, rectangular parcel will have approximately 740 feet of frontage along extended Stoneridge Lane. The applicant is proposing to create two subareas: Subarea A with four acres in the western portion of the site and Subarea B with 1.6 acres to the east. The entire site is undeveloped and has a change in elevation of approximately 12 feet from the east to west. Tree rows exist along the southern property line and in the western and eastern portions of the site. Surrounding Sites The site is currently zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District and adjacent property to the north is zoned PUD, Planned Unit District, as part of the Shamrock Crossing Planned District (PD). To the east are the National Church Residences, a senior housing complex, zoned PUD and to the south are residential lots in the Sunny Dale Estates subdivision, zoned R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District. To the west are the La Scala apartments zoned R -12, Urban Residential District. Plan Description: Overview • Subarea A. The four acres of Subarea A contains the senior living facility, accessed from the southern end of Shamrock Boulevard. The proposed assisted living facility is approximately 66,000 square feet and two and one half stories, with parking located along the western and southern portion of the building. • Subarea B. This western 1.6 acres will have an access point on Stoneridge Lane opposite the planned driveway for the parcel to the north. The plan indicates a potential layout for a building footprint of 34,000 square feet to the rear of the Subarea with associated parking along Stoneridge Drive. Proposed Use The Code is unclear as to whether the assisted living facility is a permitted use under the current zoning district of Suburban Office and Institutional District. The applicant is proposing a rezoning to clearly define the permitted uses and to allow for greater flexibility with regard site layout and design. Site Layout • Subarea A. The proposed site plan indicates that the assisted living building will be located in the eastern portion of Subarea A with a drive aisle /fire access drive located along the western and southern portion of the building. A cul -de -sac is provided at the terminus of the drive aisle to allow for an adequate fire apparatus access road. A 50 -foot Planning and Zoning Commission Julyl2, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 3 of 8 pavement setback and an 85 -foot building setback are maintained along the southern property line, adjacent to the residential uses. The plan and the development text indicate a 30 -foot setback for pavement and building along the frontage of the site. A stormwater detention basin is proposed in the western portion of the site. The proposed preliminary plan shows walking trails and outdoor activity areas and gardens throughout the Subarea. Subarea B. The preliminary development plan indicates the potential layout of an office building in this Subarea. The proposed layout is only for purposes of coordination with the proposed development of Subarea A and to demonstrate the future development potential of this Subarea. The details of the proposed use are not known at this time and will be reviewed as part of a final development plan application. The rear yard setback for this Subarea is 50 feet for building and pavement and the preliminary plan adheres to this requirement. A 50 -foot building setback is proposed for the eastern property line, which will provide adequate buffering space to the residential use on the adjacent parcel. The plan indicates a potential connection to the fire apparatus access turnaround in Subarea A, which should be pursued to increase the integration of the two Subareas. Open Space Code does not require the provision of parkland. The proposed plans indicate large setbacks along the western, southern and eastern property lines, which allow existing trees to be saved, and to provide for additional buffering and screening. Plans for the interior indicate a variety of open space features, including a rain garden proposed in the center of the fire turnaround and garden areas with gazebos, benches, walking paths and arbors. Access The proposed plan shows two access points for the site off Stoneridge Lane. The plans erroneously show the street name as Stoneridge Drive, which should be corrected. Subarea A will have access from the end of Shamrock Boulevard with a full access point and a landscape median complementing the design of Shamrock Boulevard. A drive aisle is located along the north side of the building with a covered drop off area at the front door. The drive aisle continues to the south and east, ending at the southeast side with the cul -de -sac, designed to allow fire trucks and other vehicles to turn around. Sidewalks The plans indicate the installation of an eight -foot asphalt bikepath on the south side of Stoneridge Lane. Future Access The plans indicate the future development potential of Subarea B, which includes an access point opposite an approved access point to a parcel on the north side of Stoneridge Lane and a connection to the fire apparatus access turnaround in Subarea A. Utilities /Stormwater Management The plans indicate a dry detention basin on the western edge of the site. The applicant is concerned about the presence of a wet pond on site and the decreased mobility of their residents. They have indicated they intend to landscape the dry basin to make it a more attractive feature. Planning and 'Zoning Commission Julyl2, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 4 of 8 Parking Parking is located along both sides of the drive aisle west of the building and along the building side to the south. The parking spaces are oriented away from the residential lots to the south to prevent light trespass. Service and delivery areas are planned in the southwest corner of the building. Code requires one space per six beds and one space per employee on the largest shift for this use and the development text states that 48 spaces will be required based on the anticipated operations of this facility. The plans show adequate provision of parking spaces with employee parking to the rear of the building. ADA accessible spaces are proposed at the nearest location adjacent to the building entrance and sidewalks connect parking areas to the building. Architecture The preliminary development plan includes proposed architectural elevations for the assisted living facility in Subarea A. The text states that the building shall be two and one half stories in appearance and limited to 35 feet in height. The elevations for this preliminary development are more detailed than normally submitted for this application stage and indicate a two -and one -half- story building with a variety of roof elements. Architectural elements such as turrets, dormers and gables are proposed on all four sides with the main roof utilizing a mansard design. The elevations show standing seam roof for first floor overhangs and the porte- cochere. The building materials will consist of brick, stone, stucco and wood composite material (Hardi- plank) and the elevations indicate beige colors with the portions of the building utilizing a muted green to add interest to the fagade. The east and west elevations appear to lack some of the fenestration detail shown on the majority of the elevations and should be revised at the final development plan stage. Traffic Impact Study The applicant has submitted a traffic impact assessment to show that this proposed use of the site will generate fewer trips than development under the existing suburban office zoning. Therefore, the proposed assisted living and office facility is not expected to result in increased impacts to the traffic network. Neighborhood Concerns Residents in the adjacent subdivision to the south have expressed concerns during previous public hearings regarding development proposals in this area, particularly potential light and sound pollution. The applicant has met with neighbors in the Sunny Dale Estates subdivision and has considered their input in terms of setbacks, parking location, stormwater management and screening. SECTION II — REVIEW STANDARDS: Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, Planning and Zoning Commission July12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 5 of 8 landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves /denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be returned to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. A two - thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. These criteria are summarized in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4): The proposed development is consistent with the Dublin Zoning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfare of the City; and 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. Criteria are met: The Future Land Use Plan of the Community Plan identifies the land use for this site'as "Mixed Use — Employment Emphasis" and it is Planning's opinion that the proposed use fulfills a need for this type of facility for the community. The use also permits a suitable transition from the more intensive commercial uses to the north to the lower density residential uses to the south. The applicant has attempted to address the concerns of these residents by way of increased setbacks.from the southern property line and other changes related to these concerns. Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 and 6): The proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. Criteria are met: The residents of this facility will benefit from the open spaces and amenities provided on the site. The preliminary development plan takes the existing natural features into account and indicates the preservation of existing tree rows in the southern and western portion of the site. Planning and Zoning Commission Julyl2, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -0342 Page 6 of 8 Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and I1): Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will be taken 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; and 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. Criteria may be met with conditions: This proposal provides for adequate utilities, stormwater management facilities, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Public safety will be maintained through the fire apparatus access turnaround and the potential future connectivity between the two Subareas. The plans indicate appropriate access points for this site off Stoneridge Lane, which is labeled incorrectly on the plans. The plans should be revised to correctly identify Stoneridge Lane (Condition #1). The preliminary stormwater management report provides necessary details to determine that the proposed stormwater controls will be able to adequately serve this development, while maintaining additional capacity for adjacent future development. Final details will be required for the final development plan. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10): The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the City. Criteria may be met with condition: The proposed layout of both subareas, including the building and parking locations provides for a coordinated development. The potential future access drive connecting the two Subareas should be included with the final development plan for Subarea B (Condition #2). The proposed development text provides standards that will contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed use, setbacks, and density. The provision of parking for this use is adequate, which is designed to maintain accessibility and connectivity to the building by sidewalks. Design Standards (12, and 13): The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and 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. Planning and Zoning Commission July12, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 7 of 8 Criteria are met: This proposal is consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District provisions. The proposed building design consists of high - quality materials and implements four -sided architecture, which complements the recently approved architectural theme of the Shamrock Crossing development. Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 15 and 16): 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 proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria are met: The proposal provides appropriate infrastructure and the two phases of development are sufficiently coordinated. Planned public improvements include the extension of Stoneridge Lane along the frontage of this site, for which a final plat and a tax increment financing agreement where recently approved. Land Use Principles: On August 21, 2006 City Council established ten Land Use Principles to be utilized as development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of pending development applications. The ten Land Use Principles are to be consulted in order to adequately address policies and decision - making processes that may arise during the Community Plan update process and are categorized and summarized as follows: Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9): High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place; preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape; developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people; and creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. Land Use Principles met: In Planning's opinion this proposal continues the quality and character envisioned for this area and recently established with the approval of the Shamrock Crossing development. Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10): Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi - generational living and social interaction; creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods; and providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community. Land Use Principles met: This proposal includes appropriate parking locations, internal pedestrian circulation which will contribute efficient traffic and pedestrian movement. The potential to connect the two subareas shown on the plans will create a better connected development Planning and Zoning Commission Julyl2, 2007 Planning Report Case No. 07 -034Z Page 8 of 8 Integration (Principles 3, 4, and 5): Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality; providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to residents; and creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. Land Use Principles met: The proposed assisted living facility provides an additional housing choice to the residents of the community. The proposed location of this use provides a suitable transition from the commercial uses to the north to the residential uses to the south. SECTION III — PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval It is Planning's opinion that this proposal is compatible with the development pattern in this area Based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the ten Land Use Principles, approval of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with two conditions is recommended: Conditions: 1) That the plans be revised to correctly identify Stoneridge Lane; and 2) That the potential future access drive connecting the two subareas be included with the final development plan for Subarea B. City of Dublin Land Use and 7 1 1-ong Range Planning Development Context 1 0 500 1,000 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN <w s_ 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) June 22, 2007 A. Site Description and Site Use Concept The proposed site is comprised of approximately 5.625 acres located at the southern terminus of Shamrock Boulevard and adjacent to existing Stoneridge Lane. The planning objective for the PUD is to enable the development of an assisted living facility providing residential opportunities for individuals that are able to maintain some level of independence but require around the clock support services and personal care assistance. At the present time, the subject property is zoned to allow SO, Suburban Office and Institutional uses under Section 153.026 of the City of Dublin Code. The applicant seeks to preserve its right to these uses while creating a planned district to inject some flexibility into the site planning process. The assisted living facility use will fulfill a growing need in the community to serve aging citizens that have a lessened ability to function independently but are not yet ready for more skilled nursing care. Residents of the assisted living facility are semi - independent physically or mentally yet generally need frequent assistance. Alzheimer's and dementia residents may be included in this group. One and two person rooms with kitchenettes, private bathroom facilities, and beds are designed and decorated to make residents feel at home. Meals will be provided in common dining areas and numerous lounges and activity areas shall be found throughout the facility. On -site staff will provide 24 -hour assistance with daily living activities such as mobility, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, health care monitoring, laundry service, housekeeping and maintenance, and socialization and activity programs. These residents will typically not have their own automobiles. A 14- passenger van is provided for transportation of residents. The assisted living facility will provide an appropriate transitional use between the residential uses to the south and the retail, office, and service - oriented development to be found in the recently approved Shamrock Crossing project immediately to the north. In designing the structures to be found in this PUD, the developer intends to capture the high level of architectural quality of Shamrock Crossing with a theme that is complimentary to that project. At the same time, the applicant recognizes the development's proximity to its residential neighbors and has located open space and designed architecture and landscaping with this relationship in mind. B. Development Standards Development standards are being provided for two subareas within the PUD: Subarea A, consisting of 4.0t acres located on the western portion of the site, and Subarea B, consisting of 1.6f acres located on the eastern side of the property. All development within this PUD shall comply with the design guidelines of the standards set forth in this text. In the event that a development concern is not addressed in this document, the provisions of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane C. SUBAREA A 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea A: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Density: A maximum of 66,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. In addition to this square footage, a maximum of 8,500 square feet of unheated porch areas shall be permitted. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of eighty-five (85) feet and a minimum pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea A. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea A. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one hundred (100) feet from the western boundary line of Subarea A. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea A. 4. Parking and Loading: a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living e acility Use: A minimum of forty-eight (48) parking spaces shall be required to serve an assisted living facility use in this subarea. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. c. Screening of Service and Loading Areas: Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from all sides by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 5. Circulation: a. Vehicular Access: Vehicular access between Subarea A and Stoneridge Lane shall be from a single full movement curbcut in the approximate location shown on the preliminary development plan. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and/or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. d. Fire Access: A pavement loop shall be installed in the southeastern quadrant of this subarea in the general location shown on the preliminary development plan. The purpose of this pavement loop shall be to provide access for fire safety vehicles provided, however, that it may also be used by other vehicular traffic on the site. At the time that development is completed in Subarea B, a portion of the pavement loop in Subarea A shall be removed and a vehicular access drive shall be constructed to connect the remaining portion of the loop to Subarea B for the purposes of providing fire access to the southeastern area of the building in Subarea A and vehicular access between the two subareas. 6. Waste and Refuse; Screening: a. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a wall or fence in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the building. 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the southern property line of the PUD in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. Screening shall be provided along this entire property line in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet. 8. Lighting_ a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. b. Lighting Plan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light Trespass: Site lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the preliminary development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Height: The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Buildings shall be no more than two and one half (2 %) stories in appearance. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), eementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Signage: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. b. Sage Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number: Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea A from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be ajoint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign Base: The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground - mounted fixtures. D. SUBAREA B 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea B: a. Assisted living facilities, dementia care, and related ancillary and accessory uses b. The permitted uses set forth in Section 153.026 (Suburban Office and Institutional District) of the City of Dublin Zoning Code 2. Density: A maximum of 34,000 square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. 3. Setback Requirements: a. Front Yard: The minimum front yard building and pavement setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the right -of -way. b. Rear Yard: There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of fifty (50) feet from the rear property line of Subarea A. c. Eastern Side Yard: There shall be a minimum building setback of fifty (50) feet for buildings and fiftenn (15) feet for pavement from the eastern boundary line of Subarea B. d. Western Side Yard: There shall be a zero (0) setback for buildings and pavement from the western boundary line of Subarea B. e. Interior Property Lines: There shall be a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings from any interior property lines within Subarea B. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 4. Parking and Loading: a. General Standards: Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. b. Number of Spaces: i. Assisted Living Facility Use: Parking for an assisted living facility or related use in this subarea shall be provided at the minimum rate of six tenths (0.6) of one parking space per residential unit. ii. Other Uses: The number of parking spaces required for any other permitted use in this subarea shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. C. Screening of Service and Loading Areas: Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from all sides by a masonry wall consisting of materials that are complimentary to those found on the nearest primary structure. 5. Circulation: a. Vehicular Access: At the time that Subarea B develops, vehicular access to and from Stroneridge Lane shall be provided via a second curbcut that is in addition to the curbcut found in Subarea A. The curbcut in Subarea B shall be located as shown on the preliminary development plan and shall align with the curbcut on the north side of Stoneridge Lane. b. Leisure Paths /Sidewalks: Leisure paths and /or sidewalks shall be provided in accordance with the specifications of the City of Dublin Code in the locations determined at the time of final development plan. c. Private Access Drives: Private vehicular access drives shall be provided in the locations shown on the final development plan and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and standards of the City of Dublin Code. The owner(s) of the property within the PUD may, but are not required to, allow for vehicular cross access and joint parking for the uses in Subareas A and B provided that they execute and maintain a written agreement to that effect. 6. Waste and Refuse: Screening: a. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be placed in containers and shall be fully screened from view by a wall or fence in accordance with the Dublin City Code. Such walls shall be constructed with materials that are harmonious with the architecture of the nearest primary structure on the site. b. Mechanical or Other Equipment: Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious to the building(s) in this subarea. No materials, supplies, equipment, or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the site. . 07 -034Z 6 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 7. Landscaping: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscape Code, Section 153.130 et seq. b. Landscaping Plan: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Landscaping shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Southern Property Line: Screening shall be provided along the entire southern property line of the PUD in the form of a fence, wall, plantings, mounding, or any combination thereof, as determined at the time of final development plan. Screening shall riot be required along this property line until such time as a building is constructed in Subarea B but, when required, shall be provided in a manner that achieves complete opacity to a minimum height of six (6) feet behind any and all structures found in this subarea. 8. Lighting: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, lighting shall conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. b. Lighting Plan: lan: A lighting plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Exterior Fixtures: Exterior light fixtures may be pole or wall mounted, shall be dark in color, and shall consistently utilize similar types and styles. d. Minimal Light Trespass: Site lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and light trespass onto adjacent residential properties. 9. Architecture: a. Design: The architectural design of all buildings within this subarea shall be similar in form and look to the architectural elevation drawings that are included with the final development plan application. Architecture shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. b. Building Height: The maximum height of structures shall be thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Buildings shall be no more than two and one half (2' /z) stories in appearance. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include brick, stone /synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi- plank or Smartside siding and trim), cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane The application of brick or stone veneer to a single building fagade shall be prohibited. 10. Simage: a. General Standards: Except as otherwise stated herein, signage shall conform with the Dublin Sign Code, Section 153.150 et seq. b. Signage Plan: A signage plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. Signage shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. c. Ground Signs: If ground signs are utilized in this subarea, they shall be subject to the following standards: i. Number; Identification: One (1) ground monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance into Subarea B from Stoneridge Lane. Should the subarea contain only a single user, then the monument sign shall be permitted to identify that user. If there are multiple users in the subarea, then the monument sign shall be a joint identification sign as that term is defined in the City of Dublin Sign Code. ii. Landscaping: Ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. iii. Sign Base: The area of each sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. iv. Illumination: All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground - mounted fixtures. Sunrise Dublin text(4) (alu) (6/22/07) 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane CITY OF DUI3LK tuna use and long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Rood Dublin, Ohio 430161736 Phone: 614 4104600 lox: 614410.4747 Web Site w .dublin.oh s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JUNE 7, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 6. Stoneridge Lane Right -Of -Way 07 -031 FDP /FP Stoneridge Lane Final Development Plan Final Plat Proposal: A plat of commercial lots and right -of -way within the Shamrock Crossing Planned District, located south of West Dublin - Granville Road and west of Stoneridge Lane. Request Review and approval of a final development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050 and a final plat under the provisions of Sections 152.085 through 152.095. Applicant: Kevin McCauley, Shamrock Crossing LLC; represented by Edward Miller, EMH &T. Planning Contact: Eugenia M. Martin, ASLA, Landscape Architect MOTION: To approve this Final Development Plan/Final Plat application because it complies with the criteria set forth in Section 153.050 and Section 152.085 through 152.095 of the Dublin Zoning Code and the existing development standards within the area, with three conditions: 1) That the applicant pay the tree replacement fee at time of building permit issuance; 2) That the applicant removes the side and rear setbacks shown on the proposed plat for Lot 2 prior to City Council submittal; and 3) That any minor technical adjustments to the plat be made prior to City Council submittal. *Edward Miller, EMH &T, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Final Development Pbui/Final Plat application was approved. 4 IFF T"" erman Planning Manager 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 3 /de stated that this infor ion is published. When t City's begins in February at sery ice will be include .The City plan chedule, togeth with the City 's production edule. The City hat 1nformati prior to the February sta p of the broadcasting LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 01 -07 Rezoning Approximately 18 Acres, Located at the Intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R-4, Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road — Case No. 06 -076) Ms. Husak provided a condensed presentation of the rezoning application for a 136,000 square foot commercial development located north and south of W. Dublin - Granville Road (SR 161). The ordinance was introduced on January 9, and at that meeting Council Members discussed the proposed architecture, the list of permitted uses and whether this area is appropriate for those uses. She showed renderings of the subareas and the proposed preliminary plan. Included in the Council packets was a condensed list of uses, excluding certain uses for each subarea. The applicant has also provided a rendering of the architecture for the proposed car wash, demonstrating high quality architecture and materials. Planning is confident that the proposed changes in the text and the architecture of the car wash will enhance the overall development. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance at this time. She can respond to questions, and the applicant is present for questions as well. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher noted that a thorough discussion of the proposal took place at the last Council meeting, and staff has responded with the information requested at that time. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted he appreciates the inclusion of the elevations for the car wash. There was some discussion, however, about the potential for relocating the car wash. Has that been addressed? Ms. Husak responded that Planning is confident that can be considered at the final development plan stage. Due to time constraints, it has not been discussed in the two weeks subsequent to the introduction of the rezoning. Ms. Salay noticed there is a substantial tree row along the site, running north and south. Will those trees be eliminated with this development? Ms. Husak responded that certain areas have landscaped islands that are relatively wide that will accommodate some of those existing trees. The applicant has taken care in designing the site to accommodate larger islands for some of those trees. Detailed tree preservation plans will come at the final development plan stage. Ms. Salay disclosed that she met with the applicant at his office in October or November, where he presented the architectural proposals in order to receive feedback on the land use and the project. Mr. McCash stated he appreciates the information about the permitted uses. In regard to the car wash drawing, it depicts the west elevation and the south elevation. What about the east side that faces the rest of David Road? Mr. Hale introduced John Oney, architect who works with Germain. Mr. Hale noted that the east side of the car wash faces the detention basin and the back of Lowe's and therefore was felt to be the less sensitive area. John Onev Architectural Alliance commented that the initial opportunity to purchase the other three properties allowed a separation of the prep and car wash functions from the main Germain building. It made sense to locate the prepping and the car wash facility on the eastern end of the property. With this orientation, there is a 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 4 separate lane for the car wash that will allow separation for the customers. To the western portion of the prep and car wash building would be the preparation functions of the new cars — six preparation bays. All the doors on the western elevation would face inward to the site and be properly screened. Mr. Hale summarized that the question seems to be whether the four sides of the building will be equal in terms of architecture at the final development plan. Mr. Oney responded they will be equal. There was an emphasis on increasing buffering and screening from the eastern side. Mr. McCash noted that it appears that in each subarea, both a ground and wall sign would be allowed. Mr. Hale responded that to the extent that this is a center, a center sign is permitted. Wall signs are also permitted. The only location in which there is both a wall and ground sign is at the Germain service facility. The southern entry sign is intended to identify this to the customers. Typically, they are allowed either ground signs or wall signs, but in this situation, because of the road system, they believe a wall sign and a small ground sign are warranted and an exception is needed. Mr. McCash stated that from the public street, the only sign visible to identify this is the ground sign at the corner. Once a customer is in the site, only directional signage would be needed. Mr. Hale stated that the ground sign at the corner will be angled, so that those on Banker Drive can see it as well. Mr. McCash responded he does not see the need for both a wall and a ground sign. The service area is a destination location. A customer will turn from 161 onto Shamrock Boulevard to access it. The architecture of the car dealership will be mirrored in this building, so there is already a visual cue that it is part of the dealership. With the ground sign and the overhead doors, it is clearly the service center for Germain. Mr. Keenan asked about the size of the ground sign. Ms. Husak stated it does not have a maximum height, but must be smaller than 50 square feet. Mr. McCash stated that the sign could then be 50 square feet and 15 feet in height. The 50 square feet is for the graphic area. He is interested in the height limitation. Ms. Husak stated the Planning Commission will review this at the final development plan stage and it could conceivably be 15 feet high. She does not believe the applicant is proposing a sign of this height. Mr. McCash responded that the text language indicates, "in accordance with the Dublin sign code." Mr. Hale responded that the Planning Commission made it clear they would not approve a sign of the size that the Code allows. The Commission believed the sign should be smaller than what is permitted under Code. This is not a high speed road and therefore does not warrant the maximum size allowed under Code. Mr. Keenan asked staff to identify the various locations of the signage on the plan. Mr. Hale pointed out that the sign was angled to allow it to be viewed from the various roadways. Mr. Keenan noted there is a similar situation with his building at Post and Avery. There is a ground sign on Post Road, but it is a small sign that provides some direction for access into the parking lot. He does not see a problem with approving such a sign, assuming agreement or compromise can be obtained about the size and square footage of such a sign. Mr. McCash asked if Mr. Keenan would be willing to change Dublin's sign code to allow this for other areas. Mr. Hale noted that he recalls only one other location where a similar situation occurred — PetsMart on Sawmill Road. There was a large setback and the sign was not visible to those coming to the site. With tonight's proposal, the applicant is not asking for signage in excess of Code; they agreed that the ground sign would be 07 -034Z Rezoning /Prelirr inary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 5 smaller than that allowed by Code. Instead of having two wall or two ground signs, they are requesting one wall and one ground sign. Mr. McCash noted the City is effectively pushing the buildings up along 161 for the walkability component, but then allowing signs above each of the tenants and allowing a center identification signage. Typically, center identification signage would be allowed because a building is setback from the roadway. Therefore, it seems that the development is being over signed by having both ground and tenant signage. Mr. Hale responds that the tenant signage is allowed under the Code. Mr. McCash stated that the parking is behind the buildings, so having the Center signage seems redundant and not necessary. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the location of the ground sign. Mr. McCash noted that under the text, this sign could be located in the right -of -way. Mr. Hale responded that they would not do so without approval from the City. They are not asking to violate the Code, but asking to have either two wall signs or two ground signs. If Council will not allow one of the ground signs to be located in the right -of -way, they will then ask for two wall signs. The applicant understands that the ground sign in the right -of -way is not on the agenda for consideration tonight. Mr. McCash stated that the buildings are fairly close to 161. What is the maximum size of the Center signs? Is it per the Code? Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. The buildings are linear and there is a desire to identify the Center as a destination. The concept was to have a ground sign, conforming to Code, indicating the Center name. Mr. McCash responded that his concern is with the location of the ground sign in relation to 161, the buildings and the public sidewalk. For example, on Avery- Muirfield, Wendy's and McDonald's have the same size signs, but there is a different relationship to the public sidewalk and to the street. One blends in with the streetscape; while the other is not attractive. The concern with this sign is how it will fit in with both buildings up front and the Center signage pushed up close to that. Obviously, the sign will not be placed far enough back — as there is a desire to have the sign visible from both sides — it will really push the sign up toward the right -of- way. Mr. Hale responded that they will have to comply with Code in terms of setback for this sign. They have not requested any variances. They will commit that the sign will be architecturally compatible with the buildings, subject to Planning Commission's review in terms of the location at final development plan. Mr. McCash stated that the signage will have to be integrated into the plan itself if it remains in the text. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that he frame a motion to adopt this as a condition as part of the vote. Mr. Hale stated the applicant would agree to that condition. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the service center ground sign. Did he understand correctly from staff that the height of that sign has not been determined? Ms. Husak corrected her previous statement, clarifying that the sign is restricted to eight feet in height. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated there does seem to be some redundancy with this sign. He understands that the applicant is committing that the background sign will be something less than eight feet. Is that correct? Mr. Hale responded that the Planning Commission indicated they would not approve the size of sign which is permitted under the Code. The applicant will submit some mock -ups for that hearing to persuade them that the sign is appropriately sized. The final determination of the size of the sign will be made by the Commission. Mr. McCash clarified that the graphic area of the size is what will be determined. The maximum height of the sign is eight feet. Mr. Hale responded they believe the sign is discreet in size and fits the purpose. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stonwidge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 6 Vice Mayor Lecklider stated his first concern is with height, given the fact that a wall sign is also included. He would prefer something less than eight feet. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the sign should be in proportion to its purpose. Mr. Hale agreed, stating that the lower speed on these roadways does not warrant a tall sign, such as would be necessary for a higher speed area. The applicant agrees with a condition that the sign would be subject to Planning Commission's review at final development plan stage for its size and height. Council's clear expectation is that the sign will not be eight feet in height. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher invited public testimony. Linda Merchant - Masonbrink 3168 Lilly-Mar Court read a letter into the record and provided a copy for each Council Member. She noted that the Shamrock Crossing proposal is immediately north of their property. She spoke before the Planning Commission in September and October of 2006, expressing objections to the proposed rezoning. They are as follows: • It will allow the proliferation of retail and commercial development in close proximity to their peaceful neighborhood. • They have concerns with noise, excess pavement, loss of green space, instability in the retail base and retail sprawl. • The solid retail corridor along 161 is unimaginative and does not create a grand entrance to Historic Dublin. • Concern with music and outdoor entertainment associated with restaurant patios. • Loud speaker announcements which continue to exist at the Lexus dealer to the east, despite assurances from Mr. Germain to the Commission that they would cease. • Inadequate buffering and protection of their community's tranquility. She summarized by asking Council to protect their neighborhood. Steve Masonbrink 3168 Lilly -Mar Court stated that he opposes the rezoning of these parcels, based on the following: • There is little green space remaining in Dublin, and there is an abundance of blacktop. He is aware he is in the minority, as green space does not bring municipal revenue as does a retail development. • There are failing businesses including the Dublin Village Center and the Village Center where Capriano's is located. • The wildlife corridor, with mature trees will be lost because of this development. • If the parcels are to be rezoned, it is imperative that the development can support the retail businesses. Placing the buildings close to the street will not be conducive to incoming business, and will not be aesthetically appealing. • In terms of signage, he believes the Dublin Village Center is empty because no one is aware it exists. Signs are definitely needed in front of the buildings for the retail areas. At 45 mph speed, he wants visible signs which identifies the tenants in the Center. Signs will be very important to the success of the businesses. The signage shown in the plans for the Germain facility are not adequate, in his opinion. He summarized that if the green space is to be lost and the wildlife corridor, he doesn't want it to become an empty parking lot. He supports his wife's comments, noting that they want to maintain the quiet community as it now exists. They want strict limits on outdoor speakers and excessive light pollution. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road indicated that because his testimony is focused on the larger picture, he does not want to single out this proposal. He will therefore withdraw his request to testify. 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked staff to address the issues of noise and lighting and how the Commission and developer have dealt with this. Ms. Husak responded that there are additional parcels to the south of the extension of Stoneridge Lane that are not shown on the site plan. These are zoned SO and could be developed as office, with required buffering. The development will be required to meet the Dublin lighting guidelines. In terms of the noise levels, staff had discussion with the applicant regarding PA systems. The applicant has indicated they are used very minimally if at all. In terms of impacting residents further to the south of the site, staff does not believe the noise from that use will travel that far south. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked staff to respond to the fact that Mr. Germain had testified at the Commission meeting that the PA noise at the current site would be stopped and yet it has not. Ms. Husak responded that staff has not received any requests for Code enforcement or reports of noise violations. Ms. Salay asked what the Code states regarding sound that travels off of the site. Ms. Husak responded that code enforcement addresses noise issues during the City's office hours; after City offices are closed, the Police would have to be contacted. It is complaint driven. Ms. Readier added that the noise restriction is established as that which can be heard 50 feet from the property line. It does not involve a decibel level. Ms. Salay noted that the Germain site from which the residents report noise emanating is further away than this site will be. It is certainly 50 feet away from the neighborhood. Ms. Husak responded that the existing Germain business is closer to the Masonbrink property than the property proposed for rezoning. Ms. Salay stated that the retail development on the south side of 161, however, would be closer to the Merchantbrink home. Ms. Husak confirmed this. Ms. Salay commented that she does not see a noise provision in the text. Ms. Husak responded that there is no provision about noise in the text. It is dealt with during the conditional use process at the Planning Commission. All outdoor patio uses are required to have a conditional use. Whether or not speakers would be appropriate would be something evaluated at that time. Ms. Salay asked for clarification that the auto oriented use in the Service center will not require approval of a conditional use, per the text, but any future patio use would require approval of a conditional use. Ms. Husak confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay stated she would like to hear from the applicant about the existing noise issue described by the residents. Mr. Hale indicated that Mr. Germain has committed that he will immediately ensure that the existing noise issue is addressed. If Council wants to make this a condition of the rezoning, that is also acceptable. If this rezoning is approved, Germain will soon file an application for corridor review for the existing dealership. The Germains have agreed to take the existing dealership and completely remodel it in keeping with the other buildings. At that time, the Commission could provide that no outdoor speakers are permitted. Council could also include a condition related to the speakers in this rezoning action. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification that the existing dealership will house only the sales facility in the future, if this plan is approved. Mr. Hale confirmed that is correct. The service portion and the car storage will be moved to the north side of 161. The fact that the Stavroffs were able to purchase the five properties on David Road made this an improved proposal from the earlier renderings. It also allowed Banker Drive to go through. He summarized that Mr. Germain will agree to a condition that the speakers not be used at the existing facility. 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Keenan stated he is aware that the Community Plan provides that the corridor has buildings close to the roadway, but he personally does not support this. He understands this is to be a pedestrian - friendly area, and will have restaurants and patios. Therefore, he would not want to rule out some type of speaker systems to support the outdoor dining areas. Mr. McCash pointed out that the speakers would have to be loud enough to overcome the vehicle noise from the street. Mr. Keenan noted that his understanding is the patios would not be located along the street, but in the back of the buildings. Mr. Hale commented that they envision patios in two places, with activity in front of the buildings and some outdoor seating for the summer. He invited architect Brian Jones to comment. Brian Jones Brian Kent Jones Architects noted they met recently to consider the relationship of the faces of the buildings to the streetscape. They are interested in studying that dimension between the curb to the right -of -way and the right -of -way to the building face. The dimensions currently vary between 35 and 50 feet and they are looking at landscape terracing strategies to handle this appropriately. They desire a cogent system to separate the vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic and have some good solutions in mind. Ms. Salay stated that some type of physical barrier is needed. The experience of sifting in front of Starbucks in Historic Dublin is not peaceful, in view of the potential conflicts between pedestrians and traffic. Mr. Jones stated that the Starbucks example has a narrow right -of -way due to the existing historical conditions and no setback. They don't envision every use as having terrace components, but want a cogent strategy to ensure insulation to the pedestrian quality along the street. Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out that this activity will face north in terms of noise generation — not to the south where the residents are located. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher emphasized that the patio use will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the noise element will be considered based upon the user. However, it is important that Mr. Germain address the noise situation with the PA system at the existing dealership. Rick Germain, Germain Lexus apologized for the oversight. It was his intention after the Commission meeting to address this problem. Germain can conduct business on the site as currently set up without outdoor paging. He is not personally in favor of such paging, but over the years, this policy has lapsed. With service moving off this site, there is no reason for outdoor paging to continue. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher summarized that Council is appreciative of Germain's continued presence in the community and their decision to expand their dealership in Dublin. Mr. McCash asked Mr. Hale if the applicant would be opposed to reducing the lighting levels in the parking lot by 50 percent during non - operating hours. Mr. Hale agreed to this. Mr. McCash moved approval of the ordinance as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission with the following two additional conditions: • That all Center identification signage in all subareas be subject to review and approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission in regard to location and size. • That the lighting in all the parking areas be reduced by 50 percent during non - operating hours. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes, Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes. Ms. Salay, yes, 07--034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 22, 2007 Page 9 Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Amenorng the Annual Appropr' ions for Fiscal Year E mg December 31, 200 V e Mayor Lecklider introd ed the ordinance. s. Brautigam stated this' an amendment to the ropriations for 2007. S is recommending this be Id over for second read' /public hearing on Febr ry 5. There were no ques ' ns. There will be a s nd reading /public heari at the February 5 Coun ' meeting. Ordinance -07 Declarin mprovements to Certa' Real Property to be D eloped by Shamir k Crossing to be a Pu rc Purpose, Describin a Public Infr ructure Improvemen o be Made to Benefit t se Parcels, Requiring t Owner Thereof to li ervice Payments in U of Taxes, Providing f e Franklin County Tre, urer to Distribute Se ' a Payments to the Du City School District i he Amount it Would O erwise Receive Absen e Exemption, Creati a Municipal Public Im ovement Tax Incremen Equivalent Fun or the Deposit of the B ante of Such Service P ments, and Authorizing t Execution of aTax Inc ment Financing Agree ent. Ms. Salay i oduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigs noted this legislation pr ides for the establishm of a non - school tax ncrem t financing district for ap oximately 22 acres, mo f which will be incl ed in the rezoning Ordin ce 01 -07 approved by C ncil tonight. As part of t rezoning, the develop t is approved for up to 1 ,000 square feet, comp r' ec f retail, office and servic uses. Based upon the p jections of the value of t private improvements, aff has also compared t to the existing informati . Staff has determined ther will be a private in t of approximately $20 at with regard to the ass sed valuation that will b etermined by the county uditor's office. This va ation will generate appro ately $210,000 annual) in service payments. terms of job projections, e developer has provide information that estimates 24 additional jobs in the ity, with additional incom tax revenue of $160,0 per year. In consider he establishment of this F, staff reviewed the are frastructure improveme needed, and this TIF pr ides for many c nections of roadways in is area, specifically the neridge Lane extension anker Drive extension, h of which connect to S mrock Boulevard, and t extension of Shamroc oulevard to the north an o the east to connect wi Village Parkway. In additio o these major roadway nnections, staff has also' entified the intersection f er to the west of 161 a Riverside Drive, as well some minor improve nts such as the remova f curb cuts on SR 161. other focus of the discussi which was critical to thi roject was that the appli nt was able to incorpora the residential propertie n David Road. This wa a major component consid ed in determining some he improvements to be' cluded in the TIF, spe ' tally the extension of B er Drive. There is addit' nal information regardin t school district and the i acts on other governme jurisdictions who are patted by the deferral property tax revenues. She emphasized that t City has successfully u d tax increment financin istricts to address growth a economic development eeds. Staff recommend is ordinance be hel ver for second reading/ lic hearing at the Febru 5 Council meeting. Mayor Ch nici- Zuercher asked abo the timing project/for,; roadway /the eons. sby responded the Sh rock Boulevard extenogrammed /ently Banke rive and Stoneridge Dri constructed velopment for thi site; and the intersection 161 and Riverside is programmed for desig 2007, acquisition in 20 and construction In 9nn 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9, 2007 Mayor Chi ci- Zuercher called the Tues y, January 9, 2007 Regular eeting of Dublin;' y Council to order at 7:00 p. . at the Dublin Municipal Bui ng. Pre t were: Mayor Chinnici -Zu er, Vice Mayor Lecklider, s. Boring, Mr. nan, Mr. Mc"ash, Mr. Rein and Ms. Salay. Staff members present re: Ms. Brautigam, Ms. Gri y, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel Chief Epperson, Mr. n, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, r. Hammersmith, Ms. Hoyle Mr. Earman, Mr. ding, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. sak, Ms. Keller -Wilt, Mr. B s and Ms. Wawszkie Cz. PLEDG F ALLEGIANCE Mr. ash led the Pledge of Alle ' nce. PPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting ecember 11, 2006 Mr. Reiner moved ap oval of the minutes of Dece er 11, 2006. Ms. Salay second the motion. Vote on the m 'on: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. ner, yes, Mrs. Boring, yes; V e Mayor Lecklider, y ; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Sal , yes; Mayor Chinnici -Zuerc , yes. TKre was no correspondence quiring action from Council. SPECIAL PRESENTATI Mayor Chinnici -Zuerc r presented a framed photo the Dancing Hares -- a sculpture located he entrance to Ballantrae -- Charles Driscoll, who was representing P er Edwards. The Mayor pr ded a brief history of the a rk, which was missioned by Peter Edwar in 2001 to serve as the ce rpiece of the Ball rae development in southw Dublin. On behalf of City uncil, Mayor Chin . i- Zuercher thanked Mr. Ed rds for his generous donatio of the sculpture to t ity of Dublin's public art co ction. r. Driscoll thanked the Ci r their help in developing B ntrae Park, and particularly to Mr. Hahn staff for their ongoing mat nance of the park. CITIZEN COMMr There E S were no mments from citizens. LEGISLATION SECOND READINGIPUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 81 -06 Vacating High School Road as a Public Road in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam stated there is no additional information to report at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes, Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 01 -07 Rezoning Approximately 18 Acres, Located at the Intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R-4, Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road — Case No. 06 -076) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Husak stated this is a request for rezoning to a planned unit development district for a proposed 136,000 square foot commercial development located north and south of West Dublin- Granville Road (161). Planning & Zoning Commission approved the application on December 7, and Planning staff recommends Council approval the rezoning at the second reading /public hearing on January 22. The 18- acre site consists of several parcels that include portions of the Sharp property to the 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9,2007 Page 2 south, the Warner /Betz property to the north, and David Road parcels along David Road to the west. She identified recently approved developments in the vicinity, including Greystone Mews to the north and the Shoppes at River Ridge Lifestyle Center to the west. The Wendy's headquarters is directly west of the site, the Lowe's store is to the east of the site and to the west is the Stoneridge Medical Center. She showed a conceptual drawing of the vision of the 161 Corridor, which was discussed during various work sessions of the Community Plan Update. The direction from these work sessions address the overall character of the corridor, which included a building orientation toward the street and creating a higher density mixed use environment. She noted that the proposal for the site contains four subareas as outlined on the plan, and the proposed preliminary development plan shows the potential layout of each of the subareas in greater detail. The final details will be determined at the final development plan stage. Subarea A The preliminary plan indicates an office /retail building oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of the building. Subarea B The preliminary plan shows a proposed extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south. The plan indicates buildings facing 161 with head -in parking behind the building as well as a smaller building located along Shamrock Boulevard. Per Condition 12 of the P&Z approval, the development text has been modified to require buildings with frontage along 161 to be located in close proximity to that right -of -way, with the specific setbacks to be determined at the final development plan stage. The text states that the goal in this area is to encourage pedestrian activity and outdoor activities. The Planning division believes this language will allow for future flexibility to create such spaces and to differentiate this area from the environment that currently exists along 161. In this development, a drive - through is envisioned for a bank, dry cleaner or pharmacy and the development text limits drive - throughs to a maximum of one drive - through for the entire site, in either subarea B or C and does not allow it to serve an eating or drinking establishment. Subarea C This is located to the north of 161 with the extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary of this site. The text addresses setbacks and other development standards similar to Subarea B. Subarea D This is located to the north of Subarea C and has frontage along the Banker Drive extension to the south as well as the proposed extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the north and east. The plans indicate an auto service facility located in the western portion of the subarea as well as a detached carwash in the eastern portion of the subarea, which will exclusively serve customers of the auto service facility. Planning staff has determined that the proposed use in this subarea is appropriate, as it is located adjacent to the existing AEP substation and is also removed from the 161frontage. The development text includes provision for a combination of wall and ground signs in this subarea, the details of which will be determined at the final development plan stage. The applicant is working with the Finance Department on a tax increment financing agreement, which addresses the participation in the road network which is to be extended with this project. This includes the extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south, as well as Shamrock Boulevard north and east and Banker Drive from David Road toward Shamrock Boulevard. The City may also consider vacating David Road north of Banker Drive, which will require Council action in the future. The development text requires that structures have a common architectural theme, which is described as a traditional Irish town, with common building materials throughout the development. The proposed architecture provides for interesting and 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9, 2007 Page 3 appropriate building types, which Planning staff believes coordinate well with the Shoppes at River Ridge as well as are complimentary to the Historic District. She displayed an elevation of the proposed auto service center, and the applicant has worked with staff to achieve the same quality of architecture shown for the other subareas. She then displayed views of the proposed development from the various locations around the site. The applicant has worked extensively with Planning and Engineering as well as the Finance Department on this proposal. The text and preliminary plans, as well as the architectural renderings successfully address the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, with buildings and pedestrian spaces oriented toward the road. The proposal includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses and the high level of development quality desired in this area is likely to be achieved by this proposal. Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this rezoning at the second reading /public hearing of January 22. She offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a firm commitment from the developer on the architectural renderings enclosed in the packet. Will this tower be built? Ms. Husak responded affirmatively, noting the text has been revised to address this. The applicant has stated that the drawings represent the intended architecture. Mr. Reiner stated that in the presentation, she indicated the architecture will be similar to River Ridge. Do these renderings reflect the final product? Ms. Husak responded that she meant to state that the architecture will complement River Ridge, but the intention is for the architecture to be very similar if not the same as shown in the preliminary text. Mr. Reiner asked for verification that it is four -sided architecture. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher invited the developer to testify. _ Ben Hale 37 W. Broad Street noted he represents the developer, Mr. Stavroff who is present tonight. In response to Mr. Reiner's question, the developer has committed to this architecture. They have hired Brian Jones for the project, and there will be four -sided architecture. He shared that Germain has been told by Lexus that they need a new service facility and need to upgrade their existing facility. Although it is not a part of the zoning, Mr. Germain attended the Planning Commission meeting and they have committed as a part of this to take their existing dealerships — the used and new car — and will do architecture that is very comparable to what has been shown tonight. They will soon come to the Planning Commission with a corridor review. Therefore, not only these buildings will have high quality architecture, but Germain's architecture will be upgraded. It has not been upgraded since it was originally opened in 1988. They've also given Planning staff drawings of that building, and it is compatible with this architecture. In addition, they have been able to assemble the David Road property which has been a long standing goal of the City. This will allow Banker Drive to go through to access Lowe's and completes the rearrangement of Shamrock with the new roundabout. Mr. Reiner noted that the Lexus dealership has outgrown its facility and has stacked automobiles for their carwash. Is there enough space for them to accommodate their client base? Ms. Husak responded it appears there is adequate space. The Code has large numbers of parking spaces required for auto service facilities, and with the addition of the David Road parcels, this site is expected to function well with the parking provided. Mr. Reiner asked about the total height of the buildings as shown in the elevations. Mr. Hale responded these are 2 -1/2 story buildings with towers. At the time of final development plan, those renderings and drawings are what will be built. Mr. McCash noted that when this case was presented to the Planning Commission, 07 -034Z Rezoning /Prelinrinaty Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9, 2007 Page 4 he abstained due to a conflict relating to his employment. He is no longer working for that employer and can therefore participate in this discussion. His question relates to the extent of uses permitted. Is there a way to reduce the size of this list? Mr. Hale responded that what has been done in other zonings in the City is to review the uses and eliminate the more objectionable ones. They are willing to review this list with staff to consider which uses could be eliminated. Ms. Husak commented that this text reflects the Code language. Mr. Hale noted there is a universal Code that has standard industry classifications. He would prefer to specify the uses allowed versus having the large list. Mr. McCash commented that perhaps it could be viewed as a general category without reference to the SIC Code. His other question relates to the drive through. 11 the goal is to create a pedestrian - friendly environment, having a drive - through seems counterproductive and encourages vehicular traffic. Mr. Hale responded they are aware of the requirement to have a conditional use reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. At this time, they don't have a proposed use requiring a drive - through, but there is potential for that in the future. They would have to demonstrate how a drive - through could work with the buildings. It would likely result in losing some parking spaces behind the buildings. They have tried to purchase the corner piece on David Road, but have not been successful. They are aware of the challenge of obtaining the conditional use, but would want the opportunity to pursue it. Mr. McCash noted there are some issues with the combinations of wall and ground signs. It is unusual for the City to deviate from its base standards. Mr. Hale responded that sign specifically relates to the auto use. Because the auto use faces a couple of streets, it could have wall signs, but they also have an entry sign. Although they are permitted to have another sign on the other side of the building, they do not want to confuse people about which way to enter. They have therefore requested a small sign at the comer. There are some physical constraints with how the site works and a wall and ground sign are needed. Mr. McCash responded that the signage is therefore being used as directional signage. Mr. Hale responded it identifies the building, but also informs how to enter the site to drop off their cars. Mr. McCash asked about the text of the sign at the street. Will it indicate, "Germain Lexus Service Center" or "Entry/Exit ?" Mr. Hale responded it will likely state "Germain." Mr. McCash stated that directional signs are exempt under the Dublin sign code. Mr. Hale responded that the sign will be larger than the size directional signs are permitted to be. They are trying to inform those southbound on Shamrock, westbound on Banker Drive that this is the Lexus dealership service center. Mrs. Boring asked which direction the garage doors will face. Mr. Hale responded they will face south. Mrs. Boring asked if there has been any consideration about defining hours of operation for the subareas. Ms. Husak responded there has not. Mrs. Boring asked if there are such restrictions on property in the vicinity. Ms. Husak responded she is not aware of any. Mrs. Boring noted that during the Community Plan process, a consultant provided information about the amount of retail development which could be supported. Most of the potential future retail development was not located in this area. At one time, when working with the residents of David Road, Council wanted more office use than what is presented tonight. Ms. Husak responded there are provisions for office and retail uses in the development text, however it is leaning toward more retail in certain subareas as A and D. Staff has looked at those uses and believes they are appropriate in this area. Mr. Hale clarified that the southern portion of 15.8 acres is to be office use. They are aware of the concern about retail, and talked with a retail consultant, Robin Warms 07 -034Z Rezoning /Prelin>inary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9, 2007 Page 5 about whether the market would support these buildings, and the kind of tenant mix possible. He believes this will be a very successful center and that there is adequate demand for this. Mrs. Boring responded that her concern is not with support of this retail development, but with what will not be supported in the process — creating other empty storefronts in the area. For example, in filling the new retail space at the Kroger Center on Sawmill, what will remain empty along Sawmill Road? It is important to support the existing businesses in the community as well. Mrs. Boring asked if the Lexus auto dealer would leave in the future, could the site automatically become big box retail? Ms. Husak responded no, adding there are uses other than auto service outlined in that subarea. Mr. Keenan commented that the streetscapes are very similar to Perimeter. In reviewing the signage portion of the development text, will there be signage on the front of the buildings similar to what has been done at Perimeter Center? Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. The applicant believes signage is needed on the front, and there is signage that is interior on the parking lot as well. This has been addressed in the text. Ms. Salay noted that part of the presentation referenced the 161 corridor vision that Council discussed in the Plan update and agreed to. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern with the amount of retail in this proposal. While there is some office use, it is primarily a retail site. She supports the quality of the architecture which has been shown and would be pleased with having this architecture in the future, should the uses change. She asked for staffs opinion on tying together the vision for the 161 corridor and this proposal for a largely retail use and how it dovetails. Ms. Husak responded that staff has reviewed the current office uses at Stoneridge and Wendy's headquarters and believes the vision of the 161 corridor will be achieved with this development. Staff also looked at the residential development existing in this area and believes there is a customer base for the services. Ms. Salay summarized that staff is then completely comfortable with this proposal and how it dovetails with the Community Plan update. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked about future parking, with Subarea D going to the existing David Road. Will all of this area be parking? Ms. Husak responded it will not all be parking area. At the time the plans were submitted, the details of Subarea D had not been worked out. The intention is for the subarea to be developed where the carwash is actually detached. The parking will be more interior to the site. Ms. Salay asked if the architecture of the carwash will be of the same quality as the remainder of the development. Ms. Husak responded the details will be reviewed at final development plan, but it is expected to be of the same quality. Mrs. Boring noted that in the permitted uses, it indicates storage of new and used automobiles and that no automobile sales shall be permitted. She is concerned about this becoming a massive used car lot in the future, similar to what currently exists at Dublin Village Center. Is there a safeguard that will prevent this? Ms. Husak responded that the Germain site currently being used for retail on 161 is small in view of the entire inventory. The intention is to have the overflow stored on this site. The provision in the text regarding no retail activity is so that customers will not be on the site looking at cars. Mrs. Boring asked about screening of the car storage area. Ms. Husak responded that screening and landscaping will be required to meet Code. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher noted that a similar issue exists for another dealership on Sawmill Road, which has not complied with the screening required in the text. It will 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9, 2007 Page 6 be very important for staff to hold the developer accountable for installing and maintaining the screening. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern about the hundreds of cars parked in the vacant lot at Dublin Village Center, which is aesthetically unappealing. In regard to the car wash, it is not a matter of "working toward" the same architecture as the other properties; it needs to be the same architecture as those other buildings, as Council is permitting a carwash to be part of this proposal. This is not something that Council believes is desirable. It is important to remember that the Wendy's corporate headquarters is adjacent with beautiful and well maintained property. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification regarding subarea D and future parking. Does the text limit automobile storage in this location or not? Ms. Husak responded that the text allows such storage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the future plans for David Road. Ms. Husak responded that Engineering and Planning staff have contemplated vacating David Road north of Banker Drive. To the east of David Road is a retention pond for Lowe's, and the AEP substation is to the north. There is no need for the roadway to exist in this area, and there have been discussions regarding vacating this it Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that it seems to be an odd placement for the carwash. However, he appreciates the need a car dealer has for a carwash. Mr. Keenan pointed out the carwash is exclusively for the dealer's use — it is not a public car wash. Mr. Hale agreed, noting that it is used only by customers of the dealer and not the public. One reason for this car storage is the amount of cars on the existing dealership site. They want the lot along 161 to be uncluttered by removing the car storage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked why the carwash cannot be part of the main building. Mr. Hale responded that the desire was to have the garage doors off of Banker Drive. The location next to the detention basin and substation seemed appropriate for this use. They are willing to comply with a condition that the architecture of the carwash meets the architecture of the rest of the service facility, Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible to flip the carwash so it is oriented east and west. The side of the carwash would then be the visible portion from the backs of the buildings along 161. Ms. Husak stated this could be reviewed as part of the final development plan. Mr. Hale agreed it could be considered. Their thinking was to locate the carwash near the undesirable portions of the site. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented that Ms. Salay's suggestion is interesting and should be considered. Mr. Keenan asked how the cars enter and exit the carwash. Mr. Hale responded there is a dedicated drive for this purpose. Mr. Reiner added that currently, the Lexus dealership has problems with the queuing for the carwash which results in a dangerous situation in terms of ingress and egress. Ms. Salay noted that she understood only the employees of the dealership would be driving the cars into the carwash. Mr. Hale responded that owners of a Lexus vehicle can also use the carwash. But most of the car wash activity is for the dealer preparing new cars for delivery. Vice Mayor Lecklider reiterated Mr. McCash's concern about the potential for conflicts with the drive - through uses. He appreciates that these will be designated as non -food uses. He asked staff to comment regarding the proposed tax increment financing agreement. 07 -0342 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin City Council January 9,2007 Page 7 Ms. Grigsby responded that as part of the discussion regarding the development and the use of tax increment financing, staff reviewed the infrastructure needs in the area, specifically the extension of Shamrock Drive and Stoneridge Lane. As the discussions continued, and there was a possibility of incorporating and redeveloping the residential properties, it made sense to consider the extension of Banker Drive and include that In the TIF. To summarize, what is being considered is a funding source or mechanism to provide for those infrastructure needs in that area. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if a TIF will absolutely occur with this development application. Ms. Grigsby responded that for a developer contribution for Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane, the TIF would be the funding source for those improvements. The extension of Shamrock Drive and anticipated intersection improvements at Riverside Drive and State Route 161 are already included in the City's five -year CIP. Mrs. Boring noted that in essence, this text allows a conditional use without undertaking the current conditional use process. Ms. Husak responded that for the carwash specifically, that is correct — with the understanding that the carwash serves only this user. Mrs. Boring noted that the text does not indicate this, but rather references "associated with an automobile service facility located in this subarea." What would be defined as an "automobile service facility"? Could that be a gas station? It does not specifically state it is to be used for an automobile sales showroom or service center. Mr. Hale responded that when they meet regarding the issues Mr. McCash has raised, they will make the text clear to indicate it is only for this user — not a commercial, available to the public canvash. Mrs. Boring asked if there are other items of concern which should be addressed by appending conditions at the next reading. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher suggested that Council Members give further consideration to any desired conditions before the next reading on January 22. Mr. McCash asked about the new auto storage component. The intent with the landscaping is that it is screened as a typical parking lot — it doesn't have the 30 or 20 percent perimeter display space area. Ms. Husak responded it is not the intention, as there is no sales activity to take place on this subarea. The second reading /public hearing will take place at the Monday, January 22 Council meeting. Ordinance 0 -07 Amendin ection 73.01 of th/nd dified Ordinances R arding Driving Under a Influence of Alcoho Section 73.03 the Dublin Co ' ed Ordinances Regardi Control of Veh' a While Under the I uence, and Declaring an mergency. (Request to pense with the public Vice Mayor Lecklider in duced the ordinance. Mr. Smith explained is is a housekeeping mea re to include the drug prov ions approved by the to in 2006 in the City's C e. Staff is requesting pas e by emergency to ve conformity with the sta code immediately upon p sage. Mrs. Bon g asked about the definitio of a vehicle within the Co ,for example, a motor ed vehicle. Mr mith responded that a mo rized vehicle operated on a street is considered a hicle for purposes of the ;A. For example, if someo is drinking and driving a golf cart on the street, it i considered a vehicle. Mrs. Boring asked] d ab a motorized ssing a public street. Mr. McCash state at it is interesting that a orized wheelchair' 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMENDED RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 CITY or DUBIIN_ Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 430161236 Phone: 614410 -4600 fax 614 410 4747 Web Site v Y.dublineh.os The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Location: 18 acres located at the intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard. Existing Zoning: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R -4, Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 24.12 acres to Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Code Sections 153.050 and 153.234. Proposed Use: A 136,000- square -foot development comprised of retail, office, and service- oriented uses. Applicant: Tall Pines Holdings, Ltd., 3473 Mildred Drive, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, Charles W. Warner and Edward E. Belz, 2226 Atlee Court, Columbus, Ohio 43220; Jerry and Linda Berg, 5709 West Alexandria Road, Middletown, Ohio 45042, Mary Warner, 6595 David Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017, Ima Moore, 7055 Shier Rings, Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016, Virgil Schnell, 839 Liverpool Place, Westerville, Ohio 43081, Donnabelle Scott, PO Box 191, Dublin, Ohio 43017 -0191; represented by Ben W. Hale and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4675/Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal addresses the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses, the high -level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development, and the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area, with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of- way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; Page 1 of 2 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road (Continued) 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the development text provisions remain allowing a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D with the maximum square footage of the ground sign subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the final development plan stage; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three - story design similar to the architectural renderings for Subareas B and C; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 9) That the rights -of -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That, as outlined in the Tax Increment Financing Agreement, the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network, and the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 12) That the development text be modified to eliminate the setback requirements along West Dublin Granville Road; *13) That all center identification signage in all subareas be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to location and size; and *14) That the lighting in all the parking areas be reduced by 50 percent during non - operating hours. * As amended by City Council on January 22, 2007. Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION ( a'." - ` � has a, Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner 07 -034Z Page 2 of 2 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 3 of 27 Mr. Fis n moved to approv ,VIhis Corridor Devel ment District Sign view because the existi awning provides d' ension to the exist g building and coo Hates with the othe bu ng in the area, the a icant has worked d' ' rently with staff to c rdinate the awnings th e surrounding prope es, with one conditio . 1) That the ap rcant installs the new wning within 45 day of this approval. Mr. Zimme an seconded them on and the vote w as follows: Mr.. S oltz, yes; Mr. McCash es; Ms. Jones, yes; Walter, yes; Mr. i merman, yes; Mr. rber, yes; and Mr. Fish , yes. (Approved 7 ) / 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Claudia Husak said this request is for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a proposed 136,000- square- foot commercial development located north and south of West Dublin - Granville Road along Shamrock Boulevard. She said this application was tabled at the October 5, 2006 meeting, and the applicants have continued to work with the Planning and Engineering Divisions in order for the proposal to achieve the character envisioned during the Community Plan Update meetings. She said that the plans have been revised to address comments previously discussed and additional acreage has been included in this application, consisting of 2.5 acres. She said the staff report erroroneously stated that 8.5 acres had been added, however a total of 18 acres are to be rezoned. Ms. Husak presented slides of this case, stating that the site consists of several parcels divided by West Dublin - Granville Road with Shamrock Boulevard running north/south along and through the site and portions of the site also having frontage along Sharp Lane, Stoneridge Lane, and David Road. Ms. Husak said the site contains four proposed subareas: Subareas A, B, C, and D. Subareas A and B are located to the south of West Dublin - Granville Road with Subareas C and D to the north of that roadway. She said the proposed preliminary development plan indicates the locations of building envelopes and parking. She said more detailed site plans will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Ms. Husak presented a slide of the preliminary layout of Subarea A, located south of West Dublin- Granville Road, with frontage along Sharp Lane, Shamrock Boulevard, and Stoneridge Lane to the south. She said an office retail building is shown oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of this building. She said to address the Tuller Road Area Plan and the vision for the West Dublin- Granville Corridor, the development text has been modified to reduce the minimum building and pavement setback requirements. She said that the access point on Shamrock Boulevard was limited to a right -in only to address previous concerns. Ms. Husak said the plan shows and the text states that ground signage along West Dublin - Granville Road shall be permitted within the right -of -way which is indicated on the preliminary plan for this subarea. She said that signs proposed in the right -of -way require the consent of the City Engineer and approval by City Council, and that while staff recognizes that this proposed 07 -034Z Rezoning /Prelinvnary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 4 of 27 sign location is due to the alignment of Sharp Lane, Planning does not support the proposed location in the right -of -way. Ms. flusak presented a slide showing the preliminary layout of Subarea B, located south of West Dublin - Granville Road, with frontage along Shamrock Boulevard to the west and a proposed extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south. She said that the preliminary plans have been revised to indicate a building facing West Dublin - Granville Road with head -in parking located behind the building. Ms. Husak said a smaller building is shown facing Shamrock Boulevard with parking ,located to the east and south of that building. She said as stated previously, the development text has been modified to specify a built -to -line to which a significant portion of the buildings will have to adhere to. She said patios and outdoor spaces are encouraged to be located in front of buildings, and the final location of buildings and patios will be determined at the final development plan stage. Ms. Husak said that parking is located interior to the site with landscape islands accommodating existing trees. She said the text lists drive - thrus as conditional uses in this subarea, provided that they are integrated and designed to minimize the negative impact on pedestrian movements. She said drive - thrus do not contribute to a pedestrian- friendly environment, however, the significance of this use for certain tenants and the positive impact a drive -thru may make to the sustainability of this development are important factors to consider. Ms. Husak said the drive -thrus envisioned in this area are generally to serve banks, dry cleaners, or a pharmacy, therefore Planning recommends that drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C, and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment. Ms. Husak presented a slide of the layout for Subarea C, located north of West Dublin - Granville Road with the extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary. She said access for the subarea will be provided by the extension of Banker Drive which has been revised to extend from Shamrock Boulevard to David Road. She said the preliminary plans have also been revised to eliminate a previous curb cut along West Dublin- Granville Road, as David Road will now function as the right - in/right -out access point. Ms. Husak said the City will consider vacating David Road north of Banker Drive as part of the final development plan for this project, which will require action by City Council. She said the plans and the text have also been revised in regard to the building and pavement setbacks as previously discussed for Subarea B, and the text lists drive -thrus as conditional uses in this subarea. She said the recommendation regarding this provision is the same as for Subarea B. Ms. Husak showed a slide of the preliminary plans for Subarea D, located north of Subarea C which has been revised to include additional parcels to the east. She said the subarea fronts the Banker Drive extension to the south, as well as the proposed extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the west and north. She said the plans indicate an auto - service facility located in the center of the site with the majority of the parking interior to the site, behind the building. Ms. Husak said the proposed use is appropriate for this area, adjacent to the existing AEP substation. She said the text proposes both wall and ground signs for the subarea, but Code does not allow the proposed signs for a single tenant, and the text should be modified accordingly. Ms. llusak showed an alternative layout for Subarea D, which was included as an exhibit in the development text. She said the layout shows the car wash detached from the main facility located along the eastern property line, utilizing the newly acquired parcels. She said this alternative layout is appropriate for the site as the location of the car wash is south of the existing 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 5 of 27 AEP substation. She said the layout also utilizes improved site design and successfully screens the intensely used portions of this facility, such as overhead doors. Ms. Husak said staff supports this alternative layout; however, the text should be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility. Mr. Gerber confirmed that the text modification regarding the detached car was included as a condition. Ms. Husak said the development text requires that structures have a common architectural theme which is described as a traditional Irish town with common building materials throughout the development. She said that the development text specifies that the maximum height of the buildings in all four subareas will be 35 feet and the architectural elevations submitted by the applicant indicated a variety of one- and two -story buildings will be constructed on site. She said the buildings for this site should be two stories or more in height to create the massing needed for an identifiable streetscape and the text should be modified to include this requirement. Ms. Husak said the applicants have worked with planning to revise elevations for the auto - service facility in Subarea D to achieve the same quality architecture shown for the other subareas. Ms. Husak said the applicant has continued to work with staff regarding the issues previously associated with this development and revisions have been made to the text, preliminary plans, and the architectural renderings to successfully address the previous concerns. She said this proposal strives to address the desire for a more identifiable streetscape with buildings and pedestrian spaces oriented along the road. She said the proposal includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses and the high level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development. Ms. Husak said the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area. She said approval of this preliminary development plan/rezoning application is recommended with the 12 conditions as listed in the staff report: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of- way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the provision for a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D be eliminated from the development text; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three - story design similar to the architectural renderings; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 6 of 27 9) That the rights -of -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network; and 12) That the applicant build the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Mr. Gerber asked that Condition 1 i be explained. Ms. Husak said the applicant was working with the Finance Department on a TIF, and the TIF will most likely take care of all the road network issues, but the details have not been finalized, so the condition was to take care of that. Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Husak and said it was a good report. Ben W. Hale, Jr., the attorney representing the applicant, said they have agreed to bring these buildings forward. Mr. Hale said they agreed with Conditions 1, 4, and 7 through 10. He said they believed that Conditions 11 and 12 should be combined to read "That the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard, Banker Drive, and Stoneridge Lane extensions," because the arrangement they believed they had with the City was that the City will build all those. He said Condition 12 did not accurately reflect the arrangement made. He said they are going to participate, but they thought most of these roadways will be built by the City. Subarea D Mr. Hale said that Lexus has allowed the applicant to deviate substantially from the branding they typically require. He said the architecture is going to be consistent with the other architecture. He said the service facility and the other buildings will come back to the Commission as part of a Corridor Review Application maybe with the Final Development Plan and with those, the dealership will also be remodeled in conformance with the overall architecture. John Oney, architect for Subarea D, representing the applicant, said the plans presented on October 5 were approved by Lexus and they have worked with the exterior elevations to bring them more in harmony with the Shoppes at River Ridge. He said they are anticipating Lexus will approve the architecture and exterior modifications. Mr. Oney said they now have additional acres with the David Road properties, which allowed several site improvements. He said they maintained the proximity of their structure to Shamrock Lane, pushing it up as far as they could, consistent with the other buildings. He said they were able to begin to take the congestion away from traffic areas in the back of the building and put the service doors to the eastern side, away from Shamrock Lane, which was a high priority. Mr. Oney said it enabled them to handle the parking more efficiently and also separate the car wash functions from the service facility. He said this remote facility is part of the Lexus facility and there would not be any independent operation. Mr. Oney said in regards to Condition 5, this facility was a service center, and it has to perform and function in that way. Mr. Hale demonstrated on plan boards where signs could be located on the building. Fie said they could get two signs on the building legally. lie said one of their problems was identifying the drop off entrance /exit area. He said the entry is going to be signed with the Germain/Lexus logo, but they did not want the same thing at the exit. He said someone coming; from the north 07 -0342 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 7 of 27 cannot see that sign. He said they thought this was a very unusual situation where there is a justification for allowing them a combination of wall and ground signs. Mr. Hale said they thought it was very important that they have a sign at the corner of Shamrock Boulevard and Banker Drive and also very important to have a sign over the entry so that people know how to get in and out. He repeated that they thought this was a very unusual situation where truly the public would not be served properly if just the Sign Code were followed. Mr. Oney said the ground sign on the comer really cemented that this is the Lexus service center and this is the entry point you have to go down to Bankers Drive. Mr. Walter recalled that at the last meeting, they discussed incorporating the same village feel with the architecture. He said he could see the elements from a coloring perspective and some similar use of the stone, but he did not pick up an old village feel. He said it still appeared very Mediterranean, and he suggested it was because it had a flat roof or it was the curve over the windows. Mr. Gerber said he liked the architecture. Mr. Walter he said he clearly liked it better than what they saw before from an architectural side, but he did not think it looked integrated. Mr. Oney said they added materials to the facade and another material, brick and two types of roof shapes with a hip and a gable, wainscoting, and different window details. He said they are working with Lexus to leave the horizontal band on the building, integrating it with ribbing. Mr. Walter asked if something could be done at the most prominent comer of the building to tie it together more. Mr. Saneholtz said he had the same initial reaction to the service center. Mr. Oney said the scale of this building was different and he said there may be the opportunity to raise the buildings at least in height. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it was a situation that if the elevation was raised, it had to be done across the entire building. Mr. Oney said if there was an opportunity with Lexus where at least that line could be changed somewhat, it may solve the issues. He said they have not received a response from Lexus. Mr. Gerber said although he was not at the last meeting, he had read the report and felt that a remarkable job had been done. He said he saw that a lot of the characteristics with the matching stone and the banding were consistent with what they were trying to accomplish for this area. He said he feared that when elevation is added to some of the buildings, they will stick out more than what is wanted. Mr. Gerber said some of the renderings do not give the full affect. Ms. Jones agreed and said that if it was on SR 161 where they were trying to create some mass, she would agree, but considering where it is and the placement on that property, she thought it was a terrific- looking building and it captures some of the elements. She said it was a very progressive high -end looking building and she liked it as proposed. Mr. Fishman pointed out that every Lexus dealership did not have the band. He suggested that if the band was removed, it would make a substantial change. Mr. Oney agreed that there are branding variations on Lexus dealerships. He said Lexus has allowed them to basically take everything away except the banding and the ribbing. Mr. Walter said this was not an unattractive building; however he said that one main focal point that will be seen from SR 161 seemed understated. Mr. Oney said they would be more successful with Lexus if they kept incorporating some of the banding and maybe tried to deal with a little more height or possibly a little variation. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 8 of 27 Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was a two -story portion of this building in the parts section. Mr. Oney said the rear portion is not two - story, but there are lifts and there is service activity which requires a height of 16 feet and space above for mechanicals. He said this facility will be 20 to 24 feet high in the rear. Mr. Saneholtz said he was suggesting a three- or four -foot change in the elevation at prominent points just to attract attention. Mr. Oney said this was probably for a service facility, the furthest away from any piece of branding Lexus has done. He said it was by far their most high -end looking building, Mr. Zimmerman said this was a vast improvement of what the Commission had seen a month ago. He said for an auto - service building, this was nice. He said he thought they had done what the Commission had asked them to do. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said he was okay with pushing the buildings forward, but he was curious about the landscaping, and the breakup of that immense expanse of parking lot that will now be on the left and right, and as soon as he is past Lowe's, that is what opens up in front of him. He asked if others had concerns about the mounding, and landscaping to break it up visually. Mr. Saneholtz suggested it be a higher mounding than that in front of the Sawmill Kroger Center because this was a beautiful facility and it would be even more beautiful to the residents if they did not have to see the expanse of the parking lot from the street. Mr. Gerber confirmed that the landscaping package will be seen at the final development plan stage. Mr. Saneholtz said he wanted to discuss it now, before it is too late. Ms. Jones asked if the Commission was amenable to the ground sign for way finding inside the Lexus site. Mr. Gerber said that was an issue for the final development plan stage as well. Mr. Hale said it had to be at the preliminary stage as there were options and this was exceptionally important. Ms. Husak said the text allows what the elevations show and the condition either has to be fulfilled or be eliminated. Ms. Jones confirmed that the Commission was to decide if they wanted to keep Condition 5 or eliminate it. Ms. Husak said if the Commission agrees with the recommendation in Condition 5, then they would not be allowed to have a combination of a ground and a wall sign and the text would have to be revised to take that provision out. Ms. Jones said she was open to having both types of signs because due to the curvature of the road, some way finding would be helpful. Mr. Saneholtz said they all wanted the same goal — maximum visibility for the ground sign to help drivers find the right entrance to the facility. Mr. Fishman asked if the sign details could be dealt with during the final development stage. Ms. Husak said it could be. Mr. Gerber asked if they would be supporting Condition 5. Mr. Walter said they would not support the condition because it said they could not have a mix of signs. Mr. Hale said the Commission would still have the right to review the sign package. Mr. Gerber asked how the Commissioners wanted to change Condition 5. The Commissioners indicated that they wanted it eliminated. Mr. Hale said then, the text would rule which meant they would get a ground sign up to 50 square feet. Mr. Fishman suggested Condition 5 be replaced. Mr. Gerber suggested that a ground sign up to 50 square feet be allowed and then when it comes back at the final development plan, the Commission can determine then if it is too big. Mr. Fishman said he was afraid that the sign 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 9 of 27 would be the maximum 50 square feet. He suggested instead they eliminate the 50 square feet, and add "as approved by the Commission." Steve Langworthy said he did not think they needed to nail down a size, but they had to nail down an idea. He said the idea is the applicant wants the sign to be visible, and the Commission wants the sign to be as minimal as possible — the applicant needs to work on what size they can get below 50 square feet that still meets their needs, then bring that back to the Commission at the final to see what works. Mr. Oney agreed. Mr. Gerber said they were changing Condition 5 to read: That the text be amended to eliminate the maximum square footage of the ground sign in Subarea D, subject to staff approval and final plan approval. There being no further discussion regarding this subarea, Mr. Gerber asked to move on to the next subarea. Subarea A Mr. Hale said they understood that the Commission can not approve the sign in the right -of -way and that Council had to approve it. He said they wanted the sign there because there are buildings in front and they wanted to communicate to the public traveling the road that this building is here and what its use is. He said their intent is to ask Council to allow them to have the sign and they do not want anything in the text that would prevent them from getting that. He said to the extent that they are going to eliminate that from the text, that is okay, but they do not want anybody to think that they will not ask for it. Mr. Gerber said the Commission could address the street that had not been discussed with staff thus far. He said they had to address it now, at the preliminary. He asked what Mr. Hale was requesting. Mr. Hale said they had moved the building as far forward as they could possibly get it. He said there was no issue, except when the building next door comes back, he wanted the Commission to pay attention to where the building comes in terms of that location. Ms. Husak said there was Condition 2 to consider: That applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of -way and clarify the signage provisions in the development text. Mr. Gerber said they had already discussed that they would have to go to Council on that issue anyway. Subareas B and C Mr. Hale then discussed the other two subareas. He said the buildings had been moved forward. Mr. Gerber asked what the setback was. Ms. Husak said the way that staff has envisioned the setback to work would be that not the entire fagade of the building would be up to the 12 -foot build -to -line, but there would be recesses that could accommodate public spaces. Mr. Hale asked if they could go back to 20 feet. Ms. Husak said staff was not concerned about the difference between 18 and 20 feet. Mr. Hale said they wanted some flexibility to be able to have enough room to make things work. Mr. Gerber asked if the setback was going to be between 18 and 20 feet from the roadway. Ms. Husak said it would be between 12 and 20 feet from the right -of -way. Mr. Gerber said that was real close. He asked what the staff objective was. Ms. Husak presented an illustration done by staff showing how build -to -lines with the building and entire streetscape would look like. She 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 10 of 27 said the previous proposal was shown on the top illustration with parking in front of buildings and a 30 -foot setback off West Dublin - Granville Road. She said on the bottom of the illustration was the build -to -line indicated at between 12 and 18 feet. She said 12 feet is actually indicated. She said the objective is to create something similar to Historic Dublin where the buildings are located close to the sidewalk. Ms. Husak said she agreed that the Starbucks Coffee patio was located directly on the sidewalk, but staff would want that to be accommodated during the final development plan where the public spaces could be incorporated into the building footprint. Mr. Gerber said he understood about eliminating the parking up front, but he asked if staff was comfortable with the buildings so close up. Ms. Husak said they were. She said the final development will take care of the building location details. Mr. Saneholtz said some of the activity up front, from his understanding, is going to be accommodated by relief off of that potential 20 -foot line, but then relief back from that is also possible. He said the main wall of the building does not have to be dead straight across. He said there could be a five- or ten -foot step back. Mr. Hale said it was a build -to -line so if it is set at 20 feet, they can not go beyond 20 feet. He said they could not shove a building back 30 feet to accommodate a patio. Mr. Walter said he thought they were fooling themselves when they looked at the illustrations that showed people walking along the front of the building. He said it just was not going to happen, and he was not comfortable. He said this is different than Historic Dublin; it is a median road and speeds are higher, He said he thought there was a huge difference by having those buildings pulled back a little. Mr. Gerber said it was unrealistic to think that there was going to be a walkway people will use on SR 161. He said he liked the idea of eliminating the parking up front because it was an eyesore. However, he said 18 feet is not much. Ms. Jones said she agreed with Mr. Walter and Mr. Gerber. However, she said in some of the discussion groups in the last few months, staff had been given different direction or they had talked different sentiments, so she did not want to go contrary to those. Mr. Walter said he did not think they had. He asked if when they said "pulling it up to the road," meant pulling it up the road or did it mean to move it forward. Mr. Gerber said it was subject to interpretation. He said they were trying to get rid of parking and some asphalt, and as a result, it would be moved up a little. Ms. Jones said she agreed. Mr. Gerber said staff had done a wonderful job working on this, and his comments were in no way meant to be contrary to that whatsoever. He said the good thing with a preliminary is it is going to go to City Council and they will decide this. He said he thought the buildings were too close. Mr. Walter said he also felt that the back of the buildings were being abandoned by doing that. He said they had Stoneridge Lane there, and the same is going to happen here on the north side with Banker Drive — they are going to end up with the back of these buildings looking like a much larger sea of parking. Mr. Hale said they thought there should be a little parking in front, and last time they agreed to work with staff and when they saw that would not work, his client said they will put it on the street. Mr. Saneholtz confirmed that the signage will be placard only with no vertical. Ms. Husak said there was a shopping center identification sign proposed that would identify the name of the center, not any individual tenant. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 1 I of 27 Mr. Saneholtz said 12 feet was illustrated, and the text talks about 18 feet, and now we are okay with 20 feet, because it was two feet. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said part of the concept the Commission heard professed was to give the people the feeling of closeness where actually they are trying to create a visual. He said he did not want to lose sight of the fact that the 20 feet is not where the entire building is going to be stopping, but there are going to be setbacks as much as 30 feet. He said 40 percent of this building could be back 30 to 35 feet. He said it was difficult to understand what this is going to look like until the final development plan and footprints are seen. He said he was envisioning the ability to have some of these storefronts up at 20 feet to create a feel, but there is not going to be anything else there except a small stoop, a couple steps. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with the concept of changing the streetscape where they eliminated parking up front. He said it would be a prettier image for the whole area. However, he questioned how close to the road it should be. Mr. Saneholtz agreed, and said especially on SR 161. Mr. Gerber said when the text states that a majority has to be at the 18- or 20 -foot line that is 50.1 percent. Mr. Hale read the actual text language: Buildings with their primary frontage on West Dublin - Granville Road shall be required to have a significant portion of the structure located at the build -to -line that will be established between 12 feet and 18 feet from the right -of -way. Subject to this requirement, the final location of buildings from Dublin- Granville Road right -of -way shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of final development plan with the exceptions that patios and outdoor spaces are encouraged to be located in front of the buildings. Mr. Saneholtz noted that it said "significant portion," not majority, although significant was not ten percent either. However, he asked if this was backed up to 30 feet, would it really make the front of these buildings anymore attractive. Mr. Gerber said it might make it a little more usable and maybe a little safer. Mr. Walter said he also thought it would tie together better. Mr. Zimmerman said when they were at the Community Plan work sessions working on the SR 161 Corridor, he did realize they had this much discussion about it. He said now, this is the key. Mr. Saneholtz said for many of the visuals presented at the work session, the conversation was that this was not going to happen overnight, but they had to start somewhere. He said he was not wed to the idea that it has to be 18, 12, or 20 feet. lie said he agreed that you have to take into account what is already there and what is likely to be there for a while, but you also have to anticipate that we can eventually do this, but it is going to take a lot of redevelopment. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought they needed to get it right now where this is going to be because once that line begins, it can not keep going. Mr. Saneholtz said not to back it up so much that if the City gets an opportunity in the future to actually fill it in, that they do not lose the effect entirely. He said he thought they all were saying the same thing. He said perhaps there is some room in here — 5 or 10 feet, that aesthetically seems more compatible with what is there but also could be compatible with what could be there 60 years from now. Mr. Gerber agreed with the streetscape concept, however he questioned how close the buildings should be. He said he did not want to be back 90 yards. He asked if 18 feet was safe, because it was not Historic Dublin Road where traffic went 20 mph. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 12 of 27 Brian Jones, Brian Kent Jones Architect, representing the applicant, said he did not think that the 12 -foot line needed to be increased: He said if they gave some leniency to allow for some variation from 12 to 30 feet, it is going to allow for steps in and out of the building, which are going to help. He said it is not 12 feet from the front face of the building to the curb. Mr. Jones said there is a considerable amount of space that occurs between the right -of -way line and the curb itself. He said he thought an investigation would result in something that is responsive to theissue. Mr. Saneholtz said some Commissioners were envisioning something very similar to Starbucks in Historic Dublin, and here, they were not in an area where the speed limit was reduced to 25 or 30 mph. He asked how far back from the curb are the buildings in Historic Dublin and if some were right to the right -of -way. Mr. Gunderman said some were at the right -of -way and others were not. He said Town Center I on the corner would probably be right at the right -of -way line. He said about 30 percent of the buildings down the street were the same way. He said the rest are set back from two feet to ten feet. Mr. Fishman suggested that the developer be given some flexibility. Mr. Walter said he thought the problem was staffs direction to the applicant. Mr. Fishman said that at 20 feet, they had two more feet and staff said that was fine. He confirmed where the 20 -feet begin. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that the 12 feet staff has shown as the build -to -line is to the right -of- way. He said at a minimum, from the edge of pavement of SR 161 to the closest face of a building would be 27 feet. He said it could increase from there another eight to 35 feet. Mr. Fishman said that was assuming another lane was not added to SR 161. Mr. Gerber asked if the State could add another lane in the right -of -way. Mr. Phillabaum said yes, in theory. Mr. Walter asked about the southern line of Sharp Lane which Mr. Jones indicated is probably eight to 12 feet again past that. He asked if the building could be oriented so that from Sharp Lane, all the way to east, and those buildings would set at the same level. He said it gives a visual corridor that is similar, and it is far enough away from the street. He said if a lane were added, it would not go on top of Sharp Lane, so it would provide a good visual appeal all the way down, without the parking in front. Mr. Jones said it appeared to be about 40 feet, taking the right -of -way on Sharp Lane and projecting it. Mr. Hale said he was not sure they wanted to push the building back that far. He said maybe 30 feet. Mr. Walter said 30 feet would give variation and ten feet on the other side. Mr. Hale said they were happy at 30 feet. He agreed to work with staff to make sure it works right. Fie said 40 feet would impede too much on the parking. Mr. Gerber said this would go next to City Council and they could change what the Commission recommends. He said he thought 12 feet was too short. He said it was unsafe and if there are patios there, it was very unsafe and too close. He asked for an expert opinion about safety, aside from politics, etc. Steve Langworthy said he told staff that they were talking about the wrong things. He said in his view, he looked at the other side of the building and he put himself on the ground and said what is the difference between this and any other suburban shopping center he had ever seen - other than maybe some nice looking buildings which you get anyway - nothing. Mr. Langworthy said 07 -034Z Rezoning/Prelinilnary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 13 of 27 the first question he asked staff was if Dublin was not supposed to be a special place that builds special places where people want to go, or does it build suburban shopping centers that happen to look like some nice buildings. He said the second question he asked staff was why we are putting the buildings up to the street. He said staff replied that the consultant told them they should do that. Mr. Langworthy said he used to be a consultant, and that was probably the worst person to listen to. He said the idea was that you cannot do these things in singularity. He said what the Commissioners saw on their field trip was buildings up to the street, but they also saw a street that was in scale to buildings up to the street. He said these things had to be done in combination. Mr. Langworthy said he thought they could find another way to create a place where people will actually want to go as opposed to just another suburban shopping center along the highway. Mr. Fishman asked where to go from here. Mr. Langworthy said his non - political honest answer was that they should scrap this plan. However, he said he was coming in late in the game, so it was not fair for him to say that. Mr. Gerber said he appreciated very much Mr. Langworthy's honest answer. Mr. Fishman suggested that this be tabled to let the applicant work with staff and come back with something that staff and the Commission can live with. Mr. Langworthy said that was really unfair to the applicants now because they had gone so far down the road - unless they are completely in agreement to rework the plan. Mr. Gerber said he very much appreciated that too. He said there were many aspects of this that he liked. He said he was concerned how close these buildings are to the road. He said he thought they were dreaming and it was poor planning. He said although he was not an expert in planning, he was a resident and stakeholder and he knew what he liked when he saw it. Mr. Gerber said this was something he thought would be inherently very dangerous and will not be very functional that close to the road. Mr. Saneholtz said he would like to understand how far this concept can back up before running out of parking spaces. Ms. Husak said the intention is that the uses would offset parking needs and in general, the Code does have very suburban, auto - oriented parking standards. However, she said, there are office, restaurant, and retail uses of varying intensities envisioned here, so parking use would be offset at peak times. Mr. Walter said he was concerned that these were strip centers on both sides of SR 161. He said while he liked the architecture, style, and placement of the Lexus service center which was absolutely appropriate and worked well on the site. Mr. Walter said he was not convinced that this is the best thing to do for this part of the area and he also was not convinced that a drive -thru in Subarea B would fit in at all. Mr. Fishman said he did not think this could be designed tonight, and he was in the favor of a tabling so that the applicant can get with staff and Mr. Langworthy who seemed to have some new, fresh ideas. Mr. Saneholtz said he would support a tabling. He said they were not quite ready to deal with this yet because more information was needed. Mr. Walter said there was a mix of opinions amongst staff to be resolved before they can direct the applicant on a major project. Mr. Langworthy said staff was trying to follow the Commission's earlier direction. Mr. Saneholtz said he thought there was a mix of opinion between what staff interpreted from the Joint City Council/Planning Commission work sessions. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 14 of 27 Mr. Hale said they first took this to the Commission in September 2005, and they were encouraged to improve the architecture, they were encouraged to bring these buildings up to the street, and to get involved on the other side of the street. He said then, they were encouraged to work with the other owners. He said they had done everything anybody had asked them to do and they had spent $250,000 doing that. He said this was a great project in terms of everything they have heard. He said he was just flabbergasted. Mr. Gerber said he was not inclined to table this case for those reasons. He said the City had been leading the applicant down the road for a long time. He said he thought they needed to decide where the setback was to be. Mr. Gerber said it is going to City Council and to let them decide this issue. He said this had been brought up by their consultant, and in the joint work sessions. However, he said in order for him to support or make a recommendation to City Council, he thought the setback needed to be back a little more. He said he thought it was too close. He told Mr. Hale if they could come up with language to facilitate that, to take his case to Council. Mr. Saneholtz asked how much further back. Mr. Gerber said he sensed it would be that 40 feet was too much, perhaps 30 feet which is ten yards from the back of the curb. He said if he had it to do over, he agreed with what Mr. Langworthy said. He said he had been a proponent of gateway features and he envisioned nice fences, etc. Mr. Saneholtz said he wanted everyone to understand what he thought he heard. Mr. Langworthy suggested not worrying too much about the numbers and maybe the Commission could tell staff what they wanted to occur in that space between the street pavement and the actual front of this building. Mr. Gerber said his objective was that he did not want to see a tunnel all the way down. He said he wanted to see vistas. Mr. Gerber said he wanted to preserve the fact that this City was proud of its open space and at the same time, he was very concerned about safety, and the utility of the shopkeepers, should they chose to put a patio out there, that they would have enough room to do that in an aesthetic and safe way. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that Mr. Gerber wanted room for some outdoor activity to occur in the front that was a safe distance from the edge of the pavement of the roadway. Mr. Gerber said he wanted it mixed a little. He said the parking in front took away from the vista. Mr. Gerber asked what kind of language could be put in here. He asked if this could be done as a condition. Mr. Hale said yes, and that he thought they could say that the build -to -lines will not exceed 30 feet, and they will work with staff at the final development plan to bring a building design back to the Commission. He agreed that Mr. Langworthy had a point that they were all worried about this adjacency, and perhaps they will talk about the right kind of wall to make it feel more separated. He said that might be a good thing so that when you are on that busy street, there is something that separates you from the street. Mr. Hale said they would do some mock -ups so they can see what they look like and feel like on the street. Mr. Gunderman said if all the Commissioners were feeling comfortable enough of essentially addressing these issues at the final development plan stage and if the things they are willing to consider are broad enough, then he thought they could simply eliminate the numbers from the paragraph that talk about the setback in the text for Subareas B and C where it discusses building pavement setbacks from the adjacent right -of -way. He said it could read: Buildings with their primary frontage on West Duhlin- Granville Road shall be required to have a significant portion 07 -034Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 15 of 27 of the structures located at a build -to line... Mr. Gerber confirmed that a period should be placed after that sentence. He asked to make that a new Condition 12. Mr. Hale agreed. Ms. Husak suggested a general: That the text be modified. Mr. Gunderman agreed and said the new Condition 12 should be: That the text be modified under yard and setback requirements for Subareas B and C to eliminate the phrase "between 12 feet and 18 feet from the right -of- way." Mr. Fishman agreed and added that the decision would be made at the final development plan stage when the Commission sees the details. Mr. Fishman said Condition 3 should remain as it was and Mr. Walter did not. Mr. Hale said they were okay with Condition 3. Mr. Fishman confirmed that Condition 3 should be left alone and that only one non -food, drive -thru would be permitted. Mr. Fishman confirmed with Mr. Hale that all these buildings would have four -sided architecture. Mr. Hale said they would have the same quality and materials. He said the only other issue was Condition 6 regarding the predominately two- and three -story buildings which would be similar to the architectural renderings. Mr. Jones said the hierarchy at the corner, the town center piece, where these two are really facing the intersection is where the highest elements are proposed. He said because what is occurring through the corridor, they think that trying to build up to this hierarchy at the center is probably the most rationale way to try to mimic what might have occurred 100 years ago or more. He said they thought it was really important to maintain some of the 1% -story components along with the two -story, as well as along with some of three -story tower and some of the references even get above the 2%2 -story framework. Mr. Walter said he did not think the condition made sense with Subarea D, because it does not talk about two- or three -story buildings. Mr. Hale said it only applied to Subareas B and C (buildings along SR 161). Mr. Walter said that was not how Condition 6 read. Mr. Hale said they wanted to make it clear that they are going to bring back architecture very consistent with what was seen in the renderings with the same quality. Mr. Gerber asked for Ms. Husak's reply regarding the purpose of Condition 6. Ms. Husak said the concern was that these architectural elevations are part of the preliminary development plan and staff did not want to see the buildings decreasing in height from what is shown on these plans. Mr. Gerber asked if the concern was just Subareas B and C. Ms. Husak said yes. Mr. Fishman suggested that Subareas B and C be added to Condition 6. Mr. Hale agreed. He said they would not come back with something radically different. Motion and Vote: Mr. Gerber moved to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal addresses the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses, the high -level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development, and the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of -way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 16 of 27 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the development text provisions remain allowing a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D with the maximum square footage of the ground sign subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the final development plan stage; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three -story design similar to the architectural renderings for Subareas B and C; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 9) That the rights -of -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That, as outlined in the Tax Increment Financing Agreement, the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network, and the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 12) That the development text be modified to eliminate the setback requirements along West Dublin Granville Road. Mr. Hale agreed to the above conditions. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtr., yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.) (Mr. McCash recused himself at the beginning of the meeting from this case due to a business association conflict.) 3. Fin Development P /Amended Final evelopment P/6 15 - 1FllP /AFD — rimeter West PCD ubarea 1— Perim er West OfficPar 00 Gerber swore in th representative of th applicant, Rob Rya who then agreed to re seven conditions as amen Mr. Gerber oved to approve th' inal De quality flee building that ntinues the PCD he site plan and a ociated design re ain consistent to the riginal intent of tl That the Ian cape plan be revi§o 2) That t applicant utilize th regie Fin evelopment Plan a4d show veloptnent an because the pro sal provides a high - standar of development wit rn the Perimeter W st ele nt/asin ith C e and text modiItt ions e quiree P with seven cond' to prior termit submittal to ddress the the staff ct to staff approv ; ial storm approv" .with ,e National Citv onforma City': 07-034Z Rezoning /Prelinrinary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _- _Dublin _City Council .,, Meeting_____- December 12. 2005 Page 11 Held , INTRO HEART / -RESOLUTIONS I �I R UEST TO COUNTY AUDI RS esolution 81 -05 �i Requesting the Delawar and Franklin County Audi rs to Draw and the Dela re ii and Franklin County easurers to Issue a Draft the Director of Finance the City of Dublin for y Money that may be in t County Treasury to the count of .I the City of Dub' - Ms. Salay inlr uced the resolution. Ms. Grigs stated this allows the City request the dollars from pr eny tax payments three to ur weeks earlier than the my distribution. Vote n the Resolution: Ms. Sal , yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider es; Mr. Reiner, yes, Mr. I; nan, yes; Mr. McCash, ye rs. Boring, yes. BID AWARD :I Resolution 82 -05 !I Accepting the Lo est/Best Bid for the Ave ark Phase One Ball Dia d Renovation Pr ect. Ms. Salary i duced the resolution. Mr. Hah ated this is phase one of t anticipated three phases o e renovation of i1 Avery rk. Vic ayor Lecklider noted his derstanding is the renovati will prevent fly balls from aying onto Avery Road. II Mr. Hahn responded this i art of the project, as well replacing deteriorating elec ca) wire underground. Thi eld was originally designe r adult softball and will be duced in size for little leag play. Vice Mayor Leck er asked about any potenti impact of the new lighting o he j neighboring p erties. Mr. Hahn r ponded there will be less Ii trespass with the new ligh g than with the existing 'Ming. Vote the Resolution: Ms. Sala yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. K nan, yes; Mr. McCash, ! ye ,Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Ma r Lecklider, yes. BID AWARD d Resolution 83 -05 Accepting the Lo st/Best Bid for the Glacie idge Elementary Offsite anitary !� Sewer Project. ' Ms. Salay in duced the resolution. Mr. Ham rsmith noted this is part of ooperative effort with Dual City Schools to extend e oflsite sanitary sewer an tilities to the new element school. The sewer ;', line ill also serve the Bantry Gr ne subdivision proposed b /l. The eight -inch line e from Tartan West and extend due north across itrick, continuing to the school site itself. The Goo e J. Igel Company bid of a roximately $249.790 is the recommended bid. Th ngineer's estimate for the ject was $350,000. - Mrs. Boring noted th' extension will benefit other reas in the future. Is there way the City can charge b k the costs or some other o -rated fee to the other are that benefit? Mr. Hamm mith responded staff's into is to make every effort to r cup costs on lire extensio . Mr. nan asked if a reimburse nt district has been establis d for this purpose. .. Mr ammersmith stated that i e intent s. Salay commented that school property needs thi xtension before the development occurs whi would bring the sewer line the site. Vote on the Resolutio . Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kee n. yes, Vice Mayor Lecklid , yes; Mr. McCash, yes; . Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, y 11 OTHER li Concept Plan - Shamrock Crossing -West Dublin - Granville Road (Case No 05- 114CP) i (Mr. McCash recused himself at this time, noting that he has a potential business interest in this matter.) Ms. Wanner stated the concept plan was reviewed by the Commission on SentP,nh— i 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council t`1eeting___, December 12, 2005 Page 12 • The Commission expressed concerns about the impact and intensity of retail and restaurant uses on the surrounding area, stressing that a mix of uses with sit down restaurants is desirable. • The applicant has indicated that the project is not feasible without the retail component included and requests specific feedback on that portion of the proposal. • The Commission also indicated their preference for ground signage versus wall signage along W. Dublin Granville Road, and the applicant is requesting feedback from Council and direction on this item as well. • She then showed aerial slides of the site, noting the major adjacent roadways are W, Dublin- Granville Road, Shamrock Boulevard which terminates into this site. Stoneridge Lane would be completed with this proposal. it currently stubs on the south side of the Stoneridge Medical Facility. • There are two large tree rows existing on the site and staff is working with the applicant on preservation of some of those trees. • The site is currently zoned Suburban Office or SO, which permits a variety of office uses. Restaurants are considered conditional uses. The proposed use for a mix of office, restaurant and retail with a possibility for residential uses is not permitted in SO and therefore a rezoning is necessary. • She reviewed an enlarged slide of the Tuller Road Area Plan which indicates that new buildings should be oriented to the street and that there should be linkages between the uses. « The proposed concept plan has addressed the issue of street frontage with the retail buildings, but staff recommends the applicant further address the concept within the office /residential portion as well. • The applicant proposes an office /residential use on the south side, and the Commission noted the importance and uniqueness of an elderly housing component. This use was well received. • During the joint Council and Commission meeting, the Community Plan consultant showed a slide containing a future vision of W. Dublin- Granville Road, indicating the area could be redeveloped with a more urban development pattern. The feedback on this concept was generally positive. It could determine the development pattern along the roadway and ultimately, the outcome of this concept proposal. • Conceptual architectural elevations include more detail than generally received at this stage and convey the proposed character of the development. Staff and the Commission concurred that a common architectural theme should be conveyed throughout the development and that a high level of architectural detail should be utilized. • The proposed use generally complies with the future land use designation for the site, has adequate services and will connect an important roadway system. • Staff will continue to work with the applicant through the rezoning process to refine all of the uses, architecture and signage. However, staff and the applicant seek Council's comments regarding the concept plan, as well as some of the land use and signage issues raised by the Commission and by staff. Ms. Salay asked if the largest building fronting along W. Dublin- Granville Road is to be retail, Ms. Wanner responded this building is to be all retail use. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the existing tree line and whether it would be preserved? Ms. Wanner responded those on the southern portion of the property line would be preserved by a larger setback. The property line is adjacent to some residential homes, and both staff and the Commissioners desire a larger setback. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for more detail about the discussion regarding the percentage of square footage allocated for restaurant use. Ms. Wanner responded staff has learned from experience with past applications that restaurants have a high demand for parking and outdoor seating and therefore, a limitation on restaurant uses should be included in the text. There was also discussion about sit down restaurants versus drive - through restaurants. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted this proposal is for a mixed use including 3,000 square feet of restaurant. That doesn't seem to be a large amount of restaurant use Ms, Wanner responded that absent any provision in the text, the entire building could become a series of restaurants with a high parking and outdoor seating demand. The language, "a mix of retail and restaurant" isn't always adequate and a closer reviaw m 07 -0347 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _Minutes _of _ - Dublin City Council ______ December 12, 2005 Page 13 needed. Vice Mayor Leckfider asked if 3,000 square feet is not then a firm number, but rather an estimation. Ms. Wanner responded affirmatively. Vice Mayor Lecklider summarized the concern with restaurant use is primarily related to parking impacts and conditions associated with outside patio use. Mrs. Boring commented in regard to the 161 entryway concept plan the consultant shared at the joint meeting. If this concept is endorsed by Council and the Commission, the Shamrock Crossing concept plan does not fit with that image. Ms. Wanner responded that is correct. The consultant showed a drawing of two and three story buildings for this road, and the applicant tonight is proposing one and possibly two - story buildings. Mrs. Boring commented if Council wants to pursue the vision presented by the Plan consultant, it would be important to provide this feedback to the applicant tonight. There was also an extensive discussion at the joint meeting about the amount of retail the City can support in terms of percentages. If the entire percentage is located in one area, that is not desirable either. Has consideration been given to this? Ms. Wanner responded there has not been such consideration to this point. Ms. Salay stated that in terms of working with the applicant on preserving the tree row, it appears the parking requirements will result in the loss of many of those trees. Ms. Wanner agreed. Staff has discussed with the applicant the potential of enlarging the islands to save some of the larger trees. The drawings are more detailed than those submitted with concept plans. Ms. Salay added the root systems are delicate and may not survive. Ms. Salay asked if the detention ponds are to be wet or dry. Ms. Wanner responded they are indicated as wet ponds at this time. It would be addressed in the rezoning at the final development plan stage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked in follow -up to Mrs. Boring's comments, how can the City achieve the look it wants, in view of the existing development in the area immediately west of Shamrock Boulevard? Ms. Wanner responded that the Community Plan shows the view projected for 2030. It would rely upon the redevelopment of current projects. There is some vacant land that could be developed in this pattern, but much would require redevelopment. Ben Hale, Jr. 37 W. Broad Street stated that he represents the applicant. He noted that much has occurred since this application was filed and reviewed by Planning Commission in September. They are anxious to receive feedback from Council. They had tried to replicate what was shown on the current Community Plan in their site plan. In terms of the market, the Stoneridge OSU facility will be vacated in 2008 and so there will not be a need for medical office buildings. There has also been some residential development to the west and there was discussion of some senior housing on a portion of the site. They have pulled the building out to the street, creating an urban edge. Since the Commission met, they have reviewed the tree locations and have widened the medians in an effort to save the trees. They have widened out the setback somewhat to preserve existing trees. They have had some meetings with the neighborhood and, depending upon the ultimate use, will try to accommodate them as well as they can. They are seeking some identification for tenants to Dublin- Granville Road and have therefore proposed on the north side of the building individual tenant signs with gooseneck fixtures externally illuminated and blade signs on the other side of the building. They are flexible in terms of the appearance of the building. The proposal is for brick and stone, consistent with the neighborhood. They are not asking for excess signage in comparison to other centers in the City. It is a matter of how the signage is used to communicate to the driving public who is in the building. To be successful, this is necessary. For the south side, blade signs will be adequate. They will do unified architecture for all of the buildings, unified landscaping and signage. In regard to a restaurant, they had considered the possibility of taking the Wendy's off the corner at 161 where there is poor access and relocating it onto this site. This has not moved forward to any degree, however. He summarized they are proposing a unified development of high quality materials. With Shamrock Boulevard going through and with the surrounding uses, this is a low impact commercial center, which provides an opportunity for uses other than office. 07 -0342 Rezoning /Prelinunary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dubli_n_City_ Council Meeting_ _.____._.._._ --_.__ December 12, 2005 Page 14 ;( Mr. Keenan commented in regard to the need for more substantial signage on the front of the building and the blade signage on the south side. There is a similar identification. problem that exists for the Daimler project at Avery and Post. It is important to have identification signage for the tenants. He would support such signage with the provision that it is subdued and in good taste. Ms. Salay noted she appreciates the work of the architect, but is not impressed with this plan. It is similar to many others proposed to the City and she hopes for something more special. The entry feature concept shared at the joint meeting is attractive, but she is not certain that consensus has yet been obtained about the desired future look along 161. She would prefer wet ponds versus dry detention basins on this site. She advocates preserving as many trees as possible and is concerned about the narrow islands and the survival of the large mature trees. There was a 75 -foot buffer established between the commercial development and the residential homes with the Thomas Kohler rezoning. It provided the existing tree line a lot of protection and an opportunity to plant more trees to buffer the development. That has been extremely helpful and has made the development more palatable to the neighborhood. Adequate setback is needed to protect those existing trees. She is personally not supportive of more retail along Dublin - Granville Road. She is not interested in any type of drive - through restaurant in this location and could not support it. She favors ground signage but concurs with Mr. Keenan that identification is important. She does not know how a large number of tenants can be identified with a ground sign other than by naming the center. She would like to see uniform graphics. With regard to the offices, they are fine, but she would prefer senior housing abutting the neighborhood. She could support office on the back portion, but not retail. Mr. Reiner stated that the project concept is so vague that it is hard to render a judgment. He agrees with the suggested buffering and with preserving the existing trees as much as possible. He is totally ambivalent about this entire proposal. It does not meet any ideal. This is not what he wants 161 to look like. This concept is essentially a strip commercial center with offices in the back. There is nothing exciting in the plan. He wonders if the vision shown at the joint meeting can be created over time. It would be great to achieve that concept. The forests are not maintained with this plan, and there is not good buffering included. Mr. Hale commented the entire street is already developed, other than the David Road pieces and this piece. To achieve such a future vision would require tearing down restaurants and car dealerships. Mrs. Boring noted she agrees with Mr. Reiner - the proposed plan is not exciting. On the other hand, the idea of creating an entryway as suggested by the Plan consultant is very intriguing. If the City doesn't begin somewhere, it will never happen. Her other concern is with the retail component and what the City is doing to protect the current businesses that are zoned retail. She does not support drive - through restaurants. Banks have different hours of operation and do not create odors that impact the neighborhood. For her, it is a matter of scale of buildings along 161 and this does not work. The project also encroaches too much on the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked Mr. Hale to comment on how the City could absorb more retail in this area, given the surrounding Dublin Village Center and Sawmill Road retail. Mr. Hale responded Dublin Village Center is a different situation. The Sun Center across Sawmill thrives because of Dublin demographics. There were some fundamental and serious mistakes made with the Dublin Village Center. tie is working with the owner of the Dublin Village Center and they will soon file a preliminary development plan for a mixed -use project. When Shamrock Boulevard is brought through, it will bring more traffic to this roadway. He envisions this area as specialty retail with destination uses, not heavy impact commercial uses. There is a real architectural and vision challenge will) this proposal, based on Council's expectations. In the Daimler project, there was a demonstrated need for those uses and they are working. The question becomes what is the appropriate mix of uses and how should they be framed. This is the challenge they will address. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted he agrees with the suggestions about signage for purposes of identification. His concern would be with tree preservation. He is adamantly opposed to any drive - through restaurant, as it would not lend to the character and quality to hA PPt,i here 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin Citouncil ueoember 1z, zuuo --- .._.. Page 15 - -- - ➢-- -- Based on tonight's comments, it appears the applicant has a lot of work before him. There is a need for buffering the neighborhood to the south. He will need to convince Council that this will work and how it will complement the larger area. Linda Merchant- Masonbrink 3168 Lilymar Court noted that she and her husband live immediately behind this parcel. She sent two letters to Council - one on October 12 and one on December 6 in opposition to this proposed rezoning. In addition, letters were submitted from other residents of their neighborhood who are opposed to this rezoning. Her husband, Stephen was unable to attend tonight and she read into the record a statement from him and submitted it for the record. His desire for this parcel is to leave it as greenspace or parkland. If more retail is needed, the existing Dublin Village Center can be utilized. If this parcel must be developed, it should be developed under its existing zoning of Institutional and Office use which is less destructive and more predictable. Changing to a use which allows retail and restaurant creates opportunities for car lots, filling stations, outdoor patios, etc. Excessive lighting, noise and traffic will impact their quiet neighborhood and will diminish property values. He urged Council to protect the value of their property by not permitting this rezoning. She highlighted points from their second letter. They are concerned that it appears the W. Dublin- Granville Road corridor, immediately east of the Scioto River is becoming a restaurant/retail sprawl zone. Without controlled development guided by the Community Plan, an opportunity for a well- planned, grand entry into the heart of Historic Dublin is eliminated. The corridor is being developed in a piecemeal fashion without a vision or without any unity of purpose. They are also concerned the staff report indicates the proposal was generally well received at the Commission meeting. However, as pointed out later in the report, the Commission had concerns about the retail /restaurant components. Mr. Saneholtz noted he would not support retail on this site, and Mrs. Boring indicated she was not convinced this was an appropriate site for retail and restaurant uses and questioned the appropriateness of the land use. In regard to relocating Wendy's on this site, they believe it would be more desirable to locate the restaurant on the Wendy's property across the street, away from the neighborhood. Further, the Commissioners requested the developer work with the neighborhood, but it appears the developer contacted only them about this rezoning and not the rest of the neighborhood. None of the neighbors impacted by this project were contacted regarding the last Council meeting where this plan was scheduled for review, nor were they contacted about tonight's meeting. They learned about this informally. She asked that the neighborhood be officially notified of these meetings in a timely fashion so that they have an opportunity to prepare comments and arrange their schedules to attend the meeting. The entire neighborhood opposes this rezoning, and she presented a petition to Council signed by the residents who were home at the time of their survey. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked the Clerk about what type of notification is provided regarding concept plans. The Clerk responded that official written notice is provided to adjacent property owners of rezoning hearings, but notice is not provided of informal concept plan reviews. These items are listed on the Council agenda which is published in the local newspapers and on the City's web site. Mrs. Boring suggested that the neighborhood provide a contact name for such notification by the Planning division. Ms. Merchant- Masonbrink responded that she would be willing to serve as the contact person. Vice Mayor Lecklider added that if the applicant does decide to pursue a rezoning, the adjacent property owners would be provided with written notification of the hearings. The li neighborhood residents can certainly contact the Clerk's office or the Planning division to stay apprised of the scheduled items in which they have an interest. it i i Mr. Hale clarified that when the applicant learned this item was scheduled with Council, they I! called Ms. Merchant - Masonbrink to let her know this item was scheduled for Monday, December 12 and offered to meet with her anytime prior to the hearing. / Concept Plan - Enckso etirement Community - hier -Rings Road (Cased. 05- 181CP) business nner stated that t project was identified b Taff a few mon that could but upon and enhance the y's economic bat 07 -0347 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and log Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Rod Dublin, Ohio 430161136 Phone: 614410 -4600 tax: 614410A747 Web Site: sr Aublinehns PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3: Concept Plan — 05 -114CP — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin - Granville Road Location: 11.7 acres located on the south side of West Dublin- Granville Road, at the intersection of Shamrock Boulevard, approximately 1,650 feet west of Dublin Center Drive. Existing Zoning: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. Request: Review and feedback for a Concept Plan under the provisions of Code Section 153.053(C). Proposed Use: A 123,800- square -foot mixed -use development. Applicant: Tall Pines Holdings, 3473 Mildred Drive, Falls Church, VA 22042; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith & Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner. Contact Information: (614)410464/Email:jadkins@dubliii.oh.us. RESULT: Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale and Mark Ford, Ford and Associates, representing the applicant presented this Concept Plan. The Concept Plan and the architecture proposed were generally well received. Commission issues discussed included locations of the retail, restaurant and residential uses, signage, gateway features, tree preservation, and pedestrian path connectivity. There was no vote taken on this Concept Plan. STAFF CERTIFICATCON i Jam kin Planner 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 1, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Gerber d not like this appli lion coming to the mmission before th RB. He said it was not ne this way in the p t. However, he sai a felt comfortable w' a condition that if the came up with so hmg that affected t 's, then the Commis i n needs to look at ' a se nd time. He also e ected that staff wo include in the Dir or's Report, the s s of at happened so tha f the Commission d s have a question, t somehow that con to can be evoked and brirr- back. Ms. Jones sX her preference was follow procedure t emain consistent, b she saw it might put the a icant at a disadvan a because it was he backwards. Mr erber wanted it to on record that previ s protocol needed to e kept. Mr. Picciano acce d the tabling to the tober 6 Commissio eeting. Mr. Saneho made the motion to ble this Amended F al Development PI o the October 6, 2005 me g; waiving the 15- ay Rule. Ms. Jones econded the motio and the vote was as follo Ms. Reiss, yes; NyGerber, no; Mr. ZinXerman, yes; Ms. Bo 'ng, yes; Mr. Messin , ye s. Jones, yes; and . Saneholtz, yes. (T led 6 -1.) 3. Concept Plan - 05 -114CP - Shamrock Crossing - West Dublin - Granville Road Jamie Adkins presented this case and slides. The site is located in the southeast portion of Dublin, south of West Dublin - Granville Road, east of Stoneridge Lane, at the intersection of Shamrock Boulevard. The site is currently zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District. Permitted uses include administrative and medical offices, and institutional uses. Subarea A on the conceptual site plan indicates a restaurant -type use, Subarea B has two retail buildings fronting on West Dublin - Granville Road, and Subarea C includes a group of office buildings and the possibility of residential uses. Ms. Adkins said the Future Land Use Map for this site indicates mixed -use employment emphasis, which staff generally believes is mostly office with a mix of ancillary retail /restaurant uses and could include the uses proposed. The site will include the extension of Shamrock Boulevard from the existing stub on the eastern portion of the site to the existing stub at Shamrock Boulevard. Improvements shown include gateway features. Ms. Adkins said at the rezoning stage, the uses will be refined in the text, the signage, architecture and landscaping will be defined, and a traffic study will be required. Ms. Adkins said staff supports this concept plan and is recommending that the applicant move forward with the rezoning process. Additional slides were shown of the site and the conceptual retail and office elevations. Glen Dugger, Smith and Hale, representing the applicant briefly gave the history of planning on this project. He said the staff had suggested that the building be moved closer to SR 161, but it presented issues with the arrangement they proposed. Mr. Dogger pointed out that staff suggested there be no signage on the north side of the building. He said the building was orientated towards West Dublin - Granville Road. He said they are 07 -0342 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 1, 2005 Page 12 proposing wall- mounted signage with exterior illuminated gooseneck lighting. He said staff suggested ground- mounted sign and that would not work for their tenant mix. Mr. Dugger said when the retail building was moved to the north and the restaurant building was moved it provided a relationship from restaurant to restaurant, and because of Sharp Lane the building is pushed further back. He said they propose to match the existing gateway feature on the southwest corner on the east side. He said the proposed ground mounted sign for the next building would be in the right -of -way and would need to be approved. Mark Ford, Ford and Associates, presented the proposed architecture. He said they are looking at the location of the existing stand of trees in order to preserve as may as possible. He said symmetry had been added to the back portion of the site for the frontage as you enter through the space. He showed a rendering of the retail elevations. He said on the south side, towards the parking lot, individual blade signs are proposed for each of the storefronts. He said the number of tenants is unknown at this time. A combination of brick and stone materials and dimensional shingles are proposed. Mr. Ford said the office buildings proposed in the rear would be very similar in terms of materials; however a different window configuration may be used for the offices. He said the same type of pitch roof and detail will be used on the office buildings so that the development will look like one continuous project. Mr. Dugger said the southern subarea shown as five office buildings, could be three office buildings with an elderly residential use as well. However, he said it might end up as one large building. He said it would be determined at the rezoning and preliminary development plan stage. Linda and Steve Masonbrink, 3158 Lilymar Court, expressed their concerns about this concept plan. Mrs. Masonbrink said the residential area immediately south of this development has a fencerow around it that serves as a buffer and serves as a habitat for deer and they would like to see it preserved and evergreen screening added. She also requested that the runoff from this development be directed away from the residential development. Ms. Masonbrink said it would be nice if sidewalks connected the neighborhoods and retail area. She said cut -off lighting was important, as well as no outside speakers or music at restaurants or dumpsters next to the property line. Mr. Gerber informed the Masonbrinks that this was at the concept phase and the development will come back to the Commission as a rezoning/preliminary development plan and there will be time to review it. He said after the Commission reviews it, it would go to Council. Mr. Gerber asked if staff and /or the applicant had contacted the Masonbrinks about this proposed development. Mrs. Masonbrink said they had only received a notice regarding this meeting and had not been involved with any planning meetings with the applicant or staff. Mr. Gerber said in the future, the Masonbrinks should be involved in the planning of this project. It was suggested that the Northwest Civic Association might become involved. Mr. Dogger agreed to work with the residents. 07 -0342 Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 1, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Messineo said the concept plan looked as though the southern tree line would be removed. Mr. Ford said a tree survey had just been completed and it had been overlaid. He said trees will be lost where the building sits, but within the south parking area, islands can be adjusted around the drip lines. He said buildings have been moved to protect the large 60 -inch tree on the site. He said they would work to maintain as many trees as possible. Mr. Gerber said it had been the Commission's practice that if there is any encroachment on neighbors landscaping or buffers will be necessary. He said the applicant would have to convince the Commissioners that it could successfully be accomplished. Mr. Messsineo said he preferred the freestanding signs to the wall signage. Ms. Jones said the proposed location of the restaurants away from the homes was a positive. She concurred with Mr. Messineo that she would not like to see wall signage along West Dublin - Granville Road and preferred ground- mounted signs. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the restaurant subarea and asked if there was a drive -thru planned. Mr. Dugger indicated a drive -thru was planned. Mr. Zimmerman was concerned about speaker noise from the drive -thru. He noted there were three restaurant patios shown on the layout. He said he liked the building pushed forward and the way the two smaller restaurants come down into to the complex. He said the proposed opening of the Stoneridge Lane extension would provide a better traffic flow. He liked the proposed entry location of the detention basins. Mr. Zimmerman emphasized that the applicants should get the area homeowners' feedback and work with staff. Ms. Boring asked about the square footage and the density of the proposed buildings. Ms. Adkins said the large retail building was shown on the plan to be 20,200 square feet. She said density would be defined in the zoning text at the preliminary development plan stage. Ms. Boring said there was a tremendous concern about maintaining the integrity of West Dublin - Granville Road and how the balance of uses is mixed. She said retail already existed at the corner of West Dublin - Granville Road and Riverside Drive. She wanted it to be ensured that a mixed -use is created in this area and was not sure how the retail would work. Ms. Boring was very concerned that the building layout totally encroached on the well - established, beautiful neighborhood. She said something needed to be changed in that area because there was not enough setback or buffering. She was not convinced, looking at the total West Dublin - Granville Road area that this is a good site for another stretch of retail and restaurant uses. Ms. Boring noted that several restaurants were not successful in this SR 161 area. She questioned that this was an appropriate land use. She said the buildings were great. Ms. Boring referred to the March 21, 2002 meeting minutes where it stated that the preliminary plat expired if not used within two years. Ms. Wanner said that preliminary plat was never approved by City Council. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plar Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 1, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Saneholtz said he could not imagine that a drive -thru fast food restaurant would be an attractive addition to this property. He suggested some part of the architectural feature of the River Ridge development such as a parapet be incorporated into this development to tie them together. Ms. Adkins said staff would look at that and bring it back to the Commission for review. He agreed that the retail buildings on the south edge seemed to encroach on the existing residences. He said the elderly residential use on the south edge of the property was interesting. He said it would be a nice complement to the southern and eastern neighborhoods. Ms. Jones echoed Mrs. Masonbrink's comment that there should be a pedestrian connection and perhaps even within the site pedestrian connections among the buildings. She liked the architecture. Ms. Jones agreed with the other Commissioners that the southern buildings were too close to the southern boundary, as well as the parking lot facing the residential to the south. She did not like signs in the right -of -way. She said she was intrigued about the elderly residential uses, which sounded like a good use, and suggested replacing the retail with office use and turning the southern part into the elderly residential use. Ms. Reiss said another small proposed retail building ended up being almost all restaurant uses. She agreed that the number of patios appeared as though the building was going to be a multi - restaurant building. She did not want to see that happen. She thought a restaurant in Subarea A was good, but she was not thrilled about fast food being there and a family style sit down restaurant would be preferable. Mr. Gerber said with respect to the southernmost buildings, the adjoining neighbors would have to be insulated as it had been done many times. He said it should be a partnership between the applicant and the restaurants to accomplish that end. He said the ponds needed to be jazzed up a little. He said it would be a challenge to consider signage in the right -of -way. Mr. Gerber said he liked gateway features. Mr. Gerber said the Community Plan provided for mixed uses in this location, but there should be some creativity. He did not want this to appear like a strip center. He said overall, he thought the architecture was good and the general concept was fine. He repeated that the residents should be included. Mr. Dugger agreed to meet with the residents and work with them on the edge issues. Mr. Dugger said he heard concern about the retail component of this development. He said this would not work without the retail component. He said the site is currently zoned Suburban Office and the restaurant and office could be done, as the zoning exists. He said the point of bringing this concept forward was the idea that the retail component of it was important. He said they would work with staff on the use package within that so that it is not 100 percent restaurants. However, he said if the Commission thinks this is not a retail /restaurant location, they need to know now to avoid working with staff and the neighbors only to return to find out that the Commission thinks that doing this retail building on this street is a terrible idea. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Dugger to keep in mind that the site is segregated and buffered somewhat. His concern was good traffic flow. 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 1, 2005 Page 15 Ms. Boring asked that they contact the East Dublin Civic Association president, Bob McKnight so they could review this concept plan. Ms. Boring said she would like to see the total area to see how the retail fits into it. She said it could generate positive activity on the north side of West Dublin - Granville Road. However, she said it was very critical that the development is very walkable. Ms. Reiss confirmed that there was a residential use being considered. Mr. Dugger said the southern half of the site had two uses, suburban office and elderly based residential. He said at this point, it is impossible which one it will be. Mr. Gerber clarified that the applicant had asked for direction regarding the retail component of this development. Mr. Saneholtz wanted to understand Mr. bugger's statement further that this project will not work without the retail. Mr. Dugger said without the retail component, they should not spend the next three months working with staff and the neighbors. He repeated that the project could not be done without it. Mr. Messineo asked where the residential component was located. Mr. Dugger said the text identified the southernmost half of the site was identified as potentially being able to be used as elderly residential. He said it would not be configured as shown if there was an elderly residential use. Mr. Saneholtz said he would not support retail on this site to the extent shown on the concept plan. Ms. Jones said she was open to the retail use, depending upon traffic and the walkability. Mr. Gerber agreed. He said he did not want to see a lot of drive -thru restaurants. Mr. Messineo said he would have to be sold on the retail component. Ms. Reiss said she was intrigued by the concept presented tonight, but she was more intrigued about the elder housing. Mr. Gerber said he appreciated the presentation. [No vote was taken on this Concept Plan.] A short recess was called. 4. Cor ' or Development istrict OS -087CD — Immke Auto oup — Parking t E ansion and Sign isions — 6707 thro gh 6777 Sawmill ad M ether swore in tho who intended to to tfy in regards to thi a�P 07 -034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council -- -- idovemtrer2� ; 2005 Meetin _. develop nt. She is concerned wi he potential traffic and h the developer will work to imp ve the infrastructure in th general area for those w work and live there so th the can have egress and acc s within a reasonable tim - The potential success of e r ail is dependent upon the ix included. A decision st be made about wheth heir goal is to reduce the nee or people to travel oulsid he area for their needs, d if so, what does that dictate / terms of types of retail. ould also draw traffic fro Tartan West and future de opment in the area. She nnot envision a large ga station in this location, but they ould likely be a smaller e suitable. She likes the etbacks - it looks good. S likes the mixed housing pes as proposed. The h always is obtaining w t the City is looking for in nns of architecture and ality, yet at a reasona price so that a diversity housing lends itself to ac mmodating people with ty of economic status. It a dive ems that the price point the end of construction i oft e not what is predicted at t outset of a project. She mmarized that Council i supportive of the ' ection, with some additio work needed. • Concept Plan - Shamrock Crossing - West Dublin- Granville Road Mr. Hale noted that they represent the applicant, and due to the late hour, he suggests this be held over to another time- Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that a resident had signed in to testify on this matter and she invited her to make comment at this time. Linda Merchant - Masonbrink 3168 Lilvmar Court noted that the subject property is immediately north of their home. The current proposal for rezoning will adversely impact their property value as well as their enjoyment of their property. She has forwarded a copy of a letter dated October 12 which outlines their involvement in reviewing this project and their attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and meeting with the developer- When they met with the developer, they were told that they would be notified of any future meeting with the Council. However, they were not notified by the City - they learned of tonight's hearing in a different way. They have not seen any changes to the proposal, based on the concerns expressed to the developer- They have not had further discussion with the developer so she is interested in knowing the date on which this will be rescheduled - Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher noticed that this notice is provided by staff. Ms. Wanner confirmed that properties within 150 feet of the proposed rezoning are provided with notice. Staff will check on this. Ms. Merchant- Masonbrink noted their concerns that the development is very close to their properly Changing this to retail use will result in noise, light problems, adverse impacts to wildlife, and more pavement. They will return to testify when this item is rescheduled. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked that staff ensure that notification is provided regarding the next hearing. She suggested that the developer meet with the residents to share the updated plans. /) Final Plat - Tanan W Section 6 lots. Wanner noted the sub ea meets all the / Planning Commission. aft recommends of j Mrs. Boring moved a roval. Mr. Reiner second [tie motion. Vote on the rn o W n. Mayor Chinnici -Zuerc 'r Mrs. Boring, s; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr MAw Mr. Lecklider, es; Mayor P sentation re Ci Due t he late hour, the 1 quire nts and amendments de at the 7 yes; Mrs. Salay, yes, r. Leckhder, yes, yes; Mr. Keenan, s. /q,pa luad Park Naming rk am stated that the IC s Vote process has sele d'Emerald Park" for the .E.� Stafl is recomme ing modifying this slight) o, "Emerald Fields" in or r to t this is an activ park like Darree Fields, d to eliminate confusion dh Emerald Parkway. Mr- Keenan moved a roval of the name `Emer d Fields." Mrs. Boring secon d the motion. •,� Vote on the molt ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. K nan, yes; Mrs. Boring, y ; Ms. Salay, yes; I yes- thority - Greg Stype was postponed until dire, S Decen 07_034Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Sunrise Senior Living Stoneridge Lane 0 � D 0 BO s A N r U cn LOCATION MAP: 5 Not to Scale SHEET INDEX y SITE & CIVIL m C -1 REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP C -2 AREA PLAN C -3 VICINITY MAP C -4 EXISTING CONDITIONS } C -S TREE SURVEY TABLE ' C -6 SITE PLAN C -7 UTILITY PLAN w LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ' LA -1.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN - LA -1.1 PRELIMINARY PORTE COCHERE & COURTYARD PLANTING PLAN LA -1.2 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN LA -1.3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS = LA -2.0 SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 3 ARCHITECTURE 101a FIRST FLOOR PLAN 102a SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1030 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 201a NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS 202a SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS Appbcanl Dare Plonnina & Zoning Commission Secrelory Dale Approvd Planning Commission Dale CIDUMI Dora f!� P V D J REGIONAL 1 " =300' EXT MAP: h 7 Q p 0 _ P 0 '0 0 h 0 r, V Z O iE LL zw —O J � bo C Z v I O w — U � ^/ J c O ry J � W > LL W ¢ O L Z� IL w PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP ffffAgllffF SUMSE SENIOR LIVING 1.11.10M Evens. Mecnwon, Namdaion a ralon, Inc EnSyneer, • SUrveyas •Flamers • Seienlels 5500 New AI � Raob CMmEVS, LW eY15� 0 �� enfe nsr. t. mr B MrGfl. lw YB 79P1' 1 AtV� r IHVeEO. RECE GRAF C GALE m e Aso AUG 0 3 200 rxn CITY Of DUBLII LAND USE C 1 WIN F PLANIIINIW / � �� � SUNRISE ASS�Ea LNTG �qA`. V z O O _ z w Q J CL C _ O 0� c O � w > ry LL w D � Q�O� Z � J Li z� IL in m AREA PLAN: 1 " =300' PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA PLAN .W.tw E SU E SENIOR LiviNG Erin. Neck ,.. -11... Fng S veers • S—,.. • Rla�ners • Scienlrs is 5500 i le� A'bany RarJ C OH G"O51 •ASE h',irl a P.E�nSED Af42:.1U� RE —P REN'FG R—ED REU'ED GF sro; ;t Mt C -2 OAKLAND riII1RSERY i R — ]� s VICINITY W 1'I =60' I 1� PUD z p O _ LL Z LU O CL ^ P— v , Z O W — U a_ ry •c O J C ui W Z 0 � QZ:)O� Z J w Z� IL w L/) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN VICINITY MAP .....I -I SU MMSE . SENIOR LIVING .IP.APEOP. E gc WGSiro y Wprt P- iis ibl Engineers • Surveyors • Pbnners • Scienfhls 5500 New /JEam/ Peed CoUmbu., 4113051 WL &d "20v REVLSED YJU u 2w REVMD R(V4Y3 kE ..' REVISED: REV 6E D: GRAPHIC SCALE: SD 0 w (0' IM t %Q lfLl.R1 $XFf3 C -3 wRm AUm LMIG 20010552 + LA SCALA M1 I \ l \ \ f 1 T ---. 11899 ^ ' f r 1 11901 f 11902 L- f 2' I 11900- Y I VILLAS AT t I I 11898 r n LA SCALA f 11897 ..... !1895 �° I 11889 11887 - J 1 £884 I 1188) t l 11892 ^ — \ !" 11877 1rd75 11675 fF867 r IIms 1£876 tress � --- — a 11863 11887 _ 11859 _ 1 1184 , U D� l / y r l � � / \ a E XISTIN G S TONER IE I I m I Q r z V) Z ! I= fi 9 DRIVE J ` / i PUD I \ r I l I i \ 6= 073850 " \ / I 1 Ar � 129.46' 17"E \ I R= 1030.00' I ChD= 129.37' \ I Arc = 106.46' — Ch6 =-5 3S 03 �\ Cho= 10641 — �FQ SED ST ©NERiDGE D IVE nN , S8 41 -�� — � 515L99 J L I r z 15315 / dy 1 SjI� -�tJ 117151 15317 —A r ,( I 153!6 �4 a _ 5.719 y ' 1 11717 15J18 OPEN VIEWS TO 13621 ,r r74o rs32o I ADJACENT MULT {- 617` EXISTING DRAINAGE yF F 7 \ 13322 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL i i °- +sf 11747 7 11896 ! i •ti: F774�.� - frays i J I r 24 . '�>� 11892 f l '�" S.b�S ACreS 11745 I !1744 j ,� ,6125 , r3 26 ~. f •.P , 7 •� i 1890 i i P i „J.6 _ 15328 153 9 I I I I EXISTING TREE ROW _ - 7 I y 15331 ! • 11 -TALL DECIDUOUS CANOPY 11747 118 EXISTING GRASS HELD -SCRUB VEGETATION AT F17s9 15333 bl F ,� •' - I x885 i , GROUND LEVEL FF741♦^sT' Y 15335 rp� �t.i 15,75 15340 +. — 7r88r T L I �r730 i 1� 15641 - ;T ,✓ r53.�! t, I 9757 F °- A 15343 J i - 133 k '.� •Yt.. ,r �l I r GENTLE SLOPE: * Y.d%a I 3 15344 2 15346 ...�' y . 153.19 11674 , I I I 1 / I ,,rI 1754 1534 ='' '. �3r' '35 N ° 1187! ' EXISTING TREE ROW �� I !11756 v, /''5'50 ' - TALL CANOPY Hasa ' SOME UNDERSTORY 1!757 y,, 15654 �. PLANT MATERIAL 1 i i 1 � 11758 —�. ` _ u'f •� 1 r 4 ,5355 )F 7ff0 s t 15359 item " 1 1FB5 I i / 1£759 ---�— ' � 15357 _•r + r1a45 ti i y a I �y !� i ;La 11761 4 15295 _. 15358 , � 7 r° - 4rrG• 11847 �� f}o� r/T64 y,,I •yrrr6a5 15360 f Y,...�... ... .. %. -. #. \ i Y 1!751 i.:<<. a � �,r 11835 � 1 .. ���� a �;` f i ... � - } . ,r . � _� � • `' g ar} ; ., - -� � �,�- �.,n _ • f�3 I ,1 f - - 7,.7 4 ' _ 0' \ R-2 �� - -2 ,R -2 �� -2 { 1 SUNNYD L� STATES 876 I d . I i f E XISTING CONDTIONS PLAN: 1 " =40' I� R -2 1 1 i \ f � \ I I I d i f I �t 154466 h h P V ! r r r r 1 � i 7 I 4 1 { r I f 1 f I � r\ NOTES: I. EXISTING CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS TOPOGRAPHY. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS \ELEVATIONS 2. FLOW ARROWS INDICATE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS 3. EXISTING PERIMETER TREES AND VEGETATION IN GOOD HEALTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED, WHERE FEASIBLE. 4. SEE SHEET C -5 FOR TREE SURVEY TABLE TREES 24" OR GREATER IN GOOD OR FAIR CONDITION • TREES 24" OR GREATER IN POOR CONDITION V Z o z LL Zw — O d� > c z 0 Lu IL •c O LLJ C w Z t C) C Q::D0� Z 0 (f) — o J 1 ' Zu CL W V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PREPARfb iOR: RWRISEd SENIOR LIVING NRrANQE E,,g, .1EkIPnplfFSrnllRFenil Ine. Engineers. SweYOrs . Pbnnen • Sclenl'sls PMrwRbw A � Raotl CeLmew. OH d� DAM - REV ISED: .£iris 2].2007 REV MD: ffv . REUSED: ►rvaW RUSE@ GRAPHIC SCALE: =�D .sFR51 ASMiF., ;W'ao t I I 154466 h h P V ! r r r r 1 � i 7 I 4 1 { r I f 1 f I � r\ NOTES: I. EXISTING CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS TOPOGRAPHY. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS \ELEVATIONS 2. FLOW ARROWS INDICATE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS 3. EXISTING PERIMETER TREES AND VEGETATION IN GOOD HEALTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED, WHERE FEASIBLE. 4. SEE SHEET C -5 FOR TREE SURVEY TABLE TREES 24" OR GREATER IN GOOD OR FAIR CONDITION • TREES 24" OR GREATER IN POOR CONDITION V Z o z LL Zw — O d� > c z 0 Lu IL •c O LLJ C w Z t C) C Q::D0� Z 0 (f) — o J 1 ' Zu CL W V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PREPARfb iOR: RWRISEd SENIOR LIVING NRrANQE E,,g, .1EkIPnplfFSrnllRFenil Ine. Engineers. SweYOrs . Pbnnen • Sclenl'sls PMrwRbw A � Raotl CeLmew. OH d� DAM - REV ISED: .£iris 2].2007 REV MD: ffv . REUSED: ►rvaW RUSE@ GRAPHIC SCALE: =�D .sFR51 ASMiF., ;W'ao y 6 S d POINT N H QR7 CONDT[ON NOT 11686 16" WA UT 15' 0 11716 3r cQTTOWND 16' GOOD TA 7 4 1171 - MAP 4` FAI 11739 24 " M LBERRY 4' FAIR 17 i T H RY 1 FAR 11742 1Q_ HA GOO 11 743 15" WALNUT 15 GOO 11744 2 WILLOW 4' GOOD T T1745 4` M 4' FA 0746 10" U ..RRY 15 GOOD 11747 B" RCH 15' GOOD 4 1 MULBERRY 1 POOR 1174 1 HA K RRY 15 POOR 117 N _ 4" SIR 1 ' FAIR 117 1 6' 8o% R 1 FAIR 117 1 A0xFLDER 1 - ' GOOD TRIPLE 11 a WANT 15' GO - 117.54 1 " - H RRY I V COQQ 117 6" UT 15' FAIR 11756 117 11756 16" 1 " 9D" MULBERRY RY 16' 15, 15` D P GOOD WIN TWIN 117 18 WALNUT 7 ' R 11760 f0" PORCH 15' FAIR 17 ' is POOR 1175 1 ` Y IHACKSERRY 15' G OD TWIN 117 3 B"' YE 75 FAI TWIN 117 4 1 I WALNUT 15' F AIR 11765 12" RRT 15 OOD 717 4" _ 4' 1 F 7177 8" T 15' FAI 779 T T 15' GOOD _ 7 B" RRY 15 FAIR 1178 6" HACKBERRY 4' WOD 117 12" HA K RRY _ 15` GOOD 117 @ " H0. K PRY 1 FAIR_ 717$9 f0" WALNUT 15' I FAIR 117 H H RRY 1 FAIR - 11791 HA ERRY 15' FP.1R _ 117 4" HA K ER Y i5. FAIR 177 93 I'. HACKAERRY 15' FAIR 117 1 HA KB ERRY _ 1 ` FAIR 11 - HACKBFRRY 125 FAIR 7 W T f F AIR _ 11000 k HACKBE Y 15' FAIR 11201 HACKURRY WHACKK, FAIR 71897 1" HACKBERRY 15' G 11 17 8" HACK ERRY 15' _ POOR 1 1111a ` HA Y' 7 R 11819 $- WALNUT 15' FAIR TWIN 11820 t 12 HAfXR9RRV 1 5 FAIR 11 T 12" CHERRY 15' P OR 11822 15 HA K RRY _ 1 POOR f3 - $" HACKQERRY 16' C001) I TWIN (1824 8" HACKBERRY 1 GOOD 11 a WA.N T 15' D 11 6 5" WA NUT 15' FAIR TWIN 11 @27 6` SUCK 1 AIR TWIN 11 MAP 1 ' FAIR UST R OF 5 11 12" W N T 1 O D CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (DRIP LINE 1. The City of Dublin Code, 153 Land Use, Tree Preservation, 153.141 Definitions The area inscribed by an imaginary line on the ground beneath a free having its center point at the center of the trunk of the tree and having a radius equal to one foot for every inch of diameter breast height. e" The City of Dublin Code, 153 Land Use, Construction Activities, 153.145 (A.) Protective Fencing The fencing or other protective bonier must be located a distance from the trunk that equals, at a minimum, the distance of the critical roof zone or 15 feet whichever is greater, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or designee (DBH). 3, Drip line is labeled in radius feet. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) PONT H P I 6p ON 14 5 11 8 MULBERRY 15 G"' 15294 HICKORY 16' 11 - A. H K RY 1 5 , GOOD 1 1833 6' HICKORY 15' aG 1183 H RRY 11@5 6" HA Y 1 ' PoOR 11643 14" HA KBERRY 15' GOOD 15 4W N is' FAIR 17 6 4' ERRY 4 GOOD 11B47 12' WALNUT 1 F R 11 B" R ROXELDER 15' COOD lipm 24. MULBERRY 24' POOR 11857 a2' 1;HLRIRY 32' POOR 11 s __ LM 1 ' G 11 BS9 1 " WALNUT 15' GOOD 11 12 A0xFLDER 1 - ' GOOD TW'I Ff 63 6' WALNUT 15' PO 11F 1 " - H RRY 1 FAI 11965 6" BOX ELDER 15' F !k 11 6 6' MULBERRY 15' A[ I1 fi7 18 CHERRY 7 ' GCW 1186 COTTONWOOD t ' 00 1187g ' % R 15' FA 17 71 10 M LB RRY 1 G OD TWIN 7 1 WA NUT FAI 11@73 I ' I WALNUT 15' G( 11874 7 WA N 9 GOOD 11875 1 H RR 15' 1 F 118 6 8" 1 MULBERRY 15' ___F.AIl ;1677 4' WALN 4' FAI _ 9 1 6 RRY ___E SR 112$2 6" BO %ELDER 4' FAIR 1150 8` ELM 15' FAIR 11664 M is POO 11885 12" WALNUT 15' GOOD 11 WALNUT 1 FAIR - 11887 WALN T 1 FIR _ ;1 69 4" RRY 4' F AIR 11990 12- HACK DERRY 1 ' POOR 11691 W 1-' QQO 11 5' 7} f -A _ 71 75' FR 6 WHACKK, 'Al IF 71897 15' G 15356 5" HACK BERRY 1" G O 11 9 15- ELM } ' _ P R 11 OO $" ELM T5' FAIR TWIN 11 1 ' FAIR 11 0 I M 15' GOOD 7B WAN 7 1 F 11904 $" E 15' GOOD TWIN 11905 HACKBERRY 15 ' G 17 M F. 11 7 6 COTTON 15' FAIR 11 6` MAP 15' 1 FAIR 11 Q9 MAP 15' G000 UST R OF 5 15 12" HAGKB Y 7 GOOD 9 1 17 W& NUT 7 - FAf 1529 SS" WA N Nit IT 1 POINT I 6p CONDI I N NOTES 15 9 WAW 15 GOOD 15294 WA UT 16' 1 5 , GOOD 15 6 J14' WALN T 15' DEAD < 15315 ELM 1 ' PoOR 15316 M 15' GOOD 15 ELM is' FAIR 11318 I M 1 POOR 1 319 A RA 1' 1 Copp 15320 12` 1 HA BERRY 15' 1 GOOD 15 22 12 - WALNUT 1 FAI 15323 14" ELM IS FAIR 1 4 1B" M LF 1B' FAIR 5 15' P 1 6' E LIA P OOR 15327 6' ELM __11, 1 PO 1 ". 1 " 1 FAI 153 9 14" ELM 15' P 5 0 6` A 15 POOR 15331 1 M 1' G 153 15' 00 15134 ' A RAN ' 15334 6" OSA 13' FAIR _ Y 15335 ELM 15' G 15337 14` U 15' 75 3 10 1 G OOD 75 10 A, 1 GOOD 15340 HA _ RRY 15' R _ 153 41 6 H RY ___E SR 15342 24' LM 4' FAIR 1534 6' o5A0EoR N f FAIR 44 M 1 ' 15.345 B' ELM 15' GOOD f 46 1 347 5' GOO 1 F AIR 15349 HACK DERRY ` FR 15350 W 5' QQO 1 . 35352 G 153. ' 1 4 7535 ' GOOD 15356 5" HACK BERRY is. FA R W ELM 15' 15 B 12 ELM 15' FAIR 15 HACK RRY 1 ' FAIR ] 60 I M I FAIR 15 1 WAN 7 1 FAIR 15362 0" E 20' FAIR _ 15353 HACKBERRY 15' - F A IR 1 4 M 7 R 154 _ 14" COTTON 15" FAIR 4 446 6" - TT 15' F 154 M 15' FAIR 1 4 iD' MAPLF 15' FAIR 1 4 O A FAf V - 7 0 O LL LL — O Q w a � V) c z 0 W C J O Sz C LU W Z t � C ZD O �_ Z 0 V) O LU J � Z6 rL W V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TREE SURVEY TABLE .4,rA4r5,gr SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING -4 PAM Fe+n. M4R:M.0 1711tlD. MC. !ng*a*� .aNreyerr- florR+.n - xtc++ul r swo w. r>'ev r>me ca�,n.. nx r7ud DATE May I, 2007 RUaD: Jena 22.2007 ANM& iWara Mvmlrr aEVyEp REVIMD: GRAPHIC SCAIE 10 0 30 d0 Ip 7'•a9 ,.Dm SR v Y.R+nilAU6nv,rr . u; 2op", -_III Yt1 - � T �. I to 13 SONERIDGE DRIVE SHAMROCK BLVD, 10 - - -- - J_ T gm, I S SIG SIG L w0000, X-9m.00, A Al C -till Ca.S�V-j5r'03"E � 88 — — — 30' - - — — - — — — — — — — — GAZEBO % PROPOSED SITE PLAN: 1 =30' REVISED: J­ 22, 2W7 REVISED +i1 FLAG POLE 2__RY BASIN Rievism RMMD: itlP I BENCH (TYPICAL) 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH SW-XRtA'B' COVERED PORTE COCHERE R SUB-AREAW LIRE OFFICE �� ?___ PATIO GARDENS 2 J� STORY SENIOR HOUSING 65000 S.F. ENCLOSLIREJ BENCH ITYPICALI TOTAL SITE AREA: 5.625 Ac.± I I I I I I ' ° "I -• I I I 4 i t I R I �I�— DUMPSTER L L 11 V PROPOSED SITE PLAN: 1 =30' REVISED: J­ 22, 2W7 REVISED +i1 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN: 1 =30' — My -- r PEDESTRIAN PATH S ERVICE GAREA 1 e :57'15"W 741.17' L SHA PORT OF FIRE ACCESS TURN A ION ROUND TO El BE REMOVED WITH FUTURE FIRE ACCESSICONNECTIONS i PUD SITE DATA: THROUGH SUB-AREA'B' TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. SUB-AREA 'A' ±4. 000 Ac PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING: 80 UNITS ±65,780 S.F. PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES 3 HANDICAPPED SPACES (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE) 45 REGULAR SPACES (9x19) PARKING REQUIRED: 405PACE5 1 SPACE PER 6 BEDS PLUS 1 PER EMPLOYEE (DURING LARGEST SHIFT) 2 HANDICAPPED SPACES REQUIRED I DDA - I / I� REVISED: J­ 22, 2W7 REVISED FM Rievism RMMD: itlP I 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH SW-XRtA'B' LIRE OFFICE �� ?___ PATIO GARDENS . PLAN) (wN FENCE ENCLOSLIREJ I I I I I I ' ° "I -• I I I 4 i t I R I �I�— L L 11 V FUTURE FIRE I A CCFS S/ CONNECTION TO I SUB -AREA '8' n Sol6ae for bwftlfs L I L — — — — —1 FREA .... .. I — My -- r PEDESTRIAN PATH S ERVICE GAREA 1 e :57'15"W 741.17' L SHA PORT OF FIRE ACCESS TURN A ION ROUND TO El BE REMOVED WITH FUTURE FIRE ACCESSICONNECTIONS i PUD SITE DATA: THROUGH SUB-AREA'B' TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. SUB-AREA 'A' ±4. 000 Ac PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING: 80 UNITS ±65,780 S.F. PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES 3 HANDICAPPED SPACES (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE) 45 REGULAR SPACES (9x19) PARKING REQUIRED: 405PACE5 1 SPACE PER 6 BEDS PLUS 1 PER EMPLOYEE (DURING LARGEST SHIFT) 2 HANDICAPPED SPACES REQUIRED I DDA - I / I� I l I SITE AREA: ±1.625 Ac. FUTURE OFFICE NMFS _j 1. SEE SHEET C-A & C-5 FOR EXISTING TREE SURVEY INFORMATION. 2. HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED WITH WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT. 0 fs� z 0 0 !E LL_ Z Lu 0 IL C/0) > C 0 Lu u 0 Lu >z LL_ 0 < V) = L z U u Lu PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN .­fN _1 SUMASE. SENIOR LIVING .1-10- Fgg= E,gi= S—y- - PI-1- •Sck,W, SSJO N­ OH C� 43OSr c I. x I I DATE .0 1. 20.7 REVISED: J­ 22, 2W7 REVISED FM Rievism RMMD: J I l I SITE AREA: ±1.625 Ac. FUTURE OFFICE NMFS _j 1. SEE SHEET C-A & C-5 FOR EXISTING TREE SURVEY INFORMATION. 2. HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED WITH WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT. 0 fs� z 0 0 !E LL_ Z Lu 0 IL C/0) > C 0 Lu u 0 Lu >z LL_ 0 < V) = L z U u Lu PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN .­fN _1 SUMASE. SENIOR LIVING .1-10- Fgg= E,gi= S—y- - PI-1- •Sck,W, SSJO N­ OH C� 43OSr c I. x I I DATE .0 1. 20.7 REVISED: J­ 22, 2W7 REVISED FM Rievism RMMD: till'\ a� R r 870 PROPOSED - - -. \ I \ E 1 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN: STONERIDGE DRIVE 1 Ir =30' r SHAMOCK BLVR. LEGEND: S{onn �r sr• aa.... Sani {ory Sewer ego Water Line Flood Rouling Arrows y STORMWATE MANAGEMENT DATA (DRY BASIN) TRIBUTARY AREA [SUBAREAS 120 AND 26501 = 10.4 ACRES ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE [I YEAR PRE - DEVELOPMENT) = 5 59 CPS REGtXRE0 DEIENTION VOLIJM €- 1.82 AC. FT. REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 0.63 AC. FT. TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED = 2.45 AC. FT, TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED= 2.72 AC. FT. _v T �e 1 \ I r r r � I � 1 I t \ t ' 1 y 1 El \ r i 1 / NOTES: 1. ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAI. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (DATED MARCH 16, 2004). Ime SUEJECI PARCEL SHOWN HEREOF! LIES WITHIN ZONE X (AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.1% ANNUAL CHANCE PLOODFLANI COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 39049C0126H.. 2. EXISTING CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS TOPOGRAPHY. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS \eLEVATIONS, . Z O 0 r Z W O CL — /) C Z O w — U � J c n r J � L f�l Q::D0 o Lu Zu w V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN UTILITY PLAN PREPARE. IDP: SOMME SENIOR LIVING mmmin 1 — 1 wcrw.or.> vrw6nlon.rte, Egin •S— yoa•rlo —n-Sci -lists ni -wra61 Roof. CoLmh�r. OM 431 DATE w . w EmuD. „I r 20 oev4en Iw3o. �ooT P.EVISEA REVrsEo REVISFO: REV rqp svRrn Rxl:9f +R353rW W�PIG man '21DNS4$ NoTeam L.ndappa Arahltwwre Land Planning R." L Nuns RLA, ASIA Lndarupa AFGWWd Ohb Rplatrarbn a:L44m7Ta INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS (SUB-AREA - A'1: For each 100 sq. R, a minimum total of 5 sq. IL of landscaped area shall be provided. 24,730.97 sq. R,/ 100 sq. ft - 247.31 x 5 sq. ft - 1,236.55 sq. ft landscaped area required. INTERIOR TREE PLAINTM REOIAREMENT (SUB,AREA'A'l : MkYmum 1 Tree for every 5,000 sq. ft of ground coverage: Includes stnvcu nt; and vehicular use areas. 49,565.% sq ft/5,000 sq. ft - 9.91 trees required. SITE PLANTING REOUIREMENTS: I tree (I - trunk) for each 300 sq. ft. In ground coverage. SlR TRS FACU AHEM IAA Al MmL spsotrsg - 45 ft balmim Imm 536.14 R of Road ftrgMW45 R -11.91 hoot STREET TREE REQUIREMENTS (SUB-AREA 13'1 : Max spacing - 45 ft between trees. 272.54 if. of Road frontage/45 ft. - 6.06 trees Fume BLA&V ❑ Detention 11111BSM1 Slide Slope TO be Seeded with Sedge Ght W The NW Gentra&v ❑ Detention Basin Bottom To be Seeded with Swale Mix PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE; urr pw3cu ocrur - mc'u,u to vary from 4' to 6' with plantings at the top. OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT SHADE IM SH LMS 33 BM Babab x Rlent4adt Manor Barbary 5 AD Aar nbnm 7Vank:xW Red SYaaet Red Mwk Zr COL BiB 5 ON Baft WWII I&w Bldn V HL 011np B&B 10 Gr Gledlti t L ow.,nls Iripoold Yrlps H4aybc= 2r CAL B&B 19 T1 TatomenImsoft TREE siler ing aw Under 25' Col. "11 EVERGREEN 35 PM Plow Moira al@* ma 8' -10' HL B&B 46 PP Plea putgens Colorado Spr= 6-10' HL B&B 30 Ps Pirmzbobaa Eastern WIN spruce 6' -II7HL B&B ORNAMENTAL TREE Mlsdon Arbavitse S HL B&B 72 TO Tlxpooddaf>I 1pbodwald 7 CW Cana llorlda White Fbwa ft Dogwood 1 S Col. B&B 12 MG AUWWM x WLYWWM Sww Msgnaft 15' CIL B&B a MF k0l" T4raYltd PratEte Gab 15' CIL SAO 9 SR Sydrngl rellauiaIa Ivory sit Kwamn nave" am" 1.5' CaL B&B V /l1� Y -�lrr tr.re Nisi lAe Shrubs & Gram to Prornote WldMe SUB,ARFA A' SUB- AREA'B RAW GARDRN & DaTwi 1ON PLANT MATmBAL SCHEDUL OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT RAW GARDEN VEGETATION SH LMS 33 BM Babab x Rlent4adt Manor Barbary 36'M Cont. 3 CA C:orrra albs 9•ILdo' Nary Hob Dogwood 24' HL Cant 27 CS Cam >e1®1Cadaf Cardinal Red Oda Dogwood 36' HL Cam B HI Hwn nrei x L `Capper Gos/ Capps Gbw Wbch Had 36' HL Cant 7 HV HE --- ds vltglrWra Carnl01111 n Hnnned 36' HL Cont. 4 PR Potentilla fruticosa'Abbotswood' Abbotswood Potentilla 24' HL Cont a S! spiramNonia'Wk"imed Uwe PlYnasssptaes IB'HL Corm 48 TM Tama x nre - VendlonmW Dense Yew 30• HL SO 50 TS Tama x nne - SWW Slbia Yew Mr HL 11W 5 TW Tama x weds lrfirdr W � Yew Ir HL SO 68 TT Thep ooddera t TedW Mlsdon Arbavitse S HL B&B 72 TO Tlxpooddaf>I 1pbodwald Woodwads Gabe Arbasbe 24'HL B&B 4 VO VmLSrsan op Ax Wifl m' Dwarf European Cra ilargbtdt 24' HL Corm Pffinod BATS 273 AN Ante rta arigNe A+ple Dom ftw* Dame New BntglaW Asted C@1. Cars; 18' OLC 172 FBI Hann BMW , B4nertaDRVW I Call. Cont; IrQC 368M Hw oadt Scary kmwW Satny R amw Dlyb I GEL Cont; 1 r QC 1641V Irlt vadmlor Blue flog Ib 1 OIL Corns; 24' O C IOS LS LarordheNnm s Snow lady Snow LaW S l MW D fry 1 Gal. Cont: Ur OTC 163 RF R xilladde Rd" Goldmmt' Bb& Eyled SAM I GuL CornL; Ia' G.C. MATERIALS UNIT NIB MULCH CY lie PLANT Ma CY 90 TERRA SORB Las OTYXEY BDrANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIM ROOT RAW GARDEN VEGETATION AN Aster nom - anise New ErtglrtdAM 1 GeL Corns; 24' QC Al AtieplaLS a IQrLeta Red Milkweed 1 Gel. Corti; 24' O.C. BA Boltond sttepl lies FaWAstia 1 Gal. Cons; 24' QC IV tit vayaalar OLm Fig DD 1 Gal. Corn; 24' O.C. LP UstrD pyvnamdys Fralrk 1 Gal. Cont; 24'0.C. M Fadw ai n Irmegdbisn Wild 00111 re 1 Gal. CarU 24' QC PD Foam xx dlalaLs Snroodn PLSt Warron 1 Gal. Conn; 24' O.C. RP ItIld • pin Ydo Catdbwa 1 Gal. Corti: 24 VF Vyalls ftKkL6nli •ornowd 1 Gal. Corn; 24'0.C. DErEM10N! rr1BC ASArses Sedge Ghotio The Next 3 - abn Sad 25ACM SvM@A bt Seed NOTES: 1. DeW Idea seed Mot taken trap 0fbn1011101 3 e7tesls Nosey : 23200 Hurd Road Tampico, lime Tres bTrpaet R aplalownents to be Phone 1 815.438.2220 Provided by Englr at Final Approval. PaK 815.438.2222 lssr NOTES: 1. An automatic: krlgaaon system will be provided (oral landsompeaaas. 2 Plarx inift Is subject to mocillLatim 3. M Dees 60 be field bated clue to conflicts wlh sRBty batla¢ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE 0 15 30 60 SCALE: 1%-39-V PLANTING PLAN Deslgn'ream Limited 17255 W. Ton M8a nand SmMMId. MI 48075 P: 248 558.1000 F: 248.558.5717 a.y,e.n,•a..prnrr+ e-n www d..a�rna,a.daom Cann SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC. 48115 Van Dypa Am^ 8da 12 swbyTaw*n , Mddpn 48317 PR 618.117,3951 FAX 51111X78211 Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County O hio Dmgmd /Doren MA"Go V!� naa M I Twnsd F. 0176:*a 1.. cent 7— ]1 -0)An Dale /Revisions Iswed Lor ertmi r r - ss.wr I/Vu F - sU Mn rsrwtr msynyw •ao OMpTam LWW 7rr osu,.w.ra..q.r t.Tb>fY ur Y nib "err s. Ae.rea .ra -.Trr, r.nwr- rn1).+a. *— u.ra sneer LA 1 . 0 ❑ Proposed Building ❑ For Thee Dtscrlptlons Refer to Sheet LA-1.1 r PK e e a.an n1MRe ru+n a Wart a 1MK&r%J6 xnIMSFW c. OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT ORNAMEPCFAL TREE EVERGREEN TREE I PM1IPke a pungens Colorado Spruce 14 -16' Ht B&B ORNAMENTAL TREE 24' Spread Cant 6 HA Hydrareges a. Arnebde 1 PK Prunus serndata Xwor an' Kwarman Flowering Cherry 1.5• Cal. 13fi13 SHRUBS 24' F t Cart 9 JC Jutperts de. P. COmpeeta r 3 CA Corpus albs 'Baihald lmy Halo Dogwood 24' Ht Cont. 3 FV Forsythia x v. 'Brorumsis' Brae ForsAla 24' Spread Cont. I I NO Hydrangea quetdfoRa Oa1d®f Hydrangea 24' Ht Corn 6 JH Junlpena h. P.C. Youngstown' Yourgs[am Andorra Junlper 24• Spread Cont 5 PR PotentYia f rdcosa Abbotswood' Abbobwood Potentila 24' Ht Cont. B RA Itbes alpinrn Alps a CuraWt 181st Cant 5 RP Rasa weipatne Care he Wader Rose 241t Corn 4 RO Rosa'Meivalyn' Knockout Rose 24'Ht Cont. 2 SM Syrinx rrayenl TWW Dwarf Koraen Law 30' HL Cons 3 SS Spiraea rVpponla Snowmound SnowmcKArld Splraea 24' Ht Coro 5 TM Tarsus x media 'Denslfomlts' Dense Yew 30• Ht B&B 19 TW Taxus x media 'Wardn' Wards Yew 16 B&B 5 TS Taxus x media 'Seblan' Sebian Yew 30' HC B&B 7 TOThujaocddentala'Au®' Golden Globe Arborvitae 24•Ht B&B B VO Viburnum opulus'Nanum' Dwarf E=peen Oanbenybush 24• Ht Cont. 5 VT Viburnum t'Compactum' Cam. Aremican Cranbenybtah 30' Ht Cons 6 WF Welgela florlda'Mhuer Minuet Wagela 24' Ht Cant PERENNL4WGGROUPDCOVER 171 AA Astlie nfdel ' Pannier Fared Meadow Sweet 1 GEL Caret; IS O.0 37 AR Astbepporrla'Red Sesltner Red Sentinel Meadow Sweet 1 Get Cont; 18' D.C. 271 CG C - ' g Terry SL rise' Em*Sun wCa 1 CwL Care; Ir G.C. 195 No Heneromxss limas® BMW DayBy I Gal. Caret: 12'0.C. 193 HS H0.0 Serrerybjer SBMUWRimdDW* 16dCant' Iro.0 aB LS Lauanrhernum s. Snow LaW Snow la$r Shasta Ualy I Gel. Corp 12' 0.C. AAATER1A.LS UNIT 43 MULCH CY 43 PLANT MD( CY 25 TERRA SORB Las ❑ Drop - Locad Dr Plant Descriptions efer to Sheet LA-1. I COUR'T11'ARD PLANT MATERIAL SCHEM OTYX_FY BOTANICAL. NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT ORNAMEPCFAL TREE Q1K 3 AC MleletCMEraradetsB SiadblowSaNxbely 1-7 C2tl.0ulp B" $MR1.1BS 20 FV Fmsydnm x V. 'Brorom nsls' Brom F"syttra 24' Spread Cant 6 HA Hydrareges a. Arnebde A►robde 1 24' HL Cart 3 HG Hydangea, m. SVj&eg L3rtrat' Glowig ryrnbes Hydrangea 24' F t Cart 9 JC Jutperts de. P. COmpeeta r 3(• HC Cam 11 JH Ju ipaita tL P.C. Youga7wrs' YmrWlown And— Jmrnpr 24• Spread Cat 9 Pi Plobjeponke mpssaeAndrurneft 24'HL Cori 31 RO Rosa'Mdustyn' Knockout Rose 24 HL Cat 6 SB Spiasa x IL Andixy Wateer Araltory Weimer Spiaea W HL Cat B S) Spba® jepwim 1Jtde Prhame Lue Primcels spar— 18' HL Cat IS SM Syrigs ntey "Nei"' Dwaf Karew LAK 3W HL Cart 15 TW Taxus x medla'Wardir Ward's Yew 1 LT Fit B&B 3 TS Taxus x media Sebmn' Sedan Yew 3(• Ht B&B PEREWMALVGROUNDCOVER aLe 92 CG Coneopsis q early Sunrise, FariySu rise Coreopsis 1 Gat. Cor L; Ir QC 50 EP Edia® purpuea Pup* Carsduwer 1 Gat Corm: la' O.C. qxxe Pd it 192 FB Herneroallis'aort M' Bonarrm Dayey I Gal. Cont; Ir O.0 " Landswpr Archltdsehmr Land Planning IUiph L. NU. RLA. AaLA L�Mape MWllmdwt Ohio PAOM UM e:L44416M Deslyn'ream Limited 17255 W. TW Mee nand SOU09K MI4WT6 P: 24a®a.1DD0 F: 241.65M17 SU RIM SENIOR LIVING INC. 4@945 Vn DtWA Agar. sir 12 Sidby7avre ilid{in 407 PH Rt.B73951 FAZE N0 W MI Pmjeel Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio Devgneil /Dmm WMAa cb.ed /hid Jgb 1 196.50 rk DI9650 U C.. 6- 20 -07.d.g 0.1./R.ncwu had Fv N2L/y? ra sr_.r 296 HS Hemeroa1115 Sammy Russell' Smeary Russell Dft* I Gal. Cart 1 r — 160 LA LaYendum artgt NOW Mda)W lido ale Brim L--Ww 1 GAL Corsi: Ir OC 32 PA Perwllm I essian Says 1 GAL Carte 30' = 57 RF Rudbedda Mnk GoMbbam' Beck Eyed Suers I CAL Cont: Ir O.C. MATI7tlALS 45 MULCH 45 PIANTMIX 35 TERRA SORB NOTES: 1. An automatic hrlgatlon system will be provided 1br all landscape areas 2. Plant material Is subjed to modMiafloR 3. AR tree lobe held located due lb cae0ds VMh UIBty ioadons' UNIT CY 0 5 10 20 CY LOS SCALE. 1'-10-0' 1! PRELIMINARY PORTS COHERE & COURTYARD w LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN ' ` LA -1. IN V = 1 ❑ Fbgpok Location ❑ for Plant Descriptions Refer to Sheet LA-1.1 P PORTE ODCHERE 9CAIE: I'= Ib 2 COURYARD r -u CJ19'1tEl't10TANIGJI6INAME COMMON NAME S12E ROOT SHRLM B CA Cass die wow Maymo Dogwood 2r It Cart 3 ff GansmWWN WAratar YiRwlg009RVW 2r HL Cat 3 FV ForjWMXv.lsraeoseiC Bnx F91ryd6 24 Spread Cat 10 NO roeaw WmCmi 0rddedHyQasgs 2r Ht Cat. 5 Jc AroautitSMS -1 smaremJulrur 3PHL BEa 3 JH Ar*auILTCYami dmW YargeovertAnd— Affipa ZVWW cam 14 FJ Mwkjpado iparcaeAndmoni 6 2V HL Cat 5 Ir Rra'NelipaaC Cardee9daderMtae 247#. Gat B SG *kMXb.Tlolyd ld GoldYoe SpYas Zr 1t Cat 5 SS Sptras rlppallra 9m - xim" Snownimmi td SpYaaa 2V HL Gat 2 TM Dense YON 3CHL m 12 TE TaaxnteilvmkW evoimv ew Irmt. K.B 3 TWTNSxtnedrlUmff WWMYRW IIrHL B&B 5 Tr "occidaeiTafty MYYVINborvlde 6'HL Bm 3 TO Thtilm acct I I Aus' Croldm CibeArbavfae 24' HL W 5 VT VbjrmmL9:>1lrpemrd GanAmmican0ar aryboh 3W HL Gat 112 0137 C , B• Z* kwdw FJrySYrrbr I GEL 0XV 12' GG 45 CV Compels wedcOM Vociftem. o- I Campo I GEL Cam 17OG W EP Edirres purism Nrpieconamm it ICal. Cat; fir D.C. 170 HE Hmmocallis lonal Boras omm 1 Gi Gar;1T O:C 141 HS FNna- -SrmyMt11111F SmnyMindD** IC,ACar ;12'Q 293LA Lwwd&agtm� 4edmad 1lldoole&VMLWAnder ICaLOar;ISG0.0 74 LS laordlaaalliL3ismLacV SrcwILm*ShmW0mIr IGoL Cant: 1TI1C 10 PR FWVANIatrt - 0 1 beirrSage I Git 1111.W0jC. 1e MF IUdbrdNRdpld.Y &WW UndtEysdSrern IGsLGar;1F0.0 36 SH SahioanmmMWNWe' MYymots" 1Gitat;Irmc. M,ATEL4u UNIT 40 MUIDI CY 48 KANTMa CY 28 TERRASORB LBS • SOUTH FOUNDATION PLANT MATERULL SCHEDULE. OTYJIEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT SHRUBS 3 CA Comus aba'BaR01o' Nay Halo Dogwood 24' HL Can I1 FV Forsythia x v.'Bronmmsis' Brom Forsythia 24 Cant 6 N Jaaapena h 7.0 YOUngstOwn' Youngstown Andorra Juniper 24' Spread Cont. 5 PJ Pkrkraponka Japanese Andromeda 24'HL Cam 5 SM Syrrga rrmyerl Pallbrr' DwarfKCrean Lila 30' Ht Cont. 3 TM Tams x meda'Deruffam K Dace Yew 3(r HL B&B 9 TE TaxusxnmdIa'EverIaW EverbwYew IB'HL B&B 12 VO VMxrnum opuka'ftenum' Dwarf European CranberrAmish 24' HL Cam 5 Vr Viburnum L Vmrr4acMn' Com. American Cranberrybush 30' HL Cont PERENNBAL4KatOU11DCOVER 55 CG Caeopds g Early Srxrkd Early Sunrise CaeOpsk 1 Gal. Cony I Y QC 36 CV Coreopsls vatldlata'Moontmard Moonbeam Comapsis I Gal. Cont.; 12' O.C. 13 EP Ednrsacce pupww Purple Cormlower 1 Gal. Cary 19' O.C. 46 1.•B HernaOrallis'Bonarm' Bonanza DayNly I Gal. Corry IT O. 99 Hs Hemerc caft Sammy Russell' Sammy Russell DtryBy I Gal. Cont: IT O.C- 156 LA Lavetdula anguu8f0ea fidcote• HMdcote English lavender I Gal. Cont; I T QC 20 MS Mktamfxss slnerak purpUnWe tr Purple Maiden Grass 1 Gal. Pot 24' O.0 69 SN Salvia nemaom'May NMjx' May NlghtSalvla IGal. Cosy IT O.C. MATERALS Carl UNIT 23 MULCH Oaa*araamfaald fur ee.a..a..lw.ss6.x CY 23 PLANT MIX CY C' 13 TERRA SORB 46 PLANT MIX L.BS ❑ Proposed Building 'JV ! - 4 Team Landscape Architecture Lend Planning Ralph I- Nun¢ RLA, ANA Landaupa Architect Ohio Rylalatlon 6:1.44-0077! Wide Walk awn For Tree Descriptions Refer to Sheet LA -1.0 ❑ For Tree DescVt)ons Refer to Sheet LA-11.0 �4 ff L11 L3 Buildi xU U • �. �. a. s .,. 3 NORTH FOUNDATION PLANTING NORTH FOUNDATION PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE: NOTES. I. An automatic brodon system wB be provided Ibr aM Iarldsape seas. 2. Plant meberwbsAftatomoditmom 3. AND to be Odd kx2ftd due to conflicts with utifty loadorlL wa Paraneasr EW%0W - ad M --r.r — OfYJMY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIW ROOT SHR MS 5 CS Cormn serkm r xk W' Car" Red Osler Dogwood 24' HL Cont 4 HO Hydrangea quedYi6a Oaweaf Hydrangea 24' HL Cont. 3 RA Rbese A*mzn Alp he Currant I m Cart. 5 TE Tm=x rneda'EValOwr Everlow Yew I9'Ht. B&B 6 TS T ald15 x nneuim Sebtan' Seblan Yew 30' HL B&B a TW TaxusxnKd6 Ward' Ward's Yew 1a' HL B&B 5 VT Vbu um t rornpecturn' Can. American Craraberrybush 31Y HL Cart PUMWAALVGROLRMGOM 66 CG Coreopsis g Eafy Sartre' Early Surise Con sopaa I Gal. Com: 1 T D.C. 112 HS Honerocalltr Monarsd Bmarm Daytly 1 Gal. Corso I T O.0 70 HS HenerocaBS Sammy RunW Sammy Russell Dayey I Gal. Cast; 1 T O.0 21 LA Lawvsdula NVLE Ma Nldcote' HiCcote English lavender 1 Gal. Can; IT O.C. 40 RF Rud xKW NAg10a 'GddSRam' Black Eyed Susan I Gal. COM 18' O.C. 34 SN Salvia nonerma'May Night May Night S" 1 Gal. Cony IT O.C. MATUAALS 16 MULCH 16 PIANTMM% 2 TERRASORB UNIT CY CY Los ❑ Proposed Gazebo - Refer - to Architecture for Details OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT SHRUBS 6 CS Canes serkea'Cam& W Cardinal Red Os>Q Dogwmd 24' He Cont. B FV Forsythia x v. Snymensis' .,bona Fanydsla 24 Spread Cant 6 HI Hamamd'ax 1. 'Copper GbW Copper Glow Witch Hazel 24* HL B&B 3 HA HydmrxJea a - nrxaabdle' Annabelle Hlydrar" 24' HL Cot 4 IG lack 941brd'Owrrulr,' Chamin Holly 24' HL B&B 9 Ji Juno h. T.0 Yocu paawn' Youngstown Andorra Juniper 24' Spread Carl 7 JS Junorn saWna Wfalo' Buffalo Juniper 2C Spread Cant 9 PF P (eftPia hutko5a A9*� AbboOMVOd Pot"la 24' HL Can 3 RP Rosa WlelpetRe Carefree Wader Rose 24'14L Cant 12 SS SpMa® nlpponim Snowmourd Snowmaurnd Splmaa 24'14L Cart 3 SM Syringa rneyerl 9sa6)in' Dwarf Korean Lilac 30' HL cam 8 TE Taxus x rnedia EverloW EverlowYew fir HL B&B 3 VO Vlburxim opUYa 1Varam' Dwarf European Cranbenybrah 24' HL Carl DesignTeem LJmrad 17255 W. Tern We Rod 9e &&W. Ml 40076 P:2411.51111.10[10 F: a4a66Q5717 ww�.rrta� Sl1NRISE SENIOR LIVING INC. *W Val 0yW Alma, Silk 12 S ali f Town* Won 4017 FAK 511.MM MI P,.jat Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County O hio eceeae1AW -1 Fm ere I a" r. 019150 U c— 6441-MA.9 0 r Fs VVP r c.e<..errera.. tnalf6n Fv 3a1, pan kxwd 63 AAAalliteardendsll'Fanar Fanal Mesdow Sweet 1 Gal. Cam: I W O.C. 335 CG Comopsk 9. Early Surxke' Early Sunrise Caeopstr 1 Gal. Cam IT or- Ill EP Echinacem pupa® Purple Cat1.4bwer 1 Gal. Cam: f B' O.0 273 HO Her nerocallis 79arnarsm' Bonsrm Daymy 1 Gal. Cam: IT QC 203 HS Hernerocallls Sammy Russell' Sanny Ruud DDaYMY I Gal. Cam: IT CaC- all LA lavaduta argu iffolia'HWtoW HldcOte English Lavender 1Gal. Cam: IT O.0 QV 13 PR Pot a nMMa btticosa Abb0t5w00d' AbbD -A-d PoterrMla 24' HL Cam 24 RF Ru dl eddy Ngkk3 COldstum' Bb& Eyed Susan 1 Gal. Copt' l8' or- 0 5 10 20 s 97 SN SaMa n errraosa'May N� May Night Salvia I Gal. Cont: !2' O.C. 2 WF Welgeia flodda 7AYxret' Minuet Welgeda 24' HL Cont. ealarld4 "m MATERIALS UNIT CY Oaa*araamfaald fur ee.a..a..lw.ss6.x 46 MULCH CY SCALE I ti. IINY 46 PLANT MIX Los rie.Myea a�k,w #6ws.wiw >ras.glw 27 TERRASORB PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN i ".d LA-1.2 FASF RxmoATIDN m AWm I WEST RXMDiATM PLANTING 4 SOUTH FOUNDATION KAMMG rwu J Proposed Buffer ❑ Proposed Buffer - ❑ Future Development ❑ Proposed Detention Basin Refer to Landscape Plan for Seeding Schedule ❑ EKMng Trees to Remain and Rock Bottom Location. (Trees to be removed upon construction Adjacent National Church Residences of a future develcipmMq ..I Proposed Assisted Living Budding Budding - *38' Height 1 Height 39' -4' ❑ Proposed Driv e— and Parking IPL ❑ Proposed Landscape won n FL 1 Section A-A' (PL I 'I i IPL .r Proposed Landscape r -a Proposed Entrance Drive r -J Proposed Drop Off Proposed Assisted Uving Building -Height 39' -4' IPL w $4. r - 85' Min. I Building Setback i 50' Min. — Pavement Setback Section &U 1 U Proposed 4' Hlgh Berm -Toe of Berm to be Field Adjusted so not to Infringe on the Dripline of the Eidsting Trees to be Preserved i0l � '� l •. S ! � )' e = � Secti v n B�8' - 2 i PL ±200' Proposed 6' Tall Evergreen Trees to be Planted Along the Top of the Berm. ❑ E)dsting Trees to be Protected During Construction and Preserved Native Grasses and Shrubs to be Planted Among Etdsting Material to Promote Wddlffe. Refer to Sheet LA -1.0 for Detailed Planting Information. s r -104r ❑ Eidsting Adjacent Home Team Landscape Architecture Land Planning Ralph L. Kam: RLA, AMA tend —p. Ar hllact Ohio R.4dr.tlon a:i.44-06776 ❑ Adjacent Apartment Building * 26' Height r aF� 3 e g 77255 W. Ten bile Reed SOU6Meld. he 46075 P. 246.556.1000 F: 245.558.5717 Clenl SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC. 43W5 Von Dyke Awns, Sulk 12 %*k T6 w*.kidigen45317 1!\:] Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio De ,.d /D—n " /CFF C kM /lowered RLN Dote /Rereens 1.� For ali6fM Iv 5!F 1�On re. Ste Rau Imoa z . C D f e t GpIMOe .� prgn Llraw Key Map -A "a"- eM'e+MLw +A tlny+Ywie UMfee PROPOSED SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS LA -1,3 1. 1AN06CAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT ALE NS9ECT EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REVIEW PROPOSED PLANING AND HEATED VOTBL N CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN RAN AND RANT UST, PLAN 94ALL GOVERN OUAMDQ CONTACT LANDSCAPE AROBIECTNM MIT CONCERNS 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OFALL Ol18TE URFTIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONnIRUC71DN ON HWHER RHASEOF NOEL EIECTRC GAS. TELEPHONE CABLE TELEVISION MAYBE LDGA7ED BYQALIM MIS DIG I.800492- 7171. MIYDAMAGE OR N1ERRUPTIONOFSERV103SHALLBE THE RESPONSIBNf1YOFCONTPACTOR CONTRACFQRSHALL ODO�IJATE AL RHATEDACTIVIIES WITH OTHER TRADES ON 7HEJOBMOSHNJ. RIEPORTANY UNACCEPTABLE JOB CONDITIONS TO OWNERS REP03E TATNE PRIOR TO COMMENCING 3. CONTRACTOR WILL SUPPLY RN6NED GRADE AND DKAVATEAS NE03SAIN TO SUPPLY4'TOPSOIL DEPTH N ALL PLANTING BEDSA D4'TOPSOL DEPTH IN ALL LAWN AREAS BACK FELAND CROWN PARKING LOT ISLANDS ITADM 4. ALL PLANT MAT'ERIALTO BE PREMIUM GRADE WIRSE RYS70OL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED N THE MOST R[CQJT EDITION OF THE AMEMCAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOOL CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY NURSERY SOURCES FORALLPURORASED MATERIAL NO BARE ROOT OR PARK GRADE MATERIAL WILL BEAC7>U1IED. 5. PWALL SOD N ALLAREAS WDKATlD ON PLAN. SIDTO BE WELL ESTABLISHED, MINERAL GROWTH, NO PESTSOD Wa1BEAUOWED. SODBLEIID SHALL CCIPM7 OF A MNIALUM OF THREE 13) IMFIOVED VARIETIES OFBLUEGRASS. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE NOTES SHALL APRYTO ALLSOD. 6. EDGING SERAIL BE 4'x I/B' METAL EDGING ORA7710VED EQUAL TO BE PETALLED WITH HORIZONTAL METAL STAKES AT 3F SPACING COLOR TO EE BLACK OR DARK GREEN. SEVER COLOR OR PLASTIC 5 NOTACO:PTAB(E INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS IN ALLAREAS INDICATED ON NMI. 7. GUARANTEE OF PLAITS FOR TWO 121 YEAR SHALL BEGIN ACCEPTANCE BY LANDSCAPE AROHITECTMID/OR PROJECT RECITATIVE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GIARANTEEALL RANTS TO BEN A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS CONDITION FORA PERIOD OF TWO 121 YFAR FOLLOWNG ACCBTANCE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE WITHOUT COST TO THE OWNER ANY DEAD OR UNACCEPTABLE PLANTS, AS DETERMINED BY PROJECT IE7ESOCATNE DURING AND AT THE END OFTHE GUARANTEE PERIOD. S. ACCEPTANCE OF GRADING AND SOD SHALL BE TIT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND/ORPROJECTREP(ESENTATNE 7HECOWMACTOR94LLLAMME MAINTENANCE fESPONSBIIIYFORA MINIMUM OFTWO(2)WAX MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING. REPLACEMENTS OF WASHOUTS AND OTHER OPERATIONS NECESSARY KEEP SOD IN A THWVM CONDITION. UPON FINALMCEPTANMIFYLANDICAPEARDOECFAND /OR PRQJECr RIPRESEVfATNE THE OWNER SHALL AASUMEALL MAINTENANCE 9. ALL TREE PITS MUST BE TESTED FOR PROPER DRAINAGE PRIOR TO PLANTING TREES A DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED F RANTING PIT DOZY NOT DRAW SUWIICIENTLY IRE-WIRED N HEAVY CAYSOL4 10. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE PROPER DRAINAGE THAT PREVENTS EXCESS WATER FROM STANDING ON LAWN AREAS ORAROUND TREES AND 11. STAKES USED FOR TREE SUPPORTS SHALL AOINTAWAAY R(OM ANY CIRCULATION ROUTES 12. N CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLAN AND SPEOACA7IOW THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN PROPER PROCEDURE I3. MULCHING AND WATERING OF ALL RAMS AND TREES SHALL HE IMMEDIATELY OR VA71 ON 16 HODS AFTER INSTALLATION 14. CONTRACTOR 5 RESFON 99LE FOR VERIFYING ALL OWIMITIES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE RAN PRIOR TO PRONG THE WORK. I S. THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO IFJECTANY PLANT MATERA. NOT MEETING SPEORCATIOPS 16. REMOVE ALL TREE STAKES AND GUY WIRES AFTER ONE WINTER 17. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING ACCORDING TO THE QTY OF DUBUN STANDARDS I & PLANTING TO SIART SPRING 2008. 19. USE GRADE A' DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK 20. PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS NO CLOSER THAN THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM SIDEWALKS. CABS AND PARKING STALLS A SHADWCANOPYTREES 4 FEET B. ORNAMENTAI/TiOWERNG TREES 10 FEET C EVERGREEN TREES 10 FEET D. EVERGR3=WROWERNG SHRUBS 4 FEET 21. DIG SHRUB PITS 1' LARGER THAN SHRUB ROOT BAUS AND TREE TITS 7 LARGER THAN ROOT BALLS. BACK FILL WITH ONE PARTTOPSOILAND ONE PARTSOR. FROM THE EXCAVATED PLANING HOLE RANT TRSESAND SHRUBS ATTHE SAME GRADE LEVEL AT WHICH THEY WERE RANTED AT THE N8116ERY. FWET, CLAY SOILS ARE EVIDENT, RANT TREES AND SHRUBS HIGHER 22. REMOVE ALL TWINE WIRE AND BURN FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF TREE AND SHRUB EARTH BADS AND FROM TREE TRUNKS. 23. LAWN TREES ARE 70 BE MULCHED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4' WIDE BY4' DEEP SHREDDED BARKINGS ORAPPROVED DESIGN FOR TRUNK PROTECTION. ONLY NATURAL -COLORED SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH WILL BEACCEPIED. 24. SHRUB BEDS ARE TO BE MULCHED WRIH SHREDDED BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3. ONLY NATURAL-COLORED SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH WILL 13E ACCEPTED. 25. BACITILL DIRECTLY BEHIND ALL CURBS AND ALONG SIDEWALKS AND COMPACT TO THE TOP OF CURB OR WALK TO SUPPORT VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN WEIGHT VAT HOUTSETTLNG. 26. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, SPECIAL PARKING LOT ISLANDS AND LANDSCAPE BEDS NEXT TO LaBDNGS SHALL BE EXCAVATED OF ALL BUILDING MATERIALS AND POOR SOBS TO A DEEM OF IT- IW AND BACK-FILLED VRM GOOR ME DIL M TEXTURED PLANING SOIL (LOAM OR UGHT'YELIDW CLAY). ADD 4'1' OF TOPSOL OVERFILL MATERIAL AND CROWN A MINIMUM OF W ABOVE TOP OF CURBS AND/OR WALKS AFTER EARTH SETTLING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 27. CONVERSION OFAJ. ASPHALTAND G AVELARFAS TO LANDSCAPE SHA L BE DONE N THE FOUOWING MANNER: A REMOVE ALLASPHALT, GRAVELAND COMPACTED EARTH TO A DEPTH OF 6=1 B" DEPENDNG ON THE DEPTH OF THE SUB- BASEAND DISPOSE OF OFF ATE B. REPLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL WITH GOOD, MEDIUM TEXTURES RANTIN (LOAM OR LIGHT YELLOW CLAY) TO A MINIMUM OF 7 ABOVE TOP F CURB AND SDEWALR ADD 4'-6 OF TOPSOIL AND CROWN TO MNRAUUM OF 6 ABOVE ADIAC EW CURB AND WALK AFTER EARTH SETTLING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE RAN F CONVERSION TO LANDSCAPE OCCURS N AN EXISTING (OR BETWEENI LANDSCAPE AREA(SI, REPLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO 4'fi' BELOW ADJACENT DV NG GRADES WITH GOOD MEDIUM 7EXTUIR D PLANTING SOIL (LOAM OR LIGHT YELLOW CLAY) AND ADD 4'fi' OF TOPSOIL TO MEET EXISTING GRADES AFTER EARTH SETITING 28. ALL RANT MATERIAL TO RECEIVE TERRAASORRB AIPETABSORiANT POLYMER OR APPROVED EOUAL By LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 29. THE CLEAR ZONE SHALL BE MAINTAINED ATALL INTERSECTIONS THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE IT S THE OWNERS EESPONSOLRY TO MAINTAIN THE RANT MATERIAL ATA HEIGHT OF NOT OVER THIRTY (30) INCHES ABOVE PAVEMIENTAND PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED SIGHT DISTANCE FOR DRIVERS N VEH IGIES APPROACHING THE NIHdK710N. 30. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF AT LEAST EIGHTY LBO) INCHES MUST BE PROVDED ABOVE WALKS ATALL TIMES. IT IS THE OWNERS IFSP NSBUTYTO MAINFAN TREES AND OTHER OVERHANGING OBJECTS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEADROOM TO COMPLY WITH AOA GUIDEINEL -EACH TREE TO RECEIVE TERRHSORB SIpEAAA50RRIxT POLYMER, WK IN BWKFLL PER MWUFACRIR'LIYS SPECIRCATI0IS. -CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PERCOIATDN OF PLAIT PR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION • STA'KE ALL EVERGREEN TREES UNDER 12' HIGH • TREE SOUL BEAR SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FLASH GRACE AS IT BORE OwNALLY •NEVER CUT CENTRAL LEADER • PANE ONLY TO REMOVE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES • ALL NON - BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED FROM ROOT BALL 90VK RANTING AND BACKRLING. .STAID: TREES JUST BELOW FIRST BRANCH WITH 2'-3' WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR PLASTIC STRAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAKE OPPOSITE FROM EACH OMEN AND ALLOW FOR SOME TLUGN07 00 NOT USE WIRE OR ROPE THROUGH A NOSE. REINEM HARDWOOD STAKES PER TREE AFTER FIRST WINTER. 2'Q'r8' -4' 131 I OF MULCH CRIME STAKES INTO UNDISTURBED - xEMO![ BURLAP AND WINE FROM SOL 6 -8' OUTSIDE OF RORBVl TE A DEPTH OF 1B' BELOW TREE PIT. - TOP E {J OF HALL • MOUND TO FORM SAUCER IY Mlx-m- FNISH GRADE 1 P,,A.VTINC SOIL MIXTURE SCARIFY TO 4' OEPTH AND COMPACT STAKES TO EXTEND IV BELOW TREE PIT N UNDISTURBED GROUND DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL z EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL DEPTH MULM AS SPECLMD PLNHTINC SPA lw WT€RLA. kOF+� NOTE: SET TANS WITH BOTTOM LEAVES AT OWE AFTER MULCHING PLANT To WITHIN T FOOT OF TREE OR SHRUB. /51 ANNUAL. PERENNIAL, GROUN COVER PLANTING DETAIL txE alw AcTAK F7 OP/!'JT LAIOSCJRE tO�G rSa 0 PLBRIIK ND DEPM VARIES iawMr � SPECIFICATIONS. .CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY" PERCOLATION OF RAKE PIE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION . TREE BALL SHAL WAR SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRACE AS IT BORE OIGJMALLY . PRUNE TO THIN AND SHAPE CANOPY .LEE ONLY ONE STAN FOR TREES UNDER 4' HT. . REMOVE ALL TAGS. STRNG. PLASTICS AM OTHER MATERIALS THAT ARE UNSIGHTLY AM COULD CAUSE GIRDLING, • ALL NON -BODE7TADMLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOT SAL BEFORE PLANTING AND BAOKFIWNC. - STAKE TREES JUST BELOW FRST BRANCH WITH 2-37 WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR R/LM STRAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAG! OPPOSITE Nat ALLOW FOR TREE - FLEXING - ). DO NOT USE WINE OR ROPE THROUGH A HOSE. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEN. TREE WRAP FROM TOP DOWN. REMOVE AFTER FIRS WRIER - 4' DEEP OF MULCH -MOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM TOP 113 OF BAIL MOUND TO FORM SAUCER -FINISH GRADE 5011 Wa TO 4 DEPTH AND RECOMPACI 0 CTCD 1B' BELOW TREE PIT ruR ON✓IO ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL_ IAa4 ('At WK V" 6 META IN L EDGING DETAL LAMA T4DrTDenMe NOTE= MaalamaWIl HedBSlalve Sg4e P& M04 NWWM V Mft molt 7T wwM348R Ma• WLdtic 3C CorowicYR 2111= RLdI NMM Ramon" ePaNad 701 Hdtr ILm BRa11a. New la gOa031 PN x56.9317011 F OS6.931JgR0 7 VASE Waa (wAPT+ Eq-4 NOTTICISOV.E NCTEST alafa�ael. FaR1udN! SW ,.AM9�a1 dIJa1rtlEe TThlj/t 1756 Mlw WIN!•c 26' TJNlm xftc Same FItENC NNUMI H.** wcIrw"IN 201 Hr hr PIT= M*MSL 13011 ymGLll Ht x56.9317011 NWw1aftrmeme B LARGE PLANER 1 AtD IVArPMVW NOTTOSCAE . EACH TREE TO RECEIVE TERRA -SORB H SUPERABSORBWT POLYMER. M% N R BACKFILL PER MANUFACTURER'S ft INP6 n FMV�' SPECI.M.. �� Mm71/LxP RIO M41 MI lw- sa'r..>< • CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATION .09M I Vt FS 111/7xr R61c 11- Nt On6aAwd.aavdalA OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION aWWWm LrM.W5_ -STAKE TREES UNDER 4' CALIPER ARMAa.D �wlu,01" TI0LL7Q A4l� aw A •TREE BALL SYAL BEAR SAME fM 11L7Je61 1a; �70a7a27NF WAIAFU4RalI■Is..mTl REATIONSHP TO FINISH GRADE AS R BORE ORIGINALLY • PRIME TO THIN AG SERAPE CMOP1' • USE ONLY ONE STAKE FOR TREES UNDER 4' HT. . SET STATES VEFRCNLY AND EVENLY STAKE TREES .AET BELOW FIRST BRANCH WORN 2'-3' WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR PLASTIC STRAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAKE OPPOSITE FROM EACH OTHER. _ AND ALLOW FOR SOME TUDONC) DO NOT USE WRE OR ROPE THROUGH A WOOD STAKE HOSE. REMOVE AFTER FIRST WINTER. 2'X2' %B' - TREE WRAP FROM TOP DOWN. ROAM AFTER FIRST WINTER. NODE S?Agf 4' DEEP OF MULCH 2'A2'A0' REMOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM 12' Momm TOP 113 OF BALL T2' WHOLN MOUND TO FORM SAUCER GRADE Mm - DEPTH WRI _ PUNTNO SOL MIX DFPIH VALES H i N -� SCARIFY TO 4' DEPTH AND RECOMPACT II STAKES TD EXTEND 15' BELOW TREE PR IN UNDISTURBED GROUND -EACH TREE TO RECEIVE TERRHSORB SIpEAAA50RRIxT POLYMER, WK IN BWKFLL PER MWUFACRIR'LIYS SPECIRCATI0IS. -CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PERCOIATDN OF PLAIT PR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION • STA'KE ALL EVERGREEN TREES UNDER 12' HIGH • TREE SOUL BEAR SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FLASH GRACE AS IT BORE OwNALLY •NEVER CUT CENTRAL LEADER • PANE ONLY TO REMOVE DAMAGED OR BROKEN BRANCHES • ALL NON - BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED FROM ROOT BALL 90VK RANTING AND BACKRLING. .STAID: TREES JUST BELOW FIRST BRANCH WITH 2'-3' WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR PLASTIC STRAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAKE OPPOSITE FROM EACH OMEN AND ALLOW FOR SOME TLUGN07 00 NOT USE WIRE OR ROPE THROUGH A NOSE. REINEM HARDWOOD STAKES PER TREE AFTER FIRST WINTER. 2'Q'r8' -4' 131 I OF MULCH CRIME STAKES INTO UNDISTURBED - xEMO![ BURLAP AND WINE FROM SOL 6 -8' OUTSIDE OF RORBVl TE A DEPTH OF 1B' BELOW TREE PIT. - TOP E {J OF HALL • MOUND TO FORM SAUCER IY Mlx-m- FNISH GRADE 1 P,,A.VTINC SOIL MIXTURE SCARIFY TO 4' OEPTH AND COMPACT STAKES TO EXTEND IV BELOW TREE PIT N UNDISTURBED GROUND DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL z EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL DEPTH MULM AS SPECLMD PLNHTINC SPA lw WT€RLA. kOF+� NOTE: SET TANS WITH BOTTOM LEAVES AT OWE AFTER MULCHING PLANT To WITHIN T FOOT OF TREE OR SHRUB. /51 ANNUAL. PERENNIAL, GROUN COVER PLANTING DETAIL txE alw AcTAK F7 OP/!'JT LAIOSCJRE tO�G rSa 0 PLBRIIK ND DEPM VARIES iawMr � SPECIFICATIONS. .CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY" PERCOLATION OF RAKE PIE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION . TREE BALL SHAL WAR SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRACE AS IT BORE OIGJMALLY . PRUNE TO THIN AND SHAPE CANOPY .LEE ONLY ONE STAN FOR TREES UNDER 4' HT. . REMOVE ALL TAGS. STRNG. PLASTICS AM OTHER MATERIALS THAT ARE UNSIGHTLY AM COULD CAUSE GIRDLING, • ALL NON -BODE7TADMLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE ROOT SAL BEFORE PLANTING AND BAOKFIWNC. - STAKE TREES JUST BELOW FRST BRANCH WITH 2-37 WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR R/LM STRAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAG! OPPOSITE Nat ALLOW FOR TREE - FLEXING - ). DO NOT USE WINE OR ROPE THROUGH A HOSE. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEN. TREE WRAP FROM TOP DOWN. REMOVE AFTER FIRS WRIER - 4' DEEP OF MULCH -MOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM TOP 113 OF BAIL MOUND TO FORM SAUCER -FINISH GRADE 5011 Wa TO 4 DEPTH AND RECOMPACI 0 CTCD 1B' BELOW TREE PIT ruR ON✓IO ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL_ IAa4 ('At WK V" 6 META IN L EDGING DETAL LAMA T4DrTDenMe NOTE= MaalamaWIl HedBSlalve Sg4e P& M04 NWWM V Mft molt 7T wwM348R Ma• WLdtic 3C CorowicYR 2111= RLdI NMM Ramon" ePaNad 701 Hdtr ILm BRa11a. New la gOa031 PN x56.9317011 F OS6.931JgR0 7 VASE Waa (wAPT+ Eq-4 NOTTICISOV.E NCTEST alafa�ael. FaR1udN! SW ,.AM9�a1 dIJa1rtlEe TThlj/t 1756 Mlw WIN!•c 26' TJNlm xftc Same FItENC NNUMI H.** wcIrw"IN 201 Hr hr PIT= M*MSL 13011 ymGLll Ht x56.9317011 NWw1aftrmeme B LARGE PLANER 1 AtD IVArPMVW NOTTOSCAE BIRD FE1�ER - AL STATUE - PIPING BOY MnaA pAEpWA'ad�Ildl NOTTOSCALE EAa4 i .w" NOT705GAE NOTE Aft.A ate: NW A M tp h.WI $! MIT mue ftbbk a !17 Nw. MW. OI[FSe nraMx Fear R.IrNL11 Wind wa M fLavYbld fA asTA Mt2m7a2Mk7 Rac ai)677flI AINVY4Rm�lwI.MRNn SPONff STATUE - RABBIT MHa p,A -" NOrTOSCALE EACH SHRUB TO RECEIVE TETRA -SORB SUPERABSORBANT POLYMER, MIX N BA36AL PER WNUFACTURFTYS SPECIFICATIONS. . CDKTMCIOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATKN OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO NSTALUTWH. • PLANT SHALL BEM SAYE RELATIONSHIP TO FNm GRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY. •PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES- ALL NON- BIODEGRABLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED BFFDRE PL.MING AND BACKFlWNG. 4' OF MULCH WOOD TO FORM SANDER N PRIM OWE • REMOVE COLLAR FROM FIBER CONTAINER AND PUNCTURE. _ • AL META- CONTAINERS ARE TO BE REN W �Iv REMOVE BURLAP MO TWINE FROM TOP 113 OF BALL PLANT WXTRE PLANING SOIL MIK WAR" SOIL TO 4' DEPTH MD RECOMPACT 4 SFRUB PLANTING DETAIL ..: rWt raeca.nH.t Lyle 162FIF # ypdW4aAdINw NKAMJM: a a+c u• w T{5I1s CTrtPwW.AVartA FN S M3eaw isfWMl7n1 NO= MNAN" A RFat}w 4 qY Ala fAafO Arv.1 IId JIM Ml�c , agine Ea N` n dlr alarr � .wTr nlln IImA>a HaOde�g M 1101 N hIrb." RIaIN1aI. Nwi>ga ®1 Rea IL 11 I mISIA L rrowlnddslve q BIRD HOUSE BEtD BARN EAaa (QAw-w NOTTOSCALE Ewa. pN mapm NJOTTDSC.AE NOTES Piaalama r ry lh Lr hand SNxa Sgt Nn273 D" HdgIC Lar¢ Sal Node B - 43' CwI9rMGiii= LadlaPWVMbww IagsOn@lad p kL filh am! KM woM L)aldl add STm MCIN"Rud PA. 9mT 40 Ht 203.7Na363 Fa 203.7622999 U4V VJVWa10amNR METAL STATUE -CRANE _ IQAP SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS Team Landec" Archft=Wm Land FIannIn9 Ralph L. HN RUC, ASIA L wdaeapa AmhMaal OhIG 11a8WD tkia Y.L4449M D"IpnTeam Limbad 17255 W. Tan MI PAW Sout W. MI 48075 P. 24&888.1000 F: 240.588.5717 ..W.aAIaN11..rrlrL,oA SUNRISE SENIOR LINING INC. 4W5V=DyW 12 RBIIbUTaarlp. Mdipl 4017 INt b56wmi FA1L'5A6.V➢ MI P.j,d Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio Dmgr^ d /Dm MW /RGO Ch.-W /AW-d TIN Jab P DI96.50 RM D196.50 SP. 6- 21 -07. d.9 Date /R : .. b..d For 5/07 _IUr b.erYd A'A. 6121/07 For SR. Pk. A P I I� OwMH1T= °WIT DaxyylT4r.0 L }O1d lWi Door.wa.W I4 n[}AI wW egrar.G N.n.■P4tla•I+r Ana VVA DM N146w MvA tIW WTRYrnpNn.Mpld w.r,rN.T IAVbd. I v,H IA-1,0 H R HOE! M AdI.al Saa r. T1 ft INP6 n FMV�' Nam wm_tl rV>• �� Mm71/LxP RIO M41 MI lw- sa'r..>< fomL.0- Lind .09M I Vt FS 111/7xr R61c 11- Nt On6aAwd.aavdalA AfYN Nw wcwiiw aWWWm LrM.W5_ "MO fa ARMAa.D �wlu,01" TI0LL7Q A4l� aw A Mt /10764440 rw.0 m fM 11L7Je61 1a; �70a7a27NF WAIAFU4RalI■Is..mTl BIRD FE1�ER - AL STATUE - PIPING BOY MnaA pAEpWA'ad�Ildl NOTTOSCALE EAa4 i .w" NOT705GAE NOTE Aft.A ate: NW A M tp h.WI $! MIT mue ftbbk a !17 Nw. MW. OI[FSe nraMx Fear R.IrNL11 Wind wa M fLavYbld fA asTA Mt2m7a2Mk7 Rac ai)677flI AINVY4Rm�lwI.MRNn SPONff STATUE - RABBIT MHa p,A -" NOrTOSCALE EACH SHRUB TO RECEIVE TETRA -SORB SUPERABSORBANT POLYMER, MIX N BA36AL PER WNUFACTURFTYS SPECIFICATIONS. . CDKTMCIOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATKN OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO NSTALUTWH. • PLANT SHALL BEM SAYE RELATIONSHIP TO FNm GRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY. •PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES- ALL NON- BIODEGRABLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED BFFDRE PL.MING AND BACKFlWNG. 4' OF MULCH WOOD TO FORM SANDER N PRIM OWE • REMOVE COLLAR FROM FIBER CONTAINER AND PUNCTURE. _ • AL META- CONTAINERS ARE TO BE REN W �Iv REMOVE BURLAP MO TWINE FROM TOP 113 OF BALL PLANT WXTRE PLANING SOIL MIK WAR" SOIL TO 4' DEPTH MD RECOMPACT 4 SFRUB PLANTING DETAIL ..: rWt raeca.nH.t Lyle 162FIF # ypdW4aAdINw NKAMJM: a a+c u• w T{5I1s CTrtPwW.AVartA FN S M3eaw isfWMl7n1 NO= MNAN" A RFat}w 4 qY Ala fAafO Arv.1 IId JIM Ml�c , agine Ea N` n dlr alarr � .wTr nlln IImA>a HaOde�g M 1101 N hIrb." RIaIN1aI. Nwi>ga ®1 Rea IL 11 I mISIA L rrowlnddslve q BIRD HOUSE BEtD BARN EAaa (QAw-w NOTTOSCALE Ewa. pN mapm NJOTTDSC.AE NOTES Piaalama r ry lh Lr hand SNxa Sgt Nn273 D" HdgIC Lar¢ Sal Node B - 43' CwI9rMGiii= LadlaPWVMbww IagsOn@lad p kL filh am! KM woM L)aldl add STm MCIN"Rud PA. 9mT 40 Ht 203.7Na363 Fa 203.7622999 U4V VJVWa10amNR METAL STATUE -CRANE _ IQAP SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS Team Landec" Archft=Wm Land FIannIn9 Ralph L. HN RUC, ASIA L wdaeapa AmhMaal OhIG 11a8WD tkia Y.L4449M D"IpnTeam Limbad 17255 W. Tan MI PAW Sout W. MI 48075 P. 24&888.1000 F: 240.588.5717 ..W.aAIaN11..rrlrL,oA SUNRISE SENIOR LINING INC. 4W5V=DyW 12 RBIIbUTaarlp. Mdipl 4017 INt b56wmi FA1L'5A6.V➢ MI P.j,d Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio Dmgr^ d /Dm MW /RGO Ch.-W /AW-d TIN Jab P DI96.50 RM D196.50 SP. 6- 21 -07. d.9 Date /R : .. b..d For 5/07 _IUr b.erYd A'A. 6121/07 For SR. Pk. A P I I� OwMH1T= °WIT DaxyylT4r.0 L }O1d lWi Door.wa.W I4 n[}AI wW egrar.G N.n.■P4tla•I+r Ana VVA DM N146w MvA tIW WTRYrnpNn.Mpld w.r,rN.T IAVbd. I v,H IA-1,0 w: ConNmoC�SiINAan :lasz3°_o�w;1x hm_F ,Ntr�r1 0 1a -Id q Schematic First Floor Pla AL T I� UNIT MIX TOTAL AREA 22 SF % SINGLE 7 32% DOUBLE 5 23% DENVERS 10 45% TOTAL UNITS 22 100% AREA GROSS 65,800 SF 3/32" = 1' -0" SUNRISE Senior Livin of Dublin, OH ° 6' Id' 3/32" =l. Sheet 101a 22 June 2007 J C d•� �3Wr2 IINk� Y :. •OAO ATH MOON SFNIN6 F—I VA 22151 -2�� ylN3 A25. 3 N51 rr r.beeryrl v.rer INJ...A25..... N:\ ConsiDoc \SilePlor.s \06230_Dublin \21 June07 \Dublin_SecondFlr102a.dwg Schematic Second Floor Plan AL & TC UNIT MIX TOTA AREA 21,483 SF % SINGLE 10 33% DOUBLE 9 30% DENVERS 11 37% TOTAL UNITS 30 100% AREA GROS7 65,800 SI 3/32" = 1' -0" SUNRISE Senior Livin ^ � of Dublin, OH y Sheet 102a 22 June 2007 �}� 11— 1 •oar eAAD cA AOAO IIHOrIELD 062'3&000 3/32 — 1 '� 11 rLODA D13D3 -336 fe5J rrr.neeryrly re Jy . m103- e]6.A]ID N:\ ConsIDoc \SilePlons \06230_Dublin \21 June07 \Dublin_ThirdFlr I03o.dwg Schematic Third Floor Plan REM C UNIT MIX TOTAL AREA 21,622 SF % SINGLE 7 25 DOUBLE 10 36 % DENVERS 11 39% TOTAL UNITS 128 100% AREA GROSS 65,800 SF 3/32" = 1' -0" -4 SUNRISE Senior Livin of Dublin, OH p 8' 1E' J7' 3132 " =l' -0" Sheet 103a 22 June 2007 o�o.rx noon sruxsnuo v n e —sv sao 06�0,D00 jnvor.ii� sosv �.....ae.rr.rn..em Iq oor. LPN MNPLES (DW7.PPD) CUL,IMED SIONE S STNMERC =rte vn.m (SURRME raw M LEDGE) S AL R � (M33 ROPE (AL1D PPRREn) roof cPLUwws SUNRISE of Dublin, OH Senior Livin NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL/COLOR LEGEND ® Pa.vosrrca SHPC IM�R.PPPR�NN�"� ® fF]OIRROOS s .' EJD'OSNS (%H MN wuuus wwLE W T / TM) ® CEIQmnOLLS S Y EYPRSI.E (SRFAWR IM1lYY6 RO'TADVT Doss OINE GRL ) ® S A AMC s METAL R" CZMC / SLV PRAY) SYMMETIC MW EAC (—RK YPIMfAM IEDPE/L TAN) Sheet 201a June 22, 2007 ,2' r� r� 102 n_yy —1r "0 rr .o :awoaorr.a.o.rM eroa. r.rrrnnrcovA �:rsr g62yp._ppp .1. 'y . . .a...0 r4: \C -i SHNGLB n- (DF*T* (waTw000) CEWDffFrXPA 4' ws (mm CRAY!) ewers (wviE) CEVEWIllld6 7 l SI (RICE C ) SYNTHM STONE bQFDt- (SIRIRSE MWK Nl IFDCE) mm mwus - - -- iwu (s 1 /2* - SOUTH ELEVATION 1 cowm n ( cm» 55TONE sa {suwu wpLiTArI uw6 Z — --4ws�--l- SUNRISE of Dublin, OH Senior Livin EAST ELEVATION MATERIALS /COLORS LEGEND ® COUPO5RI0N SNrA'AFS (°wr"m°°/rm /aEY) ® COEICRKKB 5i 4' EMPOSORE (5![RNIN Wr11V6 WHIX WIfAT / TAM) ® COIDWOB SDW 7 OIPOSORE (SNE M WW ROTCROR BR,155 / OINE W ) ® STAIdNG SEN1 YETAL RODi Cas / SILN4Rr CWAYJ ® SYNREIIC STORE EACM (4Alr5E W M IIDOE /llONr TM) Sheet 202a June 22, 2007 0 A 1Q' S7 3/3 IIw /� 'I 3/32 —� I - ll mro :zs ion ..ee %r•�e �:TlYmaoa.us.sa�e ZSU of \R 7A lJ1'Itk 9 BEERYRIO Sunrise of Dublin, OH A N C X IT E C T U REH NT C x 10 xs 06230 06/22/07 North Elevation West Elevation C-)EERYRID St1 sE Sunrise of Dublin 9 51 S TED LIVINC' ARCHITECTURE +INTERIORS South Elevation EastElevation S UM USE BEERYRIO Sunrise of Dublin ssmTEDLIVING ARCH ITECTURE+INTERIORS LA CtALA i `_ I ] ^JA m � f STONER COURT !� I rJ w�41 I. r I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I I I L � - - - -� F- I ! I! I I ! d I d J SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING Dublin Franklin County, Ohio SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, a 15 Overall Illustrative Plan INC. ' F • Team 48945 Van Uj*e A�ue, SUhE 12 (CfF4 Sheby Tim- hip, Michigan 48317 Landscape Architecture .:588.997.3951 SCALF. F -Off FAX5MM7.3211 Land Planning " Plan is for illustrative purposes and is subject to modification without notification I p � —gyp ! r cn W r m a a W } 3 a Not to Scale FIRST FLOOR PLAN SHEET INDE SECOND FLOOR PLAN 103a SITE & CIVIL 201a C -1 REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP C -2 AREA PLAN C -3 VICINITY MAP C -4 EXISTING CONDITIONS C -5 TREE SURVEY TABLE C -6 SITE PLAN C -7 UTILITY PLAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LA -1.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN LA -1.1 PRELIMINARY PORTE COCHERE & COURTYARD PLANTING PLAN LA -1.2 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN LA -1.3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS LA -2.0 SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS 1010 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 102a SECOND FLOOR PLAN 103a THIRD FLOOR PLAN 201a NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS 202a SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS APWWI Dot* Planning & Zoning Commission Secr lacy Vote Approval Planning Commission bale C"XIA 0010 P L .J ® l REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP: 1 " =300' F a. 0 f a p P 0 _ � p D p J 6 p to r V Z O ZLu —O Q } J D— Z O W — U 0� J o J � LLJ L P W Z L Q O D Z _ �i V O J Lu t ZU CL w PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP SUMMSE SMOR LIVING Evans. Mech —.Ho ,Icn &iAl — Inc Enp�se ft— •'•web DATE. Mar1.w ft-Mm — 2]. m7 RFRtRO RFYS$ED: REVI6 RWV . RINMD: RECE AUG 0 3 2007 I.n•w ;,u�n CITY OF DUBI IN C I LAND USE LONG RANGE PL NNI . LOCATION MAP: V AREA PLAN: 1 " =300' L Z 0 O LL z w O Q _T J r n d v I C H � Z O D- J O w > ry LL LU Q�01 Z 0 ::E V) O J Z� �■■m cn PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA PLAN S l.� 1 V it. SE SENIOR LIVING Ev o.a eeedv..m�.�wmto�enx Wmn: •d39n.e�.':ufs�m.RrwM •StMgah f�oD�rw w+FeH fa.0 Gv}rkw O!� •]Eit. ffiff} VG'. 2S. M ��e REVATi Y� .ISEG - Pei 1 4 PIP OAKLAND NURSERY R�l 2 VILLAS AT LA SCALA LJ LJ oo k o - I R -2 R -2 R_2 R -: � 1 " =60' 4 I LR- W ED R -2 OED z 0 LL Zw - 0 Q EL V Z O w — U �ry J c w � w Z LL 0 c z� J � z U CL V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN VICINITY MAP PREPARED E - C/_ �1 " � 'I �T��L -+�R' !.J V .4 • SLm SENIOR LIVING E. ERaMkEO!+L 1EI�. Mie'. DATE MaV I.=7 RE CED GR MCS AEE d0 D w w IAI 1 LA SCALA F I 1 1 1 \ I r � I 1 � 1 / , I � I l r r r y 11899 I �• f I ■ ■AA]] 1190, _ 11902 11900 -- ' \ I 117"61 15317 153!6 - -7 ' I I �� M h M ^) h N N N DD 11898 G I L � VILLAS AT LA SCALA 1 rn q N q � 0 � � zz zz ,1897 F I 11895 L 1;742 lB l ^— 15123 , - - 11889 L r r887 Y I \ 11 &84 — . 1 "515 1Iasi — y 01882 - 4 "1877 � SS�� 11878 ;;i y ± 5.625 Acres f 11875 ^.� ! 118 98 I / I ! ! 1 EXISTING TREE Kw- . J,74s 11746 1 "886 f 11883 I r t EXISTING GRASS FIELD - TALL QECIDUOUS CANOPY -SCRUB VEGETATION AT GROUND LEVEL 11867 11&64 11873 13.357 �, 11685 f � 62 1"6 118 62 ti 11659 GEN TLE SLOPE: 11 .6%1 11848- 23W I I ` f 1 I l � l I I j I r f EXISTING CONDTIONS PLAN: I _ , O ` V r` I E XISTIN G S TONER IC o m I I � U 0 ! N I / z I Lu 'PE DRIVE � a � T - P U D I I I I I I r � ~ l I I A-073850" \ 1 L= 035'19" 1 ChB-588 ti R= IF= 00' � OhD =129.37' � Arc= 706.46' }� ChB = 58939'13 7 II �I Cho = 106.41 ra.err. r+rr.. rnEr7r - r 1`a Eyl \1E \ I i l r _ � 1 1 =40' CPj I I � L i � \ \ SUNNYDALE STATES 876, r J J 1 I - 1 1 h n b w ^ w c rR xu alvrvclsluvc u Trc � I t 1. ., S8 41' 117"61 15317 153!6 - -7 ' I �� M h M ^) h N N N DD N N N N R'k 1 rn q N q � 0 � � zz zz YrT i+( \ 75127 1;742 lB l ^— 15123 , I 1 r7� � 1124 OPEN VIZ70 ADJACENTMULLTI- ENSTING DRAINAGE t, ., '' FAMILY RESIDENTIAL . 1 "515 1513 �• _ � ,. � 1 132 " i r5s4a _ � SS�� 92 � �� / l ± 5.625 Acres f � ^.� ! 118 98 I / I ! ! 1 EXISTING TREE Kw- . J,74s 11746 1 "886 f 11883 I r t EXISTING GRASS FIELD - TALL QECIDUOUS CANOPY -SCRUB VEGETATION AT GROUND LEVEL 11747 "1749 13.357 �, 15759 73295 I~ IIr I J GEN TLE SLOPE: 11 .6%1 YT755 1 t ` 23W 1752 -• 11871 1 TALL CANOPY / I ! 11 11868 • . SOMEUNDERSTCIRY PLANT MATERIAL I 117 �— s y • } � 778668 ,1857 1 1 1 I I I ! 1 1)75 ---:- V l� -! 11846 yr I a w o f I I m 1 F / d 11781 11847 �•" � ��T ..� .. - ..F..�,�.� I / w ° y �P . Vil a_. s p N 7 " .R 741- 7., i l r _ � 1 1 =40' CPj I I � L i � \ \ SUNNYDALE STATES 876, r J J 1 I - 1 1 h n b w ^ w c rR xu alvrvclsluvc u Trc � I t 1. 117"61 15317 153!6 - -7 ' I �� M h M ^) h N N N DD N N N N O /rn ,- 1 rn q N q � 0 � � zz zz YrT i+( \ 75127 1;742 lB l ^— 15123 , I 1 r7� � i l r _ � 1 1 =40' CPj I I � L i � \ \ SUNNYDALE STATES 876, r J J 1 I - 1 1 h n b w ^ w c rR xu alvrvclsluvc u Trc � I t 1. 117"61 15317 153!6 - -7 ' 117171 15316 =.. r 1740 \ 7532 ;...� -- 15170 YrT i+( \ 75127 1;742 lB l ^— 15123 , I 1 r7� � 1124 10.75 � ,. 1 1277 . 1 "515 1513 �• _ � 75335 132 " i r5s4a _ � SS�� 15343 y.0 r � t 15344 75346 �•-�'" �� 153 T5.74Y tow Ws0 f�� i 15353 4 ,513 "5.3M '. 13353 13.357 �, 15759 73295 11688 13380 Sul I I l 1 I \ I \ I \ I � I 1 I I I 1 I 754 I I � r t l h I f f I f I I 15446 II II I 1^ N t! I h h h h h h 2 \ l I 1 Y h h h N y , R. .2 1 / i NOTES: 1. EXISTING CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON THE FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS TOPOGRAPHY. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS \ELEVATIONS 2. FLOW ARROWS INDICATE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS 3. EXISTING PERIMETER TREES AND VEGETATION IN GOOD HEALTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED, WHERE FEASIBLE. 4. SEE SHEET C -5 FOR TREE SURVEY TABLE TREES 24" OR GREATER IN GOOD OR FAIR CONDITION s TREES 24" OR GREATER IN POOR CONDITION V tY Z O O _ s z LJ O Q J z U Lu J .C: CL O w wZ ". QUO Z O J t Lu Z� IL W L PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PREPARED F OR S � E ® SENIOR LIVING t�..qq�ce •k++ns)n •IKriLrn • M C ow sx9+a. Ewe ee+<r�wn. s>H uas, l.1We rs.�fun u.ra h 1.]1107 REVIM.; Rme 12.2007 REVISED - RSVlED. REV— REVISED: GRAN C SCALE W D m W 120! 1' =60 N(11 S Ire wIRlIEE.Lwu w-n xa7av2 R POINT N. DDH SPEICES C CONDITION NOTES 11888 1 _ 5PLICES WALRUT 16' r, OOD 71716 36' COTT NW 3 • FAIR TAGGED 794 1771 4" MAP 4' FAIR 117 9 24` MULBERRY 24 FAIR 11140 1 " HAGKBERRY 15. FAIR 1174 10 HACKBERRY 75' GOOD 11743 15" WALNUT 15' GOOD 11744 4" WILLOW a' GOOD TRIP 11745 4" ELM 4` rAI 31746 V MULBERRY ff goo 11747 6" BIR H 15' woo 117 1 CHERRY 15 GOOD 11 4 1 HACKBERRY 15' GOOD 11.7 4" _61RCFk 4' FAIR 11751 6" BOXEL. ER 15' F AIR 11752 IT R H 15' GOOD T 11753 6" WALNUT 15' GOOD 11754 18 CHERRY 15' 1 cow 177 6" WALNUT 15' FAIR 11756 f6 M91 16' GOOD 7 - 1.-" BIRCH is P R WIN 11758 10" MU RRY 15 D TWIN 71 WALNUT ' FIMR 11760 10" BIRCH 15" FAIR 1176E 1" A 15' p 11762 12' HACKBERRY 1.57 GOOD 11763 W BUCKEYE 15' GOOD TWIN 11 4 12' TULIP TRFF 15' FAIR 1176 12" HACKS RRY t FAIR TRIPLE 11789 4' OAK A FAIR 1177 6" WA 15' FAIR 11779 12" WALNUT 15' 0 117 6" HACKBERRY 1' FAIR 1 7 1 HA KEi 15 GOOD 11785 12' HACKBERRY 75' GOOD 11 1" HACKBERRY 15' F64R 11789 I O" WA NUT 15' FAIR 11790 4 H K RRY I ' FAIR 1T791 12 HACKBERRY 15 FAIR 1179 1 HACK . RRt' 95' FAIR 7 H RRY 15' FAI 11794 M 8" 1iAgK @f RY 18' F R 11795 8` NACK1ERRY 15` FAIR 777 " IMLH 1' F JMR 11800 6" HACKBERRY 15' FAIR 11801 8" HACKBERRY 15' _ 11.1 1 HAK RRY 1' POOR 11817 HACKBERRY 1 • TWN 11 810 8` HACKBERRY 5' I1 8" WALNUT 12 QF 11 8" HACKBERRY 1 ' F 1 1821 12 CHERRY 15' G= TWIN 1i 15" HACKBERRY 15' GOOD CLUSTER Or 3 11 1 " HA K RRY 1 FAIR 11EL 6" 1 MAP f5" FAIR lie 5 6 MA I." A 11 8" 1 ' FAIR _ TW9N 17 7 12" =JOS 1 FAIR TWIN ti 1 WALNUT I FAIR 11 14' WA T F' GQQQ CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (DRIP LINE I. The City of Dublin Code, 153 Land Use, Tree Preservation, 153.141 Definitions The area inscribed by an imaginary line on the ground beneath a free having its center point at the center of the trunk of the tree and having a radius equal to one foot for every inch of diameter breast height. 2• The City of Dublin Code, 153 Land Use, Construction Activities, 153.145 (A.) Protective Fencing The fencing or other protective barrier must be located a distance from the trunk that equals, at a minimum, the distance of the critical rool zone or 15 feet whichever is greater, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or designee (DBH). 3. Drip line is labeled in radius feet. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) POINT Nc. DBH SPEICES RZ 11 N NOTES 11830 " �16ffRRY f am 11831 6" HICKORY 1 • FAIR 11032 6" H K FRRY 15 FAIR 11 4 3 _ HICK RY 15' GOOD 1 1 HA, BERRY 15. FAIR 11842 6' HA KBERRY 15' G OOD 11843 14" HACKBERRY 15' GOOD 1l 45 14° W6LNUI i' FAIR 1184 4" 1 CHERRY 4' GOOD 11647 t N T W FAIR 11848 12 BOXELDER 15' GOOD I1 4" MWJXRR Y 4' POOR 11B57 3 RRY 32' POOR i1 12" M 1 O "1165 12 W INUT 15' G 118152 Ia. BORELDER 15. GOW T 1 T 15' GOOD Ijd§4 18 CHERRY 1 ' FAIR 11665 6 BOXELOER 15' FAIR 11866 8 MULBERRY 15' FAIR II N7 1.-" CHERRY Ia. q9OD 11868 12 COTTONWOOD 15 GOOD 11 7U x L R 15' FAIR 11871 iD" MLUCRRY 1 • GOODTW 7 1172 1" WA s FAIR 11673 12 WALNUT 15 G 11674 12' WA. N_ T 15' G OOD 11875 12" CHERRY 15 FAIR 11876_ 8" MULBERRY 15' FAIR _ 11877 4" WALNUT 4' FAIR 11 '• RY 15' GOQQ 11882 B B XELDER 15' FAIR 11883 8' ELM 15 FAIR Ii a64 1 • P OOR 11885 12' WALNUT 15 GOOD 11 1" WALNUT 157 FAIR 11887 6" WA 15' FAIR 11 4 Y 2 4 ' poop 11690 1 " p A T5 POOR 118 1 1 HA BERRY t , GO 11092 HACKBERRY 15' GOOD 11893 8" WA T ?5' DEAD IIE95 6" MAPLE 15' FAIR iS 6' MADE 1 F R 11897 a BOXELD R 15' G00D 11898 8" 80X£LJDER 15 CODE) _ 1 599 1 HACKBERRY 1' POOR 1 . IgOQ 8" 14AC KBERRY i9 GOOD TWN 1190T RRY 20' COOD 1 F M 15' GO 11 8" ELM 1 ' F 11904 e" MAPLE 15 G= TWIN 119 6" UNPLE 15' GOOD CLUSTER Or 3 119 HA RRY 15 - FAIR 11 O7 6" 1 MAP 1 FAIR 11908 6 MA 15* FAIR 119p9 8" MV 15' F OOD UST 15290 12" H. K RRY 15 G00 111 1 WALNUT 15 FAIR 1 14' WA T 15' GOOD I POINT NQ DDH SP RZ CONDI I N NOTES 15293 14" WALNUT 1 GOAD 15 94 16" WALNUT 16' GOOD 15295 14 T IP TREE 1 5 cow 15296 12 WALNUT 15' DEAD 153l 4 1 M GO 15315 IQ ELM 15' POOR 1 16 M 15 15317 t . ELM IS' FAIR 15318 12" ELM 15 POOR 1,5319 10' OSAGEORANGE 15 ' GOOD 15320 12 HACKBERRY 15' 0000 1 FAIR 15323 14° ELM 15' EAR 1532 18' MAPLE 18' ____ MR 15 1 T ' POOR P OR 15327 M 75• POOR 15328 18 ELM t FAIR 15329 14' am 15 POOR 1533 6' is* POOR 1 14" ELM 15' COOD 1 8" ELM 1 GOOD 1 CEORANCE 1' GOOD 15334 A EORANGE 15 FAJR 1 6" M TV 15336 8" ELM 15' GOOD 15337 14' ELM 15' 0000 15538 1 9 IV cow 1 $0" ASH 15' G00D _ 15340 6" kLACXKRRY 15' FAIR f '• HA KB RRY 15' FAIR 153 42 4 ELM 24' FAIR 153 6 OSA "ORANGE 15' FAIR 153 44 l y GOOD 1534 M 15 153 8" ELM 15' GOOD 15347 a" ELM 15' GOQD 153 46 5 HA KUVPRY 1 FAIR 15349 6" HA KBERRY 15" FAIR 12' ELM 15' 15351 _ 1 5' GOOD 15352 6" - LM.. 15' GOO 15353 WALNUT 1 ' GOOD 2d GOOD 15 15' ELM 15 GOOD 1 HACK 15' F R 15J57 1 M 15 GOOD 153 1 M 1 ' F NR 1 HA RY 15' FIR 15360 1 " LM 15' FAIR 7 61 WALNUT FAIR 15362 0" MAPLE 0' FAIR 1 63 6" HA KERRY 15' FAIR 1 4 M 15 FAIR 14' COTTONWOOD 1 FAIR 15446 6 COTTON 15 FAIR 1 45 6" EL 15 FAIR 15454 1 " MAP 7 FAI 15A55 1 3, 0 A RAN 15 FAIR V Z O LL Z w — O Q } o D z — 0 W C O " C >ZQ:�° � C 7 z � � (n o W L_ Z W V) PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TREE SURVEY TABLE .ur,up r,�c SENIOR LIVING rs.r.n41n ®® r en< M!e wp1, t omoplor 41-u rc (rip•SpEtii•SUrey4n •fpmee •7eienMk 7rw r+... rawe �eaa rwran r Girt NW 1. MW REVLSEO: Jv 22,2001 REVSED REVISF�: REVisEO: �Yna1r GRAPHIC SCALE a 0 n 0 1az I =f0 M'.7141 vast C -5 7U1-81 AVMOLn aG •:Z+r956] STONERIDGE DRIVE _ SHAMROCK BLVD. -�- T.• -- 87{1= -_-_ ,� .. -•_•• - I W I :I / _30' I otrmanfbpc.F _ _ �_ _ - UND - SD ­y Setback far one story 1 _ — — - build 50 PavBmmn! Sslaock. ) I 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH I TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. REVISED: i SERVICE MANEUVERING AREA I •• SUB-AREA 'A' REVISED:: SITE AREA: ±4.000 Ac. " -�- PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING; BO UNITS - ' E spa PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES 3 HANDICAPPED SPACES (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE) � 45 REGULAR SPACES (9x19) - t., I .. 741.17' ' PARKING REQUIRED: 40 SPACES I SPACE PER 6 BEDS PLUS 1 PER EMPLOYEE (DURING LARGEST SHIFT) 2 HANDICAPPED SPACES REQUIRED SUB -AREA 'B' SITE AREA: ±1,625 Ac. FUTURE OFFICE j NOTES: 3 / r ` J I f r I I I 7 I I PROPOSED SITE PLAN: 1 " =30' r� _ qRY BASIN z F t i J ___ ' r"N86 57'15 "W SIGN V i l a i I:LE BENCH [TYPICAL) - ,• � f�-- DUMPSTER SHADED PORTION OF FIRE ACCESS TURN AROUND TO BE REMOVED WITH FUTURE FIRE ACCESS /CONNECTIONS THROUGH SUB- AREA'B' a 51599 R -WaOg` l c 1Od.44` Mc T2R- Ar Chg g J99�r ra a -ssb re 7 rq�i! JO Bvadl), Gf po. l I safaeck y GAZEBO - I I — l � 7 1 r E - Y - r -� I f Ir t I I t t • I -•.� I I I rc,.l.• I I 1 1� I I I 1 I �- I �, I FLAG POLE �$./ I 1 •i - 11 1 17 r 1 I f �1 i 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH , ., I Li- - * -��, .I C I� 1 1 1 1 SUB- 4REA'B i l BENCH {TYPICAL) I I I j t, FUTURE OFFICE I I PATIO GARDENS I �`. , . (CONCEPTUAL PLAN) COVERED PORTE COCHERE (WITH FENCE ✓ = n ENCLOSURE) 1 °-- 5U8- AREA'A' 2Y2 STORY LJ_ LL J_ L�JI I SENIOR HOUSING 365BODS.F. TOTAL SITE AREA: ( 1 FUTURE FIRE ' `fy N k 5.625 Ae.t �� , ACCESS/ I CO NNECTIO N ro AREA f I I �' 83` Brn7dag SeN7ack Tar buAU -gy 1 I I BS'J9aJ7 - elb �•P' — _ —°° - oae story_ — — — _ L J I I !WACC I NRN A� 5 % 1 1 _30' I otrmanfbpc.F _ _ �_ _ - UND - SD ­y Setback far one story 1 _ — — - build 50 PavBmmn! Sslaock. ) PUD SITE DATA: 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH I TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. REVISED: i SERVICE MANEUVERING AREA I •• SUB-AREA 'A' REVISED:: i J ___ ' r"N86 57'15 "W SIGN V i l a i I:LE BENCH [TYPICAL) - ,• � f�-- DUMPSTER SHADED PORTION OF FIRE ACCESS TURN AROUND TO BE REMOVED WITH FUTURE FIRE ACCESS /CONNECTIONS THROUGH SUB- AREA'B' a 51599 R -WaOg` l c 1Od.44` Mc T2R- Ar Chg g J99�r ra a -ssb re 7 rq�i! JO Bvadl), Gf po. l I safaeck y GAZEBO - I I — l � 7 1 r E - Y - r -� I f Ir t I I t t • I -•.� I I I rc,.l.• I I 1 1� I I I 1 I �- I �, I FLAG POLE �$./ I 1 •i - 11 1 17 r 1 I f �1 i 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH , ., I Li- - * -��, .I C I� 1 1 1 1 SUB- 4REA'B i l BENCH {TYPICAL) I I I j t, FUTURE OFFICE I I PATIO GARDENS I �`. , . (CONCEPTUAL PLAN) COVERED PORTE COCHERE (WITH FENCE ✓ = n ENCLOSURE) 1 °-- 5U8- AREA'A' 2Y2 STORY LJ_ LL J_ L�JI I SENIOR HOUSING 365BODS.F. TOTAL SITE AREA: ( 1 FUTURE FIRE ' `fy N k 5.625 Ae.t �� , ACCESS/ I CO NNECTIO N ro AREA f I I �' 83` Brn7dag SeN7ack Tar buAU -gy 1 I I BS'J9aJ7 - elb �•P' — _ —°° - oae story_ — — — _ L J I I !WACC I NRN A� 5 % 1 1 / x , f I ) _30' I otrmanfbpc.F _ _ �_ _ - UND - SD ­y Setback far one story 1 _ — — - build 50 PavBmmn! Sslaock. ) PUD SITE DATA: 7' PEDESTRIAN PATH I TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. REVISED: i SERVICE MANEUVERING AREA I •• SUB-AREA 'A' REVISED:: SITE AREA: ±4.000 Ac. " -�- PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING; BO UNITS - ' E spa PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES 3 HANDICAPPED SPACES (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE) � 45 REGULAR SPACES (9x19) - t., I .. 741.17' / x , f I ) 1. SEE SHEET CA & C -5 FOR EXISTING TREE SURVEY INFORMATION, 2- HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED WITH WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT. V Z O O _ s LL Z 1 1 1 O J ■ Z 0 Lu I _j ,C O � w O Lu 7 LL o Q�O 0 O J � � Zu in V PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN S � E SENIOR LIVING Evarv, R10 Inc. Ewa— •Sevey— •Khoo •Scis 1W, 5500 Neva nbany Rood CoSxnWS, OH oos5 bF > i PUD SITE DATA: I TOTAL SITE AREA: ±5.625 Ac. REVISED: e SUB-AREA 'A' REVISED:: SITE AREA: ±4.000 Ac. " -�- PROPOSED SENIOR HOUSING; BO UNITS - , ±65,780 S,F. spa PARKING PROVIDED: 48 SPACES 3 HANDICAPPED SPACES (2 VAN ACCESSIBLE) � 45 REGULAR SPACES (9x19) ' PARKING REQUIRED: 40 SPACES I SPACE PER 6 BEDS PLUS 1 PER EMPLOYEE (DURING LARGEST SHIFT) 2 HANDICAPPED SPACES REQUIRED SUB -AREA 'B' SITE AREA: ±1,625 Ac. FUTURE OFFICE j NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET CA & C -5 FOR EXISTING TREE SURVEY INFORMATION, 2- HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED WITH WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT. V Z O O _ s LL Z 1 1 1 O J ■ Z 0 Lu I _j ,C O � w O Lu 7 LL o Q�O 0 O J � � Zu in V PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN S � E SENIOR LIVING Evarv, R10 Inc. Ewa— •Sevey— •Khoo •Scis 1W, 5500 Neva nbany Rood CoSxnWS, OH oos5 bF > REVISED June 222W REVIS J .-M7 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED:: wyY cR.w sa r.sp• �Ja.Jy, spa 4 Y X 8 Y, r a e O — — — 87 — \ - —4, I PROPOSED UTILITY 1 " =30' N: STONERIDGE SHAMROCK BLVD. -- - - - LEGEND: Sloan Sewer —A Sonilory Sewer Waler Line —w Of W Flood Roulirg Arrows y STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA (DRY BASIN) TRIBUTARY AREA (SUBAREAS 120 AND 2650) = 10.4 ACRES ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE (I YEAR PRE - DEVELOPMENT) = 5.59 CFS REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME - 1.62 AC. FT REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 0.63 AC. FT. TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED= 2.45 AC. FT. TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED= 2.72 AC. FT. J _ J � 7 ! I 1 NOTES: I. ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (DATED MARCH 16, 2004), THE SUBJECT PARCEL SHOWN HEREON LIES WITHIN ZONE X [AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2 %ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN) COMMUNITY PANEL NO.39049COl 26H. 2. EXISTING CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON THEFRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS TOPOGRAPHY. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS \eLEVATIONS. V Z O O zw O J > J C L U O J � w o w Z ". QZD O� Z J 7 ri w L U w in V PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN UTILITY PLAN P REPARED SUN E R, SENIOR LIVING Evora, McCh -1. Hanb 1-8 T.—­ F7(i —.:CVMWL Ravi 1. ham' co . o . H .0 OAR _ ace I.= i!e —".W Rel4w 1W�G bG iEkQ4J. r[ alc 30 r.arr. y � G7 Harr:`. ny�YlF�lr:e� W-: All MeTeam Landscape ArchlNcturo Land Planning Ralph L. Nun= RLA, AMA Landaeape AmNtaat Ohio Rapiahalbn v:1.41440770 INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE AREAS (SU &AREA 'A') : For each 100 sq. R., a minimum total of 5 sq. ft of landscaped area shall be provided. 24,730.97 sq. ft /100 sq. ft - 247.31 x 5 sq. ft = 1,236.55 sq. ft. landscaped area required. INTERIOR TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENT (SU&AREA - MI : Minimum 1 Tree for every 5,000 sq. R of ground coverage: Includes structures and vehkvvlar use areas. 49,565.96 sq, ft/5,000 sq. ft - 9.91 trees required. SITE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS: 1 tree I I trunk) for each 300 sq. R. In ground coverage. STR@:rTREEREQIRREIIIENTS w%1l Mac splrtrtg - 45 R between trees 53414 R of Well fnondge1r45 R -11.91 trees STREET TREE REQUIREMENT'S (SUB,AREA'B'I : Max spacing - 45 fit between trees. 272.54 ti, of Road frontage/45 R. - 6.06 trees. vue away u ueEenuon tsasln tsoaom I o be Seeded with Swale Mix PLANT MATERIAL SCHIEDULE: V � 1 V1JV�GV u - cr,Je e to vary from 4' to 6' with plantings at the top. OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT SHINES 33 IM Berbab x nrerttoretds Mentor Barbary SHADE TREE 5 AD Aar rt&= Tiarlared Red Sutrst Red Maple 2S CIL B&B 5 BN Betle niWe RWW B" 6' Ht dmp B&B 10 Gr Glealtd=t Inemits InlpoolC Impow Horwybaat 2.S CIL B&B 19 TI SLerev W" Lk do 25' Cal. B&B EVERGREEN TREE 35 FM Pk=Aftrlw Biackspium 8'- lop HL B&B 46 PP Pkee pungens Colorado Spruce 9- lo' HL B&B 30 IS Plxa sscobtx Ewtan W1Ite Spnsx 8' -10' HL B&B ORNAMENTALTREE Mhdon Arborvitae 5' HL B&B 72 To Thtp ooddartift 1Woodwardir 7 CW Cortex rAx White Fbwertg Dogwood 15 Call. B&B 12 MGMaQtWaxsoCifrtaarre saroarmagnow 15'CaL B&B B MF Mdta Pr*VW Prattle Crab 1 S CaL B&B 9 SR Syrtrgp rellolam tray SRC KvvarrazinI Flowering Chary 15 CIL B&B L.r NW W� IWYNY — NatNe Shrubs & Grp to (Promote WBdNie 1 SUB- AREA'A' SUB- AREA'B' RAIN GARDEN & DeTENITM PLANT NIATE NAL SCIaD11 111111 .+. OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT RAIN GARDEN VL9BEMTION SHINES 33 IM Berbab x nrerttoretds Mentor Barbary 36' HL Cont. 3 CA Corrus aloe Tfatarlo' Wary Hab Dogwood 24' Ht Cat 27 CS Cormis earkne to star Cardinal Red Oder Dogwood 36' HL Cans a H1 Hanw. rb x L Yapper Glow? Copper Gbw Wait Hazd 36' HL Cori 7 HV Hamarralls Wgh%M Common Wtdt Hotel 36' HC Cont. 4 PR Potentilla fruticosa'Abbotswood' Abbotswood Potentilla 24' Ht Com a Sf SpiraeeJapa Uft Prbrcms' Lttle fRlxao Spirm 16' HL Cont, 48 TM Tat a x nne - Ver llbmlb' Dane Yew 3W FIL B&B 50 TS T iolw x trre - SebloY Seblarn Yew 30' HL B&B 5 TW Taxta x meta Vt&W W1mrs Yew 19' Hs B&B 69 TT Thlin ocdderntits Tedap/ Mhdon Arborvitae 5' HL B&B 72 To Thtp ooddartift 1Woodwardir Woodwads Globe Arbortitne 24' HL B&B 4 VO Vbumim opt" TdwuW DwWFEuopeen 0e n afro ldt 24' HL cont. PEIIEIWBAIS 273 AN Asir rtomowgbe Vu* Dane RxW Dome New E CWW Aster) GaL Con; I1)' O.G 172 FIB Harteroa4s Tionertm' Dortsrtta Der I Gd, Cora; 12 368 HS Herneroa4s Sarmy ltmel Samry fAmdr Day* 1 GaL Conti 12 1641V b'b vadooloi Blue flap lie 1 CmL Conk 24' O.C. 105 LS Laranitimnm:'SnowLehr SnowLair9sastlOft I Gall. Conti 12'O.0 163 RF Mucibetlda nigh Yaoldsttam' Bddt Eyed anal t I GaL Cont.; la• O.C. MA TERIIA a UNIT 11a MULCH CY I to PLANT MIX CY 90 TERRA SORB Las CITYXEY 007AN1CAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT RAIN GARDEN VL9BEMTION AN Aster novae - New EnRertd' 1 Gd. Cat; 24' O.0 N Asd@PW 11t2YnIm Red Milkweed 1 Gal. Cora; 24' O.C. BA Boltorft aslerWdns Fable Astir 1 Gal. Cord; 24' O.0 N Iris verdoolor Blue Flag l6 1 Gal. Cont; 24' O.0 LP fitr6 pyvtostadye prow Blss' . I Gal. Cott; 24' O.C. PI Pa thankm IntegrSbYUn WId Ouhm I Gal. Corgi 24' aC. PD Pe ounon dlgkals Smooth Pentrsrwn I Gal. Conti 24' O.C. RP RdJ61de pleats YdIo Cnndlowc 1 Gal. Corn: 24' O.0 VF VeroNa tlarick ld= konweed 1 Gal. Con: 24' O.C. DETENTIONS m 45 Aces Sedge 0hatio The Nod Generation Seed .25Acrs SwakMk Seed NOTES: 1. Detention seed m& taken from Wormation Gene's Nursery : 23200 Hurd Road Tampico, Illmoe Tree impact 1L Replacements s to bs Phone : 8I 5.438.2220 Provided by Engineer at Final Approval. I'= : 8I 5.438.2222 NOTES: 1. An automatic krkiatbn system vA be provided for all landtospearms. 2. Plant material is subject to modrlratio . 3. All tees to be field located due to conflicts with Maly locations. r "", 6-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE DesignTeam Limited 17259 W. Ten MM Rood Sw Mid, MI 49075 P: 240 9901000 R 249.999.5717 ar0�.mm xrori.anynl.�rar.mm CV'ent SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC. 41)845 van Dyke Amn, SLiW 12 9rltyTom*, Wd* 41)317 PH: 51111,997.3951 FAK:588.W.3211 Project Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio �esp' d /D— VA AGO Ch cied /Approvtd RN Job 1 196,50 N ov"M u zP ,_sr -gray Dole /Re'+Y— 1,.ell Fu, 9/SM7 � Cexw�rJ 11r+w r sri PN. 3 1 r sua1� bncN It 0 15 30 60 #F 'a c•xAl+ •,cop 171alpnrwm Urnlad SCALE: I - P-100 and DWVT� W,a.s PLANTING PLAN LA -1.0 ❑ Proposed Building ❑ For TreeD Refer to Sheet LA4.1 PORTE COCHERE PLANT MATERML SCHEDULE: OTYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT EVERGREEN TREE 3 AC ArrN*rXlyer4arnaderlSlS Shadb1oWSW4cebery I PP- lPicea pungens Colorado Spruce 14- 16' Ht 136B ORNAMENTAL TREE Annabelle Hydrangea 24' Ht Cori 3 HG Hydranges m Blowing Embed 1 PK Prmus serrulata'Kwanzan' Kwarvan Flowering Cherry 1.5' Cal. B&B SHRUBS I 1 JH Arloerm rL P.0 Yolrggown' Yangstown Andorra As*w 24• Spread COIL 3 CA Comus alba'Baihalo' Ivory Halo Dogwood 24' Ht Cont. 3 FV Forsythia x v. 'Bronxensa' Bronx Forsydda 24' Spread Cont. 1 HO Hydrangea querdfdla OaMeaf Hydrangea 24'Ht Cone 6 JH Junlperus h. T.C. Youngstown' Youngstown Andorra Juniper 24' Spread Corn. 5 PR Potentllla fnrtkosa'Abbotswood' Abbotswood Potentilla 24' HL Cont. B RA Rba alpli rum AWa Curert 18Th Cant 5 RP Rcaa Mefpefte Carefree wonder Bose 24'W Cont. 4 RO Rosa'Meivahyn' Knockout Rose 24'HL Cont 2 SM Syrtxla m*W1 T'dibIrs Dwaf Korean.Jac 3W HL Cart 3 SS Spiraea nlpponlca Snowmound Snowmound Splraea 24' Ht Corm 5 TM Taxus x media 'Densdonnis' Dense Yew 30' Ht B&B 19 TWTaxusx media 'Wardll' Ward's Yew IB'Ht B&B 5 TS Taxus x media SeWan' Sebian Yew 30' HL B6B 7 TO Thuja occidernalb'Aurea' Golden Globe Arborvitae 24'Ht B&B 8 VO Viburnum opulus'Nanum' Dwarf European Cranbenybtuh 24'Ht Cont. 5 VT Viburnum t 'Compacbrm' Com. American Cranberrybush 30' HL Cont. 6 WF Welgela florida'Miruer Minuet Weiglda 24' Ht Cont. PERENNIAS /GROUNDCOVER 171 AA Astbe ardetdsY T,anar Farml Meadow Sweet I Gal. Cora: IB' O.0 37 AR Astlbe}apoNta Tied SeriIrrd Red SeMlnd Meadow Sweet 1 Gal. Corti: 18' O.0 271033 r sops' g. TwIly Strwiser Early Surwhe C - FA 1 GaL Corm; 12' aC 195 HO He eroraQs Tionix Bortarre Day* 1 Gd. Cora; I2' O.0 193 HIS Herim aBs wary RtmeJr Sartary Ih Dom* 1 GaL Corr.; 12' O.0 88 LS Leucantlterarn s. Snow Lady' Snow Lady Sham DdW I GaL Conw 12' O.0 MATERIALS UNIT 43 MULCH CY 43 PLANT MIX CY 25 TERRA SORB LOS O Drop Locat or Plant Descriptions efer to Sheet LA -1.1 COURTYARD PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE: OTYKEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT ORNAME NTALTREE 3 AC ArrN*rXlyer4arnaderlSlS Shadb1oWSW4cebery 1- 7CELcknw B&B SHRUBS 20 FV Forsythia x v. 'Brorawnsis' Bronx Forsythia 24' Spread Cont. 6 HA 1 ydi a a. Armabde' Annabelle Hydrangea 24' Ht Cori 3 HG Hydranges m Blowing Embed GbwIng Embers Hyrrdrgea 24' Ht Corn 9 JC Ar4m s dL P. Campacla' CmrW= P111— Junper 3W HC Cat I 1 JH Arloerm rL P.0 Yolrggown' Yangstown Andorra As*w 24• Spread COIL 9 Pi PINISP90 JgwmeAndromeda 24'Ht Cart 31 RO Ram'Mdmhyn' Knodwur Rose 24 HL Corn 6 SB Sptaea x b. ArM=V Watee' Anthony Waaets Spfrew 3W Ht Cant B si wm japorrlta Utft "KEW uWa PrIrtoa4 SpYaea 18' HL Cons 15 SM 5yttrtQd meyerl'Palbtt' Dwarf Korean Lbt 3W Ht Cart IS TW Talaa x media 'War dl' Ward's Yew I6' Fit B&B 3 TS Talus x media Seblan' Seblan Yew 3W Ht B&B PEAENNIALS/GROUNDCOVER 92 CG Coreopaa g. 'Early Sunrise' Early Surmise Coreopsts 1 Gal. Corn; I2 5o 1P Echinaces pupu Purple - rple Catdbw'er I GaL Cam: I8' O.0 �e111gnI�1t vposed 192 H B Hernerodlb Sonar m' Bonanza Dr^ 1 Gal. Corm 12' QC I Gal Cam; 12' O C 5 !M n.afas.n Aw�irtap [4Kka/pwaee qtr � f rasa r& MOM U Care 6- 70- e7.e.e Fa CwrcepWd Resin 6 21 07 ro 5G . 296 HS Herrerocallls Sammy Russel Sammy Russell Dayey s 160 LA Lavetdtte engtatllbN 7•adcclue' Hldccle &gIIs t.arena I GaL Cont: 12' CLC 32 PA Perovslda Rudar sage 1 GaL Cam; 3LY O.0 57 RF Rudbedab f dglda rvkbhrm• Blade Eyed Susan I GaL Cont; 18' O.0 — — COURYARD MATERIALS 45 MULCH 45 PLANT MIX 35 TERRA SORB NOTES: 1. An automatic Irrigation system will be provided fa al landscape areas. 2. Plant material is subject to modification. 3. All trees to be field located due to conflicts with u b ty locadora UNIT CY 0 5 10 20 CY LBS ■ SCALE. I' -10-0' b�si. r�i Q PRELIMINARY PORTE COCHERE & COURTYARD _ '^•° -a°r -' LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN LA -1.1 ❑ Sldewak ❑ Flagpole Location ❑ For Plant Descriptions Refer to Sheet LA -1.1 Team Landscape Architecture Land Planning RJph L. Nu— RLA, AELA Lendw° w AtahKW ohle Regietnaon i:L-044)0T76 DeslgnTeam Limited 17255 W. Ten Mile Rand Souffeld. MI 45075 P: 248559.11100 F: 245.559.5717 SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC, 15945 Van Dyke Avenue Sub 12 SWb7Towsho,Won 19317 Flt 596.997.3951 FAX 598 997MI r� Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio l PORfECOCHERE sME:1' -t WEST FOUNDATION PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE: CIYXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT v,oiat SH:U13S SHRUBS B CA Coma aba Tlalab' Wy Halo Dogwood 24' Ft Cont. 3 CF Cams sobs 7iaillra isif Yoe wig Dogwood Zr Ht Cent 3 FV Fasy taxv.Eron;uer s' Bronx FOrsy" 24' pnsad Cent 10 HO Hydargen que 9 Oakled Mycirm M' FR Cant. 5 JC Jatfper s d't Ss Gr=Y See Greet Juipa 30' HL 1168 3 JH Aripersh'P.CYoungloW Yaasgtown Andorra Aff*w 24'Wmd Cat 14 Pi Nsilsmasb Japanese AManeds 24' Ht cat 5 RP Ron welpeise O Wree WFalder Roe 2478 Cat B SG Spires x 0. T3OIdlR1E GolAlme siolas 24' kt Cat 5 SS Spirm OporY -3nai ra" SnowmaurLdSpYas 2Y Ht Cat 2 TM T=wxnwdaMendomlK DerwYlew 30' Hit Bib 12 TE TwusxnseddSmloW EVebwYew IWHL BW 3 TW7Baaxm=id%Farl! W&MYew IB'FR B&B 5 Tr Tlapamdes I Tedny A1lsslonAsbarAle SHt. B&B 3 TO Th$ ocddm*& %LaaW Golden GloWAsbo vie 24' HL B6B 5 Vr Viburnum ttmgscban' Com American Crwtrerrylxah 30 Cat PBMVNLALVGROUNDCDVM 192 03 Caenpb a FaySaalse? En*Sarhe Carp* I Gel cat; Ir CAC 45 CV taeopsb von - -- Woasbesild Moorl6srn Carespsb I GaLCort; I7QC. SB EP Edrtres paptas Rapt condlmm 1 GaL Cat; IIr O.C. 178 HO HaTmolaft So near Boar® DaM 1 GaL Cost' Ir O.C. 141 HS He SamW Rlmd SWN W Rand ow^ 1 GEL GNU Ir QC 293 LA Lsvaldl8 angsWMoM 7 EdmIL+ Hldmle EngM Lavande I Gal. Coo; 1 r O.C. 74 LS IsticoWnenmi Snow ImV SowlacbrShaaaoshy 1 GEL Conti 1rCLC I0 PR Pawsll IT I M I Rlr - Sage 1 Gel Corse: 30' QC 9B AF IWdbecil Rd" nck b&AW Bllack dSLSmr I Gal. Cont; Ir0jC 36 SN Selvl nen rom A V N C AW NightSaNl I Gal. Cort; I QC MATER ALS 80 LA Laver,dula angufdfdfa'Hkk'ae' UNIT 48 MULCH — CY 48 PlUWr MIX 24' HL Cast CY 28 TERRASORB Black Eyed Swan LES K^3 FOUNDATIos PLAN ► anA r 1 --KU%L 34 iew OrTXEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NONE SIZE ROOT v,oiat SH:U13S SHRUBS 5 CS Comus saicea'Cardnar Cardinal Red Osler Dogwood 24' Ht Cont 4 HO Hydrangea quercMblla Oakleaf Hydrangea 24' HL Coat 3 RA Rlbes alpinum Alpine Currant 18'Ht Cont. 5 TE Taxis x rnedta'Everk7W Evedow Yew 18' Ht B&B 6 TS Taxis x medta'Seblan' Seblan Yew 30' HL B&B 8 TW Taxis x media 'Wardif Wards Yew 18` Ht B&B 5 VT Viburnum L'CompaCWM' Com. American Oanberrybrsh 317 HL Cont. PE RET�IMALVGROUNDCOM 66 CG Coreopsis g.'Eary Sunrise' Early Sunrise Coreopsis I Gal. Corn; 12 112 HB HenxsvcallLs'Bonanza' Bonar¢a Daylly I Gal. Corm; 12' O.0 70 HS Hemerocalas'Sanury Russell Sammy RLM-41 Dayny I Gat Cont.; 1Y O.C. 21 LA Lavendula angusdfolia Tiklcote' Hldcote English Lavender I Gal. Cont.; 12' O.C. 40 RF Rudbeclda fulglda 'Goldstumi Black Eyed Susan I Gal. ConL; 18 O.C. 34 SN Salvia nemerosa 'May Night' May Night SaMa 1 Gal. Cont; 12'0.C. MATERALS 16 ARILCH 16 PIANTMD( 2 TERRA SORB ❑ Proposed Gazebo - Refer - to Architecture for Details UNIT CY CY LBS T Wide Walk ■ Team Landscape Architecture Land Planning Rdph L. Hu RLA, ASLA Landscape Arehllaet Ohio Regletrstion #:L-"9 T6 For Tree Descriptions Refer to Sheet LA -1.0 ❑ For T ree Descriptions Refer Sheet LA _� ... _ fr to ee 1.0 ., — — — ,r. — _.a. — F-� — _r- f ,to �> TT 2 ��n, Lawn ° — SOUTH FOUNDATION PLANT MATERUU. SCHEDULE: OTYJEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 517E ROOT v,oiat SH:U13S SHRUBS 3 CA Comas albs 'BaIWW Nory Halo Dogwood 24' Fit Cat I I FV Forsy&da x v. 'Bromensis' Brom Forsythia 24' Spread Cont 6 JH Junlpmrs h. 'P.C. Youngstown' Youngstown Andorra Juniper 24' Spread Cont 5 PJ PlerisJaponka Japanese Andromeda 24'Ht Cont. 5 SM Syringe meyeri'Pallbin' Dwarf Korean Ulac 30'14L Cat 3 TM Taxis x medla'DeruiformlY Dense Yew 30' HL B&B 9 TE Tamsxmedla'EverloW EvedawYew IB'Ht B&B 12 VO Viburnum opulus Wanum' Dwarf European Cranbenybush 24' Ht Cont 5 VT Viburnum L'CompacWm' Com. American Cranberybtah 30' Ht Cont PERE14NIAII.SIGtOUNDCOVER 24 Speed Cont 55 CG Coreopsis g. Early Sunrise' Early Sunrise Coreopsis 1 Gal. Cont.; 12' O.C- 36 CV Coreopsis verticIM Moonbeam' Moonbeam Coreopsis 1 Gal. COnt; 12' O.C. 13 EP Echhacea purpurea Purple Conerower 1 Gal. Cont; 18 46 HB Hemerocallls'Sonanza' Bonanza Daylly I Gal. Cone 12 a9 Hs Hernerocaw Sammy Russdr Sammy Russell Deylily I Gal. Cart; 12' O.0 156 LA Lavendula argwtlfolla l9k1cW Hldcote English Lavender I Gal. ConL; 12 Or 20 MS Mlsramhus sinensk purpurascens Purple Malden Gras I Gal. Pot 24' O.C. 69 SN SaMa nernerosa 'May Night' May Night SaMa 1 Gal Cone 12' O.C. MATEI ALS F. C scar UNIT 23 MULCH n' 23 PIANr MIX Fanal Meadow Sweet CY 13 TERRA SORB 335 CG Coeopsis g.'Early Sunrise LOS F, V � $ m ... . =ire B .z . ,,.. _.. . U LJ 'ter' -- NORTH FOUNDATICNd PLANTING NORTH FOUNDATION PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE: NOTES: 1. An autDmatb brlgatlon system will be provided for all Lantlsape areas. 2. F7ard material Is subject W moddlaBon 3. MO t0 be held located due to cordlicts w1V1 utility ioraeors ❑ Proposed Building FOUNDATION PLANTING DesignTeam Um'Ited 17255 W. Ten Mle Road SouMnn0eld MI 48075 P: 24115M.11000 F: 24&SW,5717 , A.i.W— ^11�+5a. —A.V � rcpt SUNRISE SENIOR LIVNG INC. 48915 Van Dye hmm, Sul 12 Shelby Tm *INMdign 48317 Pit 556.997.3961 FAX 555.9973211 OTYKEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT v,oiat SH:U13S Sunrise Assisted 6 CS Comussericea 'Cardinar Cardinal Red Osler Dogwood 24'HL Cont Living 8 FV Forsythia x v. 'Bswsxensb' Bronx Forsythia 24' Spread Cant 6 HI Hamamel s x l.'Copper GbW Copper Glow WRds Hazel 24' HL B&B Dublin, 3 HA Hydrangea a. 'Annabelle Annabelle Hydrangea 24' Ht Cont 4 IG Iles glabm'Onarnaln' CharnzFnHolly 24' HL BSB Franklin County 9 JH Junipersah.'P.C. Youngstown Youngstown Andorra Juniper 24'Spread Cons Ohio 7 JS Juniperus sabina Buffalo' Buffalo Juniper 24 Speed Cont 9 PF Pommilla frudcosa Abboawdad' Abboawood Potentilla 24' Ht Cont a lu RL x b 3 RP Rosa'Melpec' Carefree Wander Rose 24' Ht Cant �w l n se so 12 SS Sphaes rdpponica'Snownsourd' Srnowrnound Splrace 24'Fib. Cant car orerw core 5-2C-mhq 3 SM Syringe meye l Tallbin' Dwarf Korean Ulac 30' Ht Cont. 8 TE Taxis x media ?4ei - foW EWerlowYLw Ia'Fit B&B mcr/rm.^s�: 6.m Foy 3 VC) Viburnum opuku Wanum' Dwarf European Cranberrybush 24' Ht Cart F. C scar PERENNIALSJGtOUNDCOVER §[I1/0 rd sac Pay. Avnd 63 AA Astllbe ardendsll Tanal' Fanal Meadow Sweet 1 Gal, Core.: I W O.C. 335 CG Coeopsis g.'Early Sunrise Early Sunrise Caeopsts 1 Gal. Coat: 12 C.C. s W EP Echknacea purpurea Purple Coneflowe I Gal. Cont.; la O.0 273 HB Hanerocallis Bonanza' Boner za Daylliy I Gat cam 12' QC 203 HS Hancrocalgl Sammy Russeir Sammy Russell Day11y 1 Gat. Cont; 12' O.C. 80 LA Laver,dula angufdfdfa'Hkk'ae' Mdcote English Lavender 1 Gat Corse I ar — 13 PR Potmiilia frtxkosa'AOCUtswood AbbDOW00d PaPVrtille 24' HL Cast - — 24 Ric Rudbeoda Ugtda'GOktstumn' Black Eyed Swan 1 Gal. Cant: 18' O.C. 0 5 10 20 97 SN SaWla nemerosa May Mgr May Night Santo I Gat, Corn.; 12' O.C. 2 WF Welgela 0Or1da'Miaut[ Minuet Wesgeta 24' HC Cant c.pnvl+ UNIT ee Ir.anpTm,latre MA7ERVLL5 a nr oeax.sws..+4.e a.nr wr,nwanwrw 46 MULCH CY SCALE I' -lly -a s•�:.r.r.er.xrs..rQ 46 PLANT MIX 27 TERRA SORB LBS �.� y.,,r.nenw amsnr una„r. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION PLANTING PLAN j � " LA -1,2 2 EAST FOUNDATION PLANTING rwu I WEST FOUNDATION PLANTING Adjacent National Church Residences Building - *38' Height IPL � G I !PL —0 Proposed Buffer ❑ Proposed Buffer - ❑ Future Development ❑ Proposed Detention Basin Refer to Landscape Plan for Seeding Schedule F U Existing Trees to Remain and Rock Bottum Location. (Trees to be removed upon construction of a future developmenp J Proposed Assisted Living Building Height 377 ❑ Proposed Drive and Parking ❑ Proposed Landscape A e - w� W, ®_ MU im 1 Section A-N 1 ❑ Proposed Landscape `sJ Proposed Entrance Drive ❑ Proposed Assisted lJVtrlg J Proposed Drop Off MAdtig - Height 39 I PL aeft._m i �.0r.e + VA _� ti Qriyel 85' Min. IPI i i Building Setback " 50' Min. Pavement -' Setback 2 Section B-B' 1. LJ Proposed 4 High Berm Toe of Berm to be Field Adjusted so not to Infringe on the Dripline of the Edsting Trees to be Preserved a —. 1 0 3 1 - ----------- -- --- - - - - -- - 3 Secfioftg -B` -2 a b r rr f 1 PL 1200' J Proposed 6' Tall Evergreen Trees to be Planted Along the Top of the Berm. a f, e 4 ❑ Existing Trees to be Protected During Construction and Preserved :J Native Grasses and Shrubs to be Planted Among Existing Material to Promote Wildlife. Refer to Sheet LA -1.0 for Detailed Planting Information. zur} IL10'-0' IPL IPL ❑ E sting Adjacent Home I ' ° I eam Landscape Architecture Land Planning Ralph L. Nun -; RLA, ASLA Land —p. A-hn.C{ Ohl. Regl.trs4:art 0 :"4.00776 ❑ Adjacent Apartment Building * 26' Heigh 1.717fs'S P>- r - - 17 W. Ten MD. Rood SouMBeld, MI 48075 P: 248.559.1000 P 218.559.5717 ewwa.� 0H SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INC. 48845 Van Dyke Aveml9, Suit U WkTw0,Wdl1w 48317 PH: W6.9973951 Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County Ohio oesv�d /o,e„� —/CnF C & 0 D196 f96 50 RLN J y Ois s a 111— e- 2 -07.dw I , a r �- -, 4 J r sLU1a1 N> SR pw, �„e• o..VTeem cried 4mmmmm� Key Map 7 . ¢ pgd.Yry rM4mtbb u..w K r�xoawa.nnaeerwr�m p•nrionas..�rt.r. u,rr4 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS s «I LA -1.3 PLANTING NOTES: I. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISfT SITE INSPECT EMTI NG CONDITIONS AND REVIEW PROPOSED PLANTING AND RELATED WORK IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLAN AND PLANT LIST, PLAN SHALL GOVERN OUANTTIIEL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH ANY CONCERNS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL ON -SITE UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION ON HIS/HER PHASE OF WORK ELECTRIC GAL TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEVISION MAY BE LOCATED BYCALLING MISS DIG 1 -800482 -7171 ANY DAMAGE OR INTERRUPTION OF SERVICES SHALL BE THE REPONSIBIUTY OF CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL RELATED ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER TRADES ON THE JOB AND SHALL REPORTANY UNACCEPTABLE JOB CONDITIONS TO OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO COMMENCING. 3. CONTRACTOR WILL SUPPLY FINISHED GRADE AND EXCAVATE AS NECESSARY TO SUPPLY 4' TOPSOIL DEPTH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS AND 4' TOPSOIL DEPTH IN ALL LAWN AREAS BACK FILL AND CROWN PARING LOT ISLANDS 12 'ABOVE ADIACEJT CURBS. 4. ALL RMIT MATERW.TO BE PREMIUM GRADE NLITSERYSTOCK PLANT MA7E3W SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDE ESTABLISHED IN THE MOST RECENT EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOOK CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY NURSERY SOURCES FORALL PURCHASED MATERIAL. NO BARE ROOT OR PARK GRADE MATERIAL WILL BEACffPTFD. S. INSTALL SOD IN ALL AREAS INDICATED ON PAN. SOD TO BE WELL ESTABLISHED, MINERAL. GROWTH, NO PESTSOD WILL BE ALLOWED, SOD BLEND SHALL CON99 OF A MINIMUM OF THREE (3) IMPROVEDVARETTES OFBLUEGRASS. ACCEPTANCE AND GUARANTEE NOTES SHALL APPLYTO ALL SOD. 6. EDGING SHALL BE 4' x I/B' METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EHDUAL. TO BE INSTALLED WITH HORIZONTAL METAL STAKES AT 36' SPACING. COLOR TO BE BLACK OR DARK GREEN, SILVER COLOR OR PLASTIC 5 NOT ACCEPTABLE INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS IN ALL AREAS INDICATED ON PAN 7. GUARANTEE OF PLANTS FOR TWO 1 YEAR SHALL BEGIN AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND /OR PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE THE CONTRACTOR SHALT. GUARANTEE ALL PANTS TO BE IN A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS CONDITION FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEAR FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE WITHOUT COST TO THE OWNER ANY DEAD OR UNACCEPTABLE PLANTS, AS DETERMINED BY PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE DURING AND AT THE END OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. S. ACCEPTANCE OF GRADING AND SOD SHALL BE BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND /OR PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO ( YEAR MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, WEEDING, REPLACEMENTS OF WASHOUTS AND OTHER OPERATIONS NECESSARY TO KEEP SOD IN A THRIVING CONDITION. UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITEKTAND/OR PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE THE OWNER SHALL ASSUMEALL MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. 9 ALL TREE PITS MUST BE TESTED FOR PROPER DRAINAGE PRIOR TO PLANTING TREES. A DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST BE INSTALLED IF RANTING PT DOES NOT DRAIN SUFFICIENTLY IREOUIRED IN HEAVY CLAY SOLSI 10. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE PROPER DRAINAGE THAT PREVENTS EXCESS WATER FROM STANDING ON LAWN AREAS OR AROUND TREES AND SHRUBS I I. STAKES LAUD FOR TREE SUPPORTS SHALL POINTAWAY FROM ANY CIRCULATION ROUTES. I Z IN CASE OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN PROPER PROCEDURE 13. MULCHING AND WATERING OFALL PLANTS AND TREES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN 16 HOURS AFTER INSTALLATION. 14. CONTRACTOR 5 VERIFYING RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL QUANTITIES UANES SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLAN PRIOR TO PRICING THE WORK I5. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECTANY PLANT MATERIAL NOT MEETING SPECIFICATIONS. 16. REMOVE ALL TREE STAKES AND GUY WIRES AFTER ONE WINTER 17. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL LANDSCAPING ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS 1 a PANTING TO STARTSPRING ZOOS 19 USE GRADE %A' DOLUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK 20. PANT TREES AND SHRUBS NO CLOSER THAN THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM SIDEWALKS, CUIMS, AND PARKING STALLS A SHADE /CANOPVTREES 4 FEET B. ORNAMENTAL/FLOWERING TREES 10 FEET C EVERGREEN TREES 10 FEET D. EVERGREEN/FLOWERING SHRUBS 4FEET 21. DIG SHRUB PITS F LARGER THAN SHRUB ROOT BALLS AND TREE PITS 2' LARGER THAN ROOT BALLS. BACK FI L WITH ONE PARTTOPSOIL AND ONE PARTSOIL FROM THE EXCAVATED PLANING HOLE PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS AT THE SAME GRADE LEVEL AT WHICH THEYWERE PLANTED AT THE NURSERY IFWET, CLAY SOILS ARE EVIDENT PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS HIGHER. 22. REMOVE ALL TWINE WIRE. AND BURLAP FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF TREE AND SHRUB EARTH BALLS AND FROM TREE TRUNKS. 23. LAWN TREES ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4' WIDE BY4' DEEP SHREDDED BARKINGS ORAPPROVFD DESIGN FOR TRUNK PROTECTION. ONLY NATURAL-COLORED SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH WILL BE ACCEPTED. 24. SHRUB BEDS ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3. ONLY NATURAL-COLORED SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH WILL BE ACCEPTED. 25. BACKFILL DIRECTLY BEHIND ALL CURBS AND ALONG SIDEWALKS AND COMPACT TO THE TOP OF CURB OR WALK TO SUPPORT VEIK3P AND PEDESTRIAN WEIGHT WITHOUT SETfUNG 26. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS, SPECIAL PARKING LOT ISLANDS AND LANDSCAPE BEDS NEXT TO BUILDINGS SHALL BE EXCAVATED OF ALL BUILDING MATERIALS AND POOR SONS TO A DEPTH OF 12' -1 B' AND BACK - FILLED WITH GOOD, MEDIUM T EXTU ED PLANTING SOIL (LOAM OR LIGHTYELLOW CLAY). ADD 4'-6' OF TOPSOIL OVERFILL MATERIAL AND CROWN A MINIMUM OF 6 ABOVE TOP OF CURBS AND/OR WALKS AFTER EARTH SETTLING UN LESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 27. CONVERSION OFALLASPHALTAND GRAVELAREAS TO LANDSCAPE SHALL BE DONE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER A REMOVE ALL ASPHALT, GRAVELAND COMPACTED EARTH TO A DEPTH OF 6'-18' DEPENDING ON THE DEPTH OF THE SUB-EASE AND DISPOSE OF OFF ATE. & REPLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL WITH GOOD, MEDIUM TEXTURES PLANTINGSOIL (LOAM OR LIGHTYELLOW C AY1 TO A MINIMUM OF Z' ABOVE TOP F CURB AND SIDEWALK ADD 4'-6' OF TOPSOILAND CROWN TO A MINIMUM OF 6 ABOVE ADJACENT CURB AND WALK AFTER EARTH SETTLING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE LANDSCAPE FRAIL IF CONVERSION TO LANDSCAPE OCCURS IN AN VuSTI IG (OR BET WEEN1 LANDSCAPE AREINS), REPLACE EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO 4'-6' BELOW A011ACE NT EXISTING GRADES WITH GOOD MEDIUM TEXTURED PANTING SOIL (LOAM OR LIGHTYELLOW CLAY) AND ADD 4'L' OF TOPSOIL TO MEET EXISTING GRADES AFTER EARTH SEEKING. 28. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO RECEIVE TERRA-SOW SUPERABSOR13AW POLYMER OR APPROVED EOLIAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIRCATIOPtS. 29. THE CLEAR ZONE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL INTERSECTIONS THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE IT IS THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PLANT MATERIAL ATA HEIGHT NOT OVER THIRTY (30) INCHES ABOVE PAVEMENTAND PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED SIGHT DISTANCE FOR DRIVERS IN VEHICLES APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION 30. VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF AT LEAST EIGHTY LBO) INCHES MUST BE PROVIDED ABOVE WALKS AT ALL TIMES. IT 5 THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN TREES AND OTHER OVERHANGING OBJECTS TO PROVIDE ADECIUATE HEADROOM TO COMPLY WITH ADA GUIDELINES. WOOD STAKE 2 "x2'xB' 12' NNR&Y DEPM VARIES .EACH TREE TO RECEIVE TERRA -SORB SUPERABSORB 4r POLYMER, Mx N RAGKFILL PER 1WNUFACNRER'S SPECIFIGT10N5. .CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PERCULATIGN OF PEST PIT PRIOR M INSTALLATION •STAKE TREES UNDER 4" CALIPER .TREE BALL SHALL BEAR SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY • PRUNE TO THIN AND SHAPE CANOPY • USE ONLY ONE STAKE FOR TREES UNDER 4' Hr. • SET STAKES VERTICALLY AND EVENLY _STAKE TREES JUST BELOW FIRST BRANCH WITH 2'-3' WOE BELT LIKE NYLON OR PLASTIC SNAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE To STAKE OPPOSITE FROM EACH OTHER. AND ALLOW FOR SOME TLOONG'J. DO NOT USE WIVE OR ROPE THROUGH A HOSE. REMOVE AFTER FIRST WINTER, TREE WRAP FROM TOP DOWN. REMOVE AFTER FIRST WINTER. - 4' DEEP OF MULCH -REMOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM TOP 1/3 OF BALL - MOUND TO FORM SAUCER -Frr9N CR.AOE PUWIVNC SOL MW SCARIFY To 4' DEPTH AND RECOMPACI STAKES TO EXTEND 10' BELOW TREE PO IN UNDISTURBED GROUND DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL V -O` DEPTH MULCK M 9Mdf1ED SEE R1J0NC MATE3NNL NOTES �FDR Wuwa „(elf} 1 I = _. I I • • • " PLVNRNO MafIU1LL _- I`N •_._ ?_ As GPEOOm NOTE: SET PLANTS WITH BOTTOM LEAVES AT GRADE AFTER MULCHING. PLANT TO WITHIN 1 FOOT OF TREE OR SHRUB. / ANNUAL, PERENNIAL, GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL etWml aLrAn w €ru COVCR�LAMDSCAAE FOCOIG •JRNB PI.ArTPNC eED 17 MM WAIS 6 METAL EDGING DETAIL RAxA NOTTOSCALL MOM Maralad. W FYddarob" SW Nn A404144AWI Vdee TV.pn 1w b) Hdoft Zr WdAt 346 R M. W fifth, 39m ConMucilm SRAM: FriYlc IN Navel HaddWUWM JUW m 201 Ala PLm llLirrWr. NearJEM ON31 M 856.931.7011 Fac BS6.931JI1140 EVMM'haddal6IoMGmR NOTES MaraN6maeN: F66blww! Syt I& AZ70 9wbad - J.0 Me wo IS 1/C Welg 11756 AM. WWI: 26' FhddMM,. "Al B1 201 Hdb!rPYOe B4fIwMw, POIWJNM 01031 FI! 856.9317011 FMM93laM Wwwhaddo mm g LARGE PLANTER R.Hn I.APPlaed NOTTOSCALE 7 VASE Man IwARAOwd E4A NOT TO SCALE r I ... • SUPERABSORBANT POLYMER. _x IN BADKni- PER Mmuwn1FER'S -EACH TREE TO RECEIVE TERRA -SORB SPEMKINTIONS. SUPERAB50RBANT POLYMER. MIX IN BAOMLL •CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATION PER MWUFAC"ER'S SPECIFICATIONS. OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO INSfAIUTION .CONTRACTOR To VERFY PERCOIATON OF •TREE BALL SHALL BEAR SAME RELATIONSHIP PLAINT PT PRIOR TO RISTAUATIOR To FINISH GRADE AS R SURE CRIGWLLY • STAN ALL DETRCfEEN TREES UNDER • PRUNE TO THIN AND SHAPE CANOPY - 12' NIGH • USE ONLY ONE STAKE FOR TREES UNDER . TREE SHALL BEM SAYE RELATIONSHIP 4' Hr. TO FINISH CRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY • M R AUL TAUS. • NEVER CUT CENTRAL LEADER NT ARE UNHRY ME MATEI I THAT 9C REMOVE ONLY TO REMOVE DAMAGED NE ONLY -PRUNE AL_ COULD CAUSE GIRDLING. . ALL NON- BOOEGRADIBLE WTERISS TO OR BRAN REMOVED FROM THE ROOT BALL .ALL NON- WDEGRADABLE MATERIALS TO REMOVED FROM ROOT BALL BEFORE BEFORE G. FGRE REAMING AND B FIRST BRANCH STAKE BELOW FIRST PLANTING AND RACKR LING, "-3' IDSD N O WITH 2' -3" WISE BELT NYLON STAKE TREES JUST BELOW FIRST BRANCH T FROM TREE E TO PLASTIC STRAPS (CONNECT WITH 2'-3' WIDE BELT LIKE NYLON OR PLASTIC SNAPS (CONNECT FROM TREE TO STAKE G AND SLOW FOR SOME G' . G 00 E O NOT USE WIRE OR ROPE STAKE OPPOSITE FROM EACH OTHER AND ALLOW FOR SOME TLERONGT, 00 NOT USE , THROUGH A HOSE. REMOVE AFTER ONE THROUGH YEAR WOOD STAKE TARE OR ROPE THROUGH A HOSE RYI ZU HARDWOOD STAKES PER TREE TREE WRAP FROM TOP DOWN. 2'%2'x0' AFTER FAST WINTER. 2'x2'xB' / REMOVE AFTER FIRST WINTER 4' DEPTH OF MULCH DRIVE STAKES INTO UNDISTlT01m SOL 0 -0' OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL TO 4' DEEP OF MULCH REMOVE BURLAP AND THANE FTNOM A DEPTH OF 18' BELOW TREE PIT. C REMOVE BURLAP AND TWINE FROM TOP TOP 113 OF B11 113 OF BALL ! MOUND TO FORM SAUCER 12' MNMWY - MOUND TO FORM SAUCER W M MMU t 6T FINISH GRADE nNdR GRADE 17 I� PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE OFPR1 VMIES F� TO 4" DEPTH AND RECOMPACT J S SCYtlFY TO 4 DEPTH AND COMPACT STAKES TO EXTEND 1H' BELOW TREE PIT - W S SLAKES TO FXIETD IB' BELOW TREE PR IN UNDSTURBED GROUND N UNDISTURBED GROUND z EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL a ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL Man etWml aLrAn w €ru COVCR�LAMDSCAAE FOCOIG •JRNB PI.ArTPNC eED 17 MM WAIS 6 METAL EDGING DETAIL RAxA NOTTOSCALL MOM Maralad. W FYddarob" SW Nn A404144AWI Vdee TV.pn 1w b) Hdoft Zr WdAt 346 R M. W fifth, 39m ConMucilm SRAM: FriYlc IN Navel HaddWUWM JUW m 201 Ala PLm llLirrWr. NearJEM ON31 M 856.931.7011 Fac BS6.931JI1140 EVMM'haddal6IoMGmR NOTES MaraN6maeN: F66blww! Syt I& AZ70 9wbad - J.0 Me wo IS 1/C Welg 11756 AM. WWI: 26' FhddMM,. "Al B1 201 Hdb!rPYOe B4fIwMw, POIWJNM 01031 FI! 856.9317011 FMM93laM Wwwhaddo mm g LARGE PLANTER R.Hn I.APPlaed NOTTOSCALE 7 VASE Man IwARAOwd E4A NOT TO SCALE r I ... NOT@ Mama r. Iferas6TIRRdI 3raa Ayt FM IN TLS' Plat Hdaft a !IS c11ft13kw c Lama F9afc Thad wa ih Lr"ard Baa N DaRb" Need P.QBw4w F4E20_767aaAI Faaali762299F Anwayrdwdaaamn 4 13 STONE STATUE - RABBIT IAao I- APPM.WE4M NOT TO SCA EACH SHRUB TO RECEIVE TERRA -SORB AIPERABSORBANT POLYMER, MIX N BACK U. PER MNNUFACNRER'S SPECIFICATIONS. . UUNfRACIOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATION OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION- • PLANT SHALL BEM SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY. •PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. • ALL NON- aODEGR E MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED BEFORE PLANTING AND BACKFRLING. 4 OF MULCH MOUND TO FORM SAUCER FINISH GRADE • REMOVE COLLAR FROM ROM CONTAINER AND PUNCTURE - I I; f �' • ALL METAL C'UNfANNMS ARE TO BE REMOVED. OP T 1 /3 OF BALL PLANT MIXTURE. III I, PLANTING SOIL MM SCARIFY SOIL TO 4" DEPTH AND RECOMPACT 4 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOTE SWO, N.AI Tq U la Fwo Nn al13G -Tape SIlHIydTMs a �!• Da Fidla GeY WhIa == PFe 999343691a Fs l SOL l w• .11`� Nam MwaONes Mamm-a S'ta N wa!K310AAdaRada/I ways la n MrTlTraea 2011 dwrba owl- ' Ie-janr ®1 PHISYomif F 6L93faM Jade 9 BIRD HOUSE 0 Bl� SAITH NIRaD (WAPPesd Equal MOTTO SCALE NAaa IeF Alp dE4e4 NOTTO5CAE MOTEL Marala.h- 1Tar0dh 4- 11"Sas Rgt w Z7d6 Claw Hd^Lage SLeAVft eB -43" CardeFaYlGrc Load 6 *%4h 6lwaa lops an a fiat ENwae Feb. 19TNC 9RrNw Karlefi LWKh WW Sars 84 Dla"RM P.O, ax 488 wlbx% CarraAYlna 06W -DIBB Pk 203.7 BM Fac 2a3.7672M aw w VV11•NA71raCA>roaTR METAL STATUE -CRANE RAaa I lrApprPAT•tlT "I NUT TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS Team Landscape Architecture Land Planning Ralph L. NuIT RL-A, ASLA Landscape Amhlbet Ohio Raglalmlim PL4 -WT?6 DesignTeam Limited 17255 W. Tan Mb Road BauBibld, MI 45075 P: 248.59.1000 N 24a.51SI.5717 drOAw � SUNRISE SENIDR LMNG INC. 48745 Va DE1e AY9IR Salk 12 9dyTIN M* I111y1I 48317 Pit 506.BWXA FAX SE W.3411 Projxcl Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County O hio Designed /Dm.. W4 /PC0 Ched.d /AW-d RUN Jab ) D 1 % 50 Rk D1965 Spec B- 21- 07.dn7 Dab/Rw' 1­1 For SAJ07 Fa F"M" Arm 4/dl/ON Par uk Pb, AAVPd 5 C" 1111 d P20W 3 OwlplTwn LkrM TFrD®ndad as ae}dnv LM mlYYad Ma✓flYpopWYadY 8 rldbhe pw*E Wgd �� pwliM of Ds41Twm :<.., LA -2.0 8A4L7 P�Ed®! NAPA. WBTRM 1 mcrm N..%m KaaIdlLPerlRwd Sne Flaq aPY NOTE Mar ft aDr _WP* PPA-h- ar w M..7F/Lra• - s,T! MMI GO- COMICSIFSOW roslolm Lad �11 IR19' AH1e Grl�Cel�aalWllt Fkhk C.Po dbc 10-d !raft Nara ram 1I�CI� Taa wapea woddmi" PAft. ! CAFY maaw IFkaOiDABNIB� viol OIw74Nw Fit rrww.rwpgoiwRWvY»�Ot WWVYMyIFdwdoaos 12 METAL STATUE - PIPING BOY 14CfP"1ORCNE RAan fahP°Am T4e� NOTRDSCALE NOT@ Mama r. Iferas6TIRRdI 3raa Ayt FM IN TLS' Plat Hdaft a !IS c11ft13kw c Lama F9afc Thad wa ih Lr"ard Baa N DaRb" Need P.QBw4w F4E20_767aaAI Faaali762299F Anwayrdwdaaamn 4 13 STONE STATUE - RABBIT IAao I- APPM.WE4M NOT TO SCA EACH SHRUB TO RECEIVE TERRA -SORB AIPERABSORBANT POLYMER, MIX N BACK U. PER MNNUFACNRER'S SPECIFICATIONS. . UUNfRACIOR TO VERIFY PERCOLATION OF PLANT PR PRIOR TO INSTALLATION- • PLANT SHALL BEM SAME RELATIONSHIP TO FINISH GRADE AS IT BORE ORIGINALLY. •PRUNE ONLY DEAD OR BROKEN BRANCHES. • ALL NON- aODEGR E MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED BEFORE PLANTING AND BACKFRLING. 4 OF MULCH MOUND TO FORM SAUCER FINISH GRADE • REMOVE COLLAR FROM ROM CONTAINER AND PUNCTURE - I I; f �' • ALL METAL C'UNfANNMS ARE TO BE REMOVED. OP T 1 /3 OF BALL PLANT MIXTURE. III I, PLANTING SOIL MM SCARIFY SOIL TO 4" DEPTH AND RECOMPACT 4 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOTE SWO, N.AI Tq U la Fwo Nn al13G -Tape SIlHIydTMs a �!• Da Fidla GeY WhIa == PFe 999343691a Fs l SOL l w• .11`� Nam MwaONes Mamm-a S'ta N wa!K310AAdaRada/I ways la n MrTlTraea 2011 dwrba owl- ' Ie-janr ®1 PHISYomif F 6L93faM Jade 9 BIRD HOUSE 0 Bl� SAITH NIRaD (WAPPesd Equal MOTTO SCALE NAaa IeF Alp dE4e4 NOTTO5CAE MOTEL Marala.h- 1Tar0dh 4- 11"Sas Rgt w Z7d6 Claw Hd^Lage SLeAVft eB -43" CardeFaYlGrc Load 6 *%4h 6lwaa lops an a fiat ENwae Feb. 19TNC 9RrNw Karlefi LWKh WW Sars 84 Dla"RM P.O, ax 488 wlbx% CarraAYlna 06W -DIBB Pk 203.7 BM Fac 2a3.7672M aw w VV11•NA71raCA>roaTR METAL STATUE -CRANE RAaa I lrApprPAT•tlT "I NUT TO SCALE SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS Team Landscape Architecture Land Planning Ralph L. NuIT RL-A, ASLA Landscape Amhlbet Ohio Raglalmlim PL4 -WT?6 DesignTeam Limited 17255 W. Tan Mb Road BauBibld, MI 45075 P: 248.59.1000 N 24a.51SI.5717 drOAw � SUNRISE SENIDR LMNG INC. 48745 Va DE1e AY9IR Salk 12 9dyTIN M* I111y1I 48317 Pit 506.BWXA FAX SE W.3411 Projxcl Sunrise Assisted Living Dublin, Franklin County O hio Designed /Dm.. W4 /PC0 Ched.d /AW-d RUN Jab ) D 1 % 50 Rk D1965 Spec B- 21- 07.dn7 Dab/Rw' 1­1 For SAJ07 Fa F"M" Arm 4/dl/ON Par uk Pb, AAVPd 5 C" 1111 d P20W 3 OwlplTwn LkrM TFrD®ndad as ae}dnv LM mlYYad Ma✓flYpopWYadY 8 rldbhe pw*E Wgd �� pwliM of Ds41Twm :<.., LA -2.0 8A4L7 P�Ed®! NAPA. WBTRM N:\ Cons tDoc \SitePlons \06230_Dublin \21 June07 \Dublin_FirstFlr101 o.dwg Schematic First Floor Plan AL 3/32" = 1 -0" 0 C � UNIT MIX TOT AREA 22 SF % SINGLE 7 32% DOUBLE 5 23% DENVERS 10 45% TOTAL UNITS 22 100% AREA GROSS 65,800 SF SUNRISE s enior Livin of Dublin, OH 0 K 16' 37' 3/32 " =1 -0" Sheet 101a 22 June 2007 rv:�wnswoc �mrenuns �uo�ou_vuoun�uauncw ww��n_�ew���r�� ���w�w Schematic Sec ond Floor Plan AL & TC 3/32" = 1' -0" UNIT MIX TOTAL AREA 21,483 SF % SINGLE 10 33% DOUBLE 9 11 30 37% DENVERS TOTAL UNITS 30 100% AREA GROS! 65,800 SF SUNRISE s enior Living of Dublin, OH 0 6 r, 1:' 3 3/32 " =1' -0" Sheet 102a 22 June 2007 .n...waoGtg lOS0.1N I4Peq 3.......... MA t]rir �]q,gJp ........ .......,,.1......,.., .,._.... Sc hematic Third Floor Plan REM 3/32" = V -0" 0 C) UNIT MIX TOTAL AREA 21,622 SF 7 % SINGLE 25% DOUBLE 10 36% DENVERS 11 39% TOTAL UNITS 128 100% AREA GROSS 65,800 SF -4*�- SUNRISE of Dublin, OH Senior Livin o K Ir -7 3/32 " =1' -0" Sheet 103a 22 June 2007 b0 { + {I• eo[•ROFO •)M )�4f+x ylb+b0) +)ie YL hest ��,� M)ba. �Y {. f1f) rr�.. bt�+lalb. tin p�lb {.!Y{.fYbb UW UMNN IIDCE) W A) a D NS NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL/COLOR LEGEND ® N SHNOIES (WWTWOWR,N /D) ® CFIOiIIIlONS SANG 4' EXPGSIIK (9IEffMN M11N16 N'IpIE WHE1T / TNI) ® CEIENNINIUS SOING Y E])tP(t(ISIIRE (SNFRMN M111M15 ROlCROFT BR155 / OINE CREET!) ® SiNUWC SEMI NETN. ROOF (ZW / S Aff GRAD ® SYNTHETIC STONE FILING (SU1R6E NGIA - IfDGE /I TM) 4A�- SUNRISE Senior Livin of Dublin, OH O Sheet 201a June 22, 2007 3/32 1' -Qfl aan ....DOLE aOPP •iu nDee f/f eNVniP YA i3ii� �, — Msa: .Ia.sesi .��. �.e• n� miu.•a...aa. CEYENTRIDUS 4' 9ONG (WE CRAW) CULTURED �I 1l. 4y S.Y - 5�5: i - x `.. . STONE T Exnraus 7' LIP SIOOIG (RICE GRANT) sym� STONE (s<«RrsE MOUNTAI ) CEVENIf110U5 t■■ � Ut �I� � �� ■l ■ICI ■ Y �Y � lA ■l ■ll- �•� tfY ft ■ iI1R i■■ t ■( � –_ ■t ■ ■■ tY 11 1 ■Y ""�: Y � tr � `�= .,..�l� 1111 ■� t,,�� °����� � t = :::r: � �� :: E. � ��:�: �� ��� SOUTH ELEVATION SUNRISE s enior Livin of Dublin, OH IOW VENEER OMAN LEDGE) EAST ELEVATION MATERIALS /COLORS LEGEND 0 c IAI Sheet 202a June 22, 2007 3/32 " -1' -0" OEUraoocr @RS +r Frc rfr......f ;f o■zsao�a anrr..rr rrrr .,... �... pr rra. rfr.rrra ® CdffN/SRgN 9NUE5 (OWFIWOCC/'W /CRE'n ® CElEN111N115 SIDING 4' E1(fNrSUNE (91ERWIN WN1AY5 YMOLE MPEAT /TAN) ® CEICNTI11IX5 9OViC 7 ID(O URE (9*WN WILLIAMS ROYCROFT E1RA55 / OLN'E W0N) ® STARING SEAM max- ROOF f— / !IIV A GRAD EFER SYNRlIIC SIONE mm (91FFISE NDIMIAN LEDGE/LLGIR TAI) SUNRISE SENIOR LIVINX; SUNRISE North Elevation West Elevation BEERYR IO nr1 f Du S'� E S u s e o ASSISnD LIVING' ARCH ITECTURE +INTERIORS I ■ � I ST DRIVE S14A ROCK BLVD, _ cur► ��■ VIIJL&T LA LA '��� ::�a � <_� �'.� .�- - • '� ��t� _ � ■ ■ ■r�• �,��.� ������ rr� _ _�� � ��i�� �� ran ° '.�, • ■ air illpl ail f •\ ®�� r �� r 13) � �* y y l '• ra gyp`. R.• �M - �:� i L� I 1 r-- SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING Dublin Franklin County, Ohio IS N 60 Overall Illustrative Plan SUNRISE SENIOR LIV Q INC. Turn 48995 Van Dyke Avenue, Su'� 12 RTH Shelby Twd0, Md0gan 48317 Landscape Arch itecture PH: 588 997.3951 SLAI t. I' -;4' A' FAX: 586 997,3211 L a n d P E a n n N n 9 * Plan is for illustrative purposes and is subject to modification without notification.