Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 50-13RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. 50 -13 Ordinance No. Form No.30043 Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 12.05 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EXISTING DRAKE ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY (TO BE VACATED), APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH SPRINGBURN DRIVE FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE PUD) TO ESTABLISH AN 18 -LOT, SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND APPROXIMATELY 4.5 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE (CASE 13- 009Z /PDP /PP) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, _� of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance there within. Section 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed thi day of (1_ �= 2013 ATTEST: �-4� Clerk of Council ORDINANCE 50 -13 - STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD (COUNCIL AMENDMENT OF 6 -24 -13 TO PLANNING & ZONING CONDITION #5) AMENDED CONDITION #5 TO ENSURE THAT, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF, ALL LANDMARK TREES ARE PRESERVED Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager ��r- Date: June 6, 2013 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Re: Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning approximately 12.05 acres located on the east side of existing Drake Road right -of -way (to be vacated), approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Stansbury at Muirfield Village PUD) to establish an 18 -Lot single - family detached residential development and approximately 4.5 acres of open space (Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP) Summary Ordinance 50 -13 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan and a preliminary plat for a 12.05 -acre site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Stansbury at Muirfield) to establish an 18 -lot single - family detached residential development with approximately 4.5 acres of open space. The site is east of the existing Drake Road right -of -way (to be partially vacated by Ordinance 51 -13), approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. Background In 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council of a rezoning application to R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District for the property as no formal Dublin zoning had been established after annexation. The property owners requested Rural District zoning in order to keep horses on the property. Ordinance 66 -03 (amended) established Dublin R, Rural District zoning on the property. In August 2012, the applicant informally presented a proposal for 24 cluster lots to the Commission. Adjacent residents expressed their concerns to the Commission regarding the proposed density, potential environmental impacts to existing trees, drainage and traffic. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed density was too high and suggested that more clustering of lots may aid in addressing environmental challenges. The Commissioners wanted to ensure the applicant kept the density at or lower than the surrounding areas and address drainage and tree protection. In October 2012, the Commission reviewed and commented on a concept plan proposing 19 residential lots. The Commission noted the applicant's effort to respond to previous comments and concerns. Commissioners agreed that the previous August 2012 layout, which included a clustered site design with greater preservation of open space, was the preferred layout while urging the applicant to keep the proposed lower density. On April 4, 2013, the Commission recommended approval to City Council of this rezoning application and requested that: • Lot 6 be removed from the plat to prevent stream corridor encroachment. • Provide additional width for Lots 2 -5. Memo re. Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury of Muirfield PUD June 6, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Neighborhood /Association Contact Throughout the review of this proposal at the Planning and Zoning Commission, nearby residents expressed their concerns about the proposed lot density, tree preservation, notifications, and the availability of up -to -date case information. The applicant presented the most recent proposal to the Muirfield Village Board of Directors in March. The applicant informed Planning staff that the Association has no objections to the proposed layout or number of lots and that they see a benefit of having the Association take ownership of the reserve areas. Description Site The rectangular- shaped site slopes down almost 30 from the north to the southeast corner of the site. A vacant house and outbuildings are on the east portion of the site. A Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) extends as two forks from the western portion of the site toward the southeast comer. The most significant concentration of mature evergreen and deciduous trees is in the central and eastern portion of the site, with substantial tree rows along the site perimeter. The site is surrounded by single - family residences of Muirfield Village, zoned PUD. To the north is Section 12 with 11 lots; to the west and south are parts of Section 7 with three and eight lots respectively. To the east are three lots in Section 8. All lots were platted in the late 1970s and built in the early to mid 1980s. A Muirfield Village bikepath is adjacent to the site on the west and south boundary between the site and the residential lots. Preliminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 12.05 acres of land into 18 single - family lots and 4.5 acres of open space. The plat also provides right -of -way for the extension of the existing Drake Road to serve the site. The plat will name the new road, and rename the existing Drake Road stub, as Stansbury Drive. The road renaming will require separate action by City Council as part of Ordinance 52 -13. The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of 1.28 acre of open space and the proposal contains 4.5 acres of open space, owned and maintained by the Muirfield Village Association. The development text permits this dedication to Muirfield Village as provided in Sections 152.086 and 152.087 of the Subdivision Regulations. The plat indicates that the open space areas will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Village Association. Preliminary Development Plan The proposal includes a single public road, Stansbury Drive, serving all lots, extending from the existing Drake Road, which stubs south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. This portion of Drake Road south of Springburn Drive will be improved with this development. Stansbury Drive is proposed to extend to the east and create a loop turnaround at the west end of the site. The existing Drake Road is to be renamed to Stansbury Drive as proposed in Ordinance 52 -13. The 18 single - family lots have a clustered layout sensitive to the Stream Corridor Protection Zone requirements and existing stands of vegetation. The 55 -foot wide Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) divides the site, with 10 lots west of the Zone and 8 lots to the east. The four reserve areas total 4.5 acres. Memo re. Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury of Muirfield PUD June 6, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Development Text Use /Density /Lot Sizes The development text permits single - family detached homes, open spaces and related park features. The 18 single - family lots have a density of 1.5 units per acre, comparable or lower than the surrounding Muirfield Village sections. Lots are required to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet with a minimum depth of 120 feet and minimum width of 62 feet at the building line. Lots vary in size from 11,050 square feet to 23,700 square feet, similar to the adjacent sections of Muirfield Village. Setbacks The proposed development text requires a 10 -foot build zone front yard setback, within which a portion of the front elevation must be located. Except for Lots 11 and 12, all lots have a build zone between 20 and 30 feet. The build zone for Lots 15 and 16 is between 35 and 45 feet due to the larger size of these lots. Recently, front yard setback build zones have been used in several residential developments and enable the staggering of homes as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Required side yard setbacks are 7.5 feet on each side for all lots. The required rear yard setbacks differ, depending on the lot location. Lots 1 -5 have a 50 -foot rear yard setback and Lots 6 -12 require 45 feet. Lots 14 -18 require 15 feet and Lot 13, due to its size and location requires a 10 -foot rear yard setback. Tree preservation zones are along the rear of Lots 1 -12; 35 feet for Lots 1 -5, and 30 feet for Lots 6- 12. This area will allow for tree replacements. Tra>fc and Access Stansbury Drive will have a 50 -foot right -of -way and pavement width of 28 feet terminating in a loop cul -de -sac in the east portion of the site. The street will be designed to Dublin standards and include curb and gutter. The required traffic study demonstrates that the additional traffic generated by this development will have little to no impact on the level of service of the surrounding intersections, which currently operate at level of service "A" or "B ". Therefore, no additional roadway improvements are necessary. Sidewalks The Subdivision Regulations require a sidewalk or bikepath along all public streets. Though not typical for a Muirfield Village neighborhood, the applicant is proposing a four -foot, public sidewalk along all street frontages, except as waived in the proposed development text where homes do not front the street. The sidewalk will extend along the frontage of Lot 13 and terminate at the driveway for this lot. The construction of the sidewalk and driveway approach will take place when the home is constructed. In this development, sidewalks are especially helpful in protecting trees and limiting disturbance of the SCPZ, and providing access to the Muirfield path system. Planning and Engineering strongly support the inclusion of sidewalks in these locations. An eight -foot asphalt bikepath is proposed in Reserve "B" to connect the sidewalk along Stansbury Drive through the reserve to the Muirfield bikepath along the south site boundary. Memo re. Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury of Muirfield PUD June 6, 2013 Page 4of6 Tree Lawn The Zoning Code requires a minimum seven -foot tree lawn. The City Engineer has recently requested that nine -foot wide tree lawns be designed to allow more room for trees to grow and less interference with the sidewalk. To accommodate the wider tree lawns, the sidewalk moves toward the lot and a wider sidewalk easement will be dedicated. The development text requires and the plans reflect a nine -foot tree lawn. Architecture The development text describes the general character of the development as 1, 1 1 /2, and 2 -story homes and requires adherence to the Residential Appearance Standards. The text prohibits vinyl as a building material. The text only permits fences that are required around swimming pools. The Muirfield Village Association will approve individual plans for the subdivision. The proposed text addresses diversity and prohibits repeating the same or similar front elevations on two lots on either side of a lot, three lots across the street, on any lot on the cul -de -sac. Should the developer propose a themed community in the future, the homes would not have to adhere to diversity requirements, but would require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the final development plan. Tree Preservation The text outlines a goal to preserve as many trees in good and fair condition as possible. A tree replacement plan will be required with the final development plan. The Zoning Code requires that protected trees (trees six inches in diameter and in good or fair condition) be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis with deciduous trees. The preliminary tree preservation plan shows 278 trees at 6 -24 inches and four trees at 24 inches and above, all in good or fair condition. A significant majority of the trees on the site are White Ash. The applicant has made efforts to maximize tree preservation with this proposal by clustering lots and creating open spaces that incorporate treed areas. A tree preservation zone, indicated on the preliminary plat, is required for all lots with mature tree stands. The preliminary plat shows tree preservation zones of 35 feet along the rear of Lots 1 -5 and 30 feet along the rear of Lots 6 -12. The proposed development text states a tree reforestation program is an integral improvement component for the site. A mixture of deciduous trees of various sizes will be installed where appropriate to augment, re- establish or create a new treed buffer between adjoining lots. At the Planning and Zoning Commission review, the Commission requested a condition indicating landmark trees on the plans to ensure buildings can be sited to be sensitive to these larger trees. The revised plans show the landmark trees on the preliminary development plan. Removal and replacement details will be included in the final development plan. Open Space and Landscaping The reserves encompass the planned open space, which is to be owned by and maintained by the Muirfield Association. All final landscape details will be required at the final development plan stage. The text was revised to prohibit entry features, as requested by the Commission. Reserve "A ": This reserve is 0.49 acres around the swale in the north central portion of the site, and is largely within the SCPZ. Memo re. Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury of Muirfield PUD June 6, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Reserve "B ": This 3.436 -acre area encompasses the southern portion of the swale, which runs to the southeast corner and majority of the southeast portion of the site. The reserve includes a 30 -foot wide strip of land behind Lots 14 -18 adjacent to existing Muirfield Village open space and the area west of Lot 18. Reserve "C: This reserve is 0.225 acre and is the interior of the loop cul -de -sac and is to be used for stormwater management. Reserve "D ": This reserve is 0.341 acre and is the vacated right -of -way of a portion of Drake Road that is not platted as new right -of -way for Stansbury Drive. This area will also be owned by the Muirfield Association. Utilities and Stormwater This site will have adequate public water supplies for both domestic use and fire protection through the proposed water main extension from the existing eight -inch water main located along the east side of Drake Road and the installation of five new fire hydrants. Sanitary sewer service is provided through the proposed sanitary sewer mains, which will connect off -site to the existing sanitary sewer located to the west of Cruden Bay Court. The applicant's stormwater management report demonstrates compliance with the City of Dublin Stormwater Management Code. The proposed storm sewers, catch basins, and stormwater retention and detention ponds with permanent stormwater quality control devices will provide for adequate stormwater quality and quantity control. The City guidelines for stormwater runoff control, or the amount of water that this site would release to the existing ditch, require that the proposed site will detain the site stormwater and release it at a rate no greater than the predevelopment condition. There are no anticipated additional impacts to downstream culverts or adjacent lots. Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) A Stream Corridor Protection Zone exists on this site. This zone is intended to preserve the flood water capacity of existing drainage ways and limits stream erosion. Its width is determined by the contributing drainage area upstream of the segment. This zone is 55 feet wide, centered on the existing channel. The width of this zone will be established by the execution of the plat. Many activities and facilities are prohibited in the SCPZ, including but not limited to: • Disturbance of Natural Vegetation • Buildings • Stormwater Management Facilities In accordance with the SCPZ code provisions, the applicant requested that a small portion of the Zone be exempted or removed. The City Engineer has determined this portion does not meet the definition of a stream and is therefore exempt. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission On April 4, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council of the rezoning /preliminary development plan and preliminary plat with the conditions listed below. All conditions of the preliminary development plan and the preliminary plat have been addressed. Memo re. Ordinance 50 -13 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury of Muirfield PUD June 6, 2013 Page 6of6 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Conditions 1) That the development text be revised to not require the driveway location for Lot 1 to be to the west; 2) That the development text be revised to clarify enforcement of the Association architectural requirements and Zoning Code required residential appearance provisions; 3) That the text be revised to require an architectural theme, if proposed, be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the final development plan; 4) That the development text be revised to permit a maximum of 18 Lots and the proposed plans be revised to remove Lot 6 and incorporate a minimum lot width of 80 feet for Lots 1 through 5; 5) That the applicant verify the building envelopes to ensure all landmark trees are preserved; and 6) That the development text be revised to not permit an entry feature sign for this development. Preliminary Plat Conditions 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal, including noting the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and setback information; 2) That the applicant works with Delaware County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this preliminary plat; 3) That the preliminary plat be revised to match the preliminary development plan in terms of the elimination of Lot 6 and the width of Lots 1 through 5; and 4) That the sidewalk along Lot 9 be redesigned to a more curvilinear pattern. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 50 -13 at the second reading /public hearing on June 24, 2013. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP N City of Dublin Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Land Use and Preliminary Plat Long RangePlanning Stansbury at Muirtield 0 Feet 10799 Drake Rd I s 7 CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dub in Ohio 43016 -1236 PhonelTOD:614- 410 -4600 Fox. 6'!4- 410 -4747 Web Site. w dutNn oh us :s February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153 232) I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Informal Review ❑ Final Plat (Section 152.085) ❑ Concept Plan ❑ Conditional Use (Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) 0 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) ❑ Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Standard District Rezoning (Section 153.018) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign (Section 153.115) ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment ❑ Other (Please Specify): Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. II. PROPERTY INFORMATION This section must be completed. Property Address(es): 10799 Drake Road, Dublin, OH 43017 Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 60034405092000 6.080 acres 60034405093000 1 5.670 acres Existing Land Use /Development: Residential that is currently vacant.. IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use/Development: Planned Unit Development consisting of 23 fee simple residential lots. Total acres affected by application: 11.75 acres III. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S1: Please attach additional sheets if needed. Name (Individual or Organization): The Everett E. Buckner, Sr. Trust; Deborah Widdowson, Trustee 116 South High Street Mailing Address: New Lexington OH 43764 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: (419) 619 -3851 Fax: RECEIVED Email or Alternate Contact Information: dougdebw @sbcglobal.not t U 9 C lJ D Page lof3 oil � COP �� � /a� /rP FILE CI OF DUBLIN PLANNING f IV. APPLICANT(S) This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: William H. Adams Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Stansbury Muirfiield, LLC Mailing Address: PO Box 1422, Dublin, OH 43017 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: (614) 286-5753 Applicant is also property owner: yes ❑ no❑ Fax: (614) 793 Email or Alternate Contact Information: statestreet @columbus.rr.com V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Ben Hale, Jr. Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Smith & Hale Mailing Address: 17 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: (614) 221 -4255 Fax: (614) 221 -4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: bhale @smithandhale.com VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. I Deborah Widdowson, Trustee , the owner, hereby authorize William H. Adams and Ben Hale Jr. © to act as my applicant or representative(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: Date: Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representative(s s to document Subscribed and sworn before me this � day of . ' MICHELLE FRANK ' * Notary Public, State of Ohio State of MY Commission Expires L County of Notary Public November 19, 2016 OF VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. 1 William H. Adams 0 , the owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Date: Page 2 of 3 VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review 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 sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant 1 William H. Adams , the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant Signature of applicant or authorized representative: N � I Date: Z - 3 -13 IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT. This section must be completed and notarized. 1 William H. Adams 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 coact, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Subscribed and 1 sworn l to before me this State of -G�" County of Notary Public MICHELLE FRANK Notary Public. State of Ohio My Commission Expires November 19 2016 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount eceived• c� AppI c io t- Pa° P8Z Date(s): I LI ) P&Z Action: nU4tA( Receipt No: /\ Map Zone: Date Received: 1 13 Received By: 1T City Council (First Reading): 1c)[1-3 City Council (Second Reading): City Council Action: Ordinance Number: Type of Request: ZfZ O r % 'n �� wi1-h PM[i Ni ;Vn 0--ry beWel0ey e. 10149trl f�l-cl,'nn . Ple.1- N, SVW (Circle) Side of: N, S4" (Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: cci r c.-, r jo nv e� Distance from Nearest Intersection: 22S' Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: V� Date: 2 _ 3 - 1! Page 3 of 3 d p., -. I ' h 'n 3 (Pagb 2 of.2) . I l ' x � , b D I i i VOL 0 212 7 . y 1f ! ! S UNDWWED'%1N71'ZW IN P.FOTZOWING TWO TRACTS: Situated in the Village of Dublin, Countyaf Delaw= and S%W of Oblc and known ra: TRACT ON& Being a part of Suction F- in the partSion adReal F.statp fwmatybeloagi to original Lots Five (3) and SeNm (7j in V.M.S. 2545 in Q=md Ta%mWp, Delaware bounded and dcmnW as fnllmv beginoing at a point in the center line of a gravel road the Southwestoorau oforWtlal Lap (6) as tha name is recorded is wmpleoeftecorg Delaware County, Obla, Sank PW' East. 222.7 Qq to said point; 0moo Saath W59'1 at 20 fm) 12N.4 feet to an iron pipe;lhatoe South 1°06' Fast 273.0 feet to a atantti ihen (palmng an iron pipe at 1222,5 fed) 1242.5 feet to a point in the ornter line ofthe gravel orrnter llm of said road, North I°00' West x14.6 feet to the piece of be (being Lot Number 7) 9 } Pd ar Mmummr Apo: Vd= 213. page 63, Deed Rem* of Delaware County. Ohlo.. Aaeonnt orpennmem parbel No: (0.0 0 S44050 U000. , — — ;,RACY TWO:. Beutg dWgaated ns Lot N(L 6. oa the tm =rded plat rota fwtlw awed I:O't NUMBERS. Being apart of Sec It. in tba paiwon of PA9 9 98W far w* bdo* original lots S d: 7, in V.M.S. 2543 frt Cmvmd Tawwh,p, Daiaxam County, Ohio, and h follows: Be&ntng at apolmt in the orates ft ofa gm4 teed, at the Soutbwcotwnw c sumo is mco*d in complete two d% Case $125, pw 8i; Delawam County bM& Than oftn it lot N6, S 89 Hat (passing af► iron pipe at20 febt) 1111.5 feet to an iron pipe lttdson trail. 716m S. I0"06' Bast, 226.3 fxet to anlron An thence N 89°59' West, (1 1187A fed) 1207.4 feet m a pt. lathe Dealer fine of thegavel toad; theax elan$ the car 1 West, 247.fcet m the place of3eginnfeg, wamhdng 6A8 acres of ]and, mere or l NO'T'E: TNs parcel uninflected m 5.67 hors on dcD4lawzk County Anditor's. Prior Inslmaw Rekcm: V 322, Page 166. Deed Rworda afDe vmm County. Ohio. P mid i a, I i l r � 1 Ij' it I, 1 i { i i { I auk 5i P 1126. Pile Humb6r 199900034533 i - - , I 1 i i x �4 i I 1 Ij' it I, 1 i { i i { I auk 5i P 1126. Pile Humb6r 199900034533 i - - , I 1 i - ? I (Page 2 of 2) • Yoio o o S PAGE 2l.2 itEDORDWO1RHQtlI M 113YAND ` WKWRIMMDUAILDEBD ANDTAXSrATEUM ,a70: L19%0034333 Emei P, Buckag, ft. Filed for Record in 10m Dmke llopd DELAWARE MuN ry OHIO Ilublu%OH43%7 RAY E COWLIN On 14— ig- 1999-At 03356 pg. PaEPA>tIDHYc OR�Book 5 Page 2126 � LAW ORWO OFANDREW 3i MHHAN 1333 DUBLIN ROAD, sUrM 200A OOLVM=OR 4321s %XT- (wwwD lY tIfEO seACeAeovelwsrRlEREe Jtr?JAat'AAlM MST" THE WE AMOL ifi xL OF tvE >Rvmy 9EDY13t! OF NICE M -VJX4K ffWWUNrAAF@VKtAW MAKWwF0gDMQUIT CIAb"DEED The unde�slgned GraBigr dedatea t]lai ttandu tsx is NONE This ceoveyance traDSiar oho qm , l T NO COn c 4 ba n v o y7 }pp ( V G ffffi7 f IL BUCa�a". M. v'J o ac e , q� LL4 as RMD T BUOU �, a i BUcCI ;> SR. tustea. or Ms smoessar in 1,U.4t, mA laT EVERMTIL BUCKNM ML Ti ! 9— �9 44 and e»y aln roents thereto, the wowhag described =4 P%mly I, i Dablia, Coanty Of DdawaM Stets of Ohio, and dambed u foUaws.' 5138 BXIiBrr "A" ATTAcF D HERT?I'O ANDBY PEPM Exvm*A an at �vb�,a mg STA E OF OHIO ) CDUN rY OF P% ) wilDeas: qtr Olt °�} -e 9 49 beibtame. r "a ,ia4✓ p . NMYPW EVEMM E. HUC MR, SR, pelsoj4 known to ma OA [ ] proved tD ma w the basis of satid pmm q!itoss Dame is sahscrlbed to dw within utsduBUnt and aftModged W ms that hs eatecot auftdzed capacity, and that by his ftutam an the fnstrltmeot the person, or the en* upon beb gated, esaalted the ins7u mn WrINBSS my hall and official seal 4 4� AL Puma. allot ch Ohlo itt 'fir w equal S:p(. qi NATURE �4•r pp p� toast into his 1" the Village of I: r>map.` j I � � f r M tobelLII the �m his lif ' chthepas ,n lianlaH�lgtopp2d� .Y�2QfAllBf - Trlaz�lnP#ia _. "i"y _e _ Y r • m r� I ti k f r f > "i"y _e _ Y r • m r� I 13- 0092 /PDP /PP • William H. Adams • The Everett E. Buckner Trust Stansbury @ Muirfield Village 8824 Dunsinane Drive c/o Deborah Widdowson, Trustee 10799 Drake Road Dublin, OH 43017 116 South High Street New Lexington, OH 43764 Walter Zeier Allesia Miller Gina Gabriel Muirfield Association Office 8445 Gullane Court 5811 Whitecraigs Court 8372 Muirfield Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Brian & Brigitte Teuber Peter & Diane Fuhlbrigge Eric & Carol Roy 5739 Dumfries Ct West 5618 Loch More Court West 5626 Loch More Court West Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Galina & Alexander Moiseyeva Karen Silvestri Jacob L Williams, Trustee 5676 Springburn Drive 5603 Loch More Court West 5704 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 William L Joseph Ray & Jennifer Dirossi Martin Ignastic & 5644 Springburn Drive 5732 Springburn Drive Andrea Hobbs Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 5766 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Michael & Elizabeth Gabel Phillip Barcus & Mark & Tracy Chambers 5643 Springburn Drive Diane Boggs 5790 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 8895 Cruden Bay Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Paul Davis Inna & Sandor Gyorkey James Cordle 5824 Springburn Drive 8889 Cruden Bay Court 5836 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Judy Starrett John & Vicki Gainor Stephen & Presila Brennan 5888 Springburn Drive 8960 Saltcoats Court 8940 Saltcoats Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Patrick & Karen Miller Warren & Roberta Ashton Richard & Barbara Kochis 8935 Saltcoats Court 8864 Belisle Court 5812 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Alesia Miller Gina Gabriel Faye Bullio 8445 Gullane Court 5811 Whitecraigs Court 8954 Maclmyre Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jack Burns Gary Kaiser Peggy McDaniel 9035 Picardy Court 9015 Picardy Court 6005 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 John & Joanne Allsburg Peter Welsh Craig & Sharon Zimmers 5624 Camoustie Circle 8440 Gullane Court 8864 Narin Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Joseph & Karen Tate Arthur & Peggy Lewis Marion & Cynthia White 8849 Belisle Court 8865 Braids Court 8875 Narin Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Niklas Brodd & Bruce D. Jr. & Jennifer Worthen Sheila Franco Yaqoob Aseel Isam 8848 Narin Court 8857 Narin court 8850 Narin Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Grigori Bannikov & William & Katherine Hermann Robert Francati Karelina Tatiana 8854 Gailes Court 8844 Gailes Court 8847 Gailes Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 David & Ann Van Karsen Michael McGrath Matthew & Nancy Morrill 8835 Nairin Court 5920 Macewen Court 8834 Giles Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Nancy & Ervin Wallace, Trustees Earl IV Devanny & Steven & Patricia King 5895 Kilbannan Court Carol Breitengerger 8882 Nairn Court Dublin, OH 43017 8837 Gailes Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 John & Rebecca Schauss Martha & Eric Anderson Eric & Joyce Shea 5611 Loch More Court West 5635 Loch More Court West 5619 Loch More Court West Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Scott & Jennifer MacDonald Anne Carlisle Michael & Elizabeth Gabel 5627 Loch More Court West 8900 Cruden Bay Court 5643 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Inna & Sandor Gyorke Geraldine Dixon Speer, Trustee Timothy & Julie Wilson 8889 Cruden Bay Court 5655 Springburn Drive 5667 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Patricia & Elizabeth Homon James & Judith Zitesman Thomas Rieland & 5685 Springburn Drive 4701 Springburn Drive Carol Olender, Trustees Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 5733 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 John & Denedie Carlin Susan & Ralph Parris Kathleen & Gregory Cunningham 5761 Springburn Drive 5793 Springburn Drive 5801 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Nathan & Megan Tucker Alan & Linda Swearingen Edward & Anne Pernaveau 5813 Springburn Drive 8881 Cruden Bay Court 8874 Cruden Bay Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jeffrey & Stephanie Schoener Carol Wingate Vincent & Angela Resor 5825 Springburn Drive 8866 Cruden Bay Court 5837 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Roger Pickens & Merle Hester David & Joanne Novak Eric & Mabel Clapp 5935 Springburn Drive 8873 Cruden Bay Court 8858 Cruden Bay Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Ryan & Peter Kurty Christen Millard P Strickland 5945 Springburn Drive 8861 Cruden Bay Court 5955 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Karl & Bonnie Steuer Warren & Roberta Ashton John C Godbout 8853 Cruden Bay Court 8864 Belisle Court 5965 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Steven & Lisa Bownas Creighton & Christie Lephart Joseph & Sarah Redman 5975 Springburn Drive 8880 Braids Court 8885 Braids Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Judi & Barry Boyles Jeffrey & Barbara Cygan Beverly Callahan 8890 Belisle Court 884 Belisle Court 8870 Bairds Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Bernadine B Zwick, Trustee Russ & Gretchen Randall Robert Backus & 8875 Braids Court 8883 Belisle Court Christina Logan Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 8867 Belisle Court Dublin, OH 43017 Victor & Jeanne Fox Bruce & Jodelles Bunevich Carol Rieland 8860 Braids Court 8863 Gailes Court 5733 Springburn Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE DUBLIN, OHIO Land Owner: The Everett E. Buckner, Sr. Trust 116 South High Street New Lexington, Ohio 43764 Phone: 740.342.1377 Contact: Deborah Widdowson, Trustee Developer: Stansbury Muirlield, LLC P.O. Box 1422 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 614.793.0001 Contact: William H. Adams Legal: Smith & Hale 17 West Broad Street Columbus Ohio 43215 Phone: 614.221.4255 Contact: Ben Hale Jr. Land Planning/ Landscape Architecture: MKSK 462 South Ludlow Alley Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: 614.621.2796 Contact: BrianP.Kinzelman Engineering: Hull & Associates, Inc. 6397 Emerald Parkway, Suite 200 Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614.793.8777 Contact: James F. Bischoff Page 1 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation March 22, 2013 CONTENTS Section I: Development Review I. Location and Size 4 II. Existing Conditions 4 III. Existing and Proposed Land Uses 4 IV. Parks and Open Space 4 V. Provision of Utilities 5 VI. Access and Circulation 6 Section II : Development Standards I. Development Standards 7 II. Permitted Uses 7 III. Density 7 IV. Lot Standards 7 V. Street Access and /or Improvements 8 VI. Street Standards 8 VII. Utilities 9 VIII. Storm Water Management 9 IX. Tree Preservation, Removal and Replacement 9 X. Parks and Open Space 10 XI. Architecture 10 XII. Landscaping II Page 2 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation XIII. Homeowner's Association I I Section III: Exhibits I. Regional Context Map C 1.0 II. Vicinity Map C 2.0 111. Existing Conditions Map C 3.0 IV. Preliminary Development Plan C 4.0 V. Utility / Grading Plan C 5.0 VI. Preliminary Plat C 6.0 VI 1. Tree Survey C 7.0 Vill. Tree Survey List C 8.0 Page 3 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation SECTION I : DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW I. Location and Size • The site is located completely within the City of Dublin and Delaware County. • The 12.05 acre site is located on the south side of Springburn Drive and east of Drake Road, approximately 700' northeast of the intersection of Carnoustie Drive and Springburn Drive. The property is only remaining developable parcel in this area. • The property is surrounded by existing single- family residential development. • The site measures approximately 12 66' x 440'. II. Existing Conditions and Character • The site is rectangular in shape, with gently sloping land, fallow meadows with a variety of non -native plant materials, a dry Swale, mature trees that are primarily located at or near the boundaries of the property and a vacant house with small outbuildings. • The property was once a small operating farm but was abandoned approximately 12 years ago. • The property is located in the north central section of Muirfield Village and is completely surrounded by existing medium density single- family housing that was generally built in the 1980's III. Existing and Proposed Land Uses • The Dublin Community Plan - Existing Land Use Map designates the site as "undeveloped ". • The Dublin Community Plan - Future Land Use Map designates the site as "Residential Low Density (0.5 - 1 dwelling unit per acre) and the current zoning, Rural District would permit a maximum density of one unit per acre, or 11 units. The proposal includes 18 lots on 12.05 acres for a density of 1.5 units per acre. • Proposed use is single - family residential. Page 4 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation • The proposed Development Plan manifests the tenants of conservation design, clustered home sites with "reserve' areas of tree preservation, habitat conservation, reforestation and localized storm water management. IV. Parks and Open Space • A minimum of 4.5 acres (37 %) will remain free of development and be considered reserves. • The open space /reserves will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Homeowners Association. V. Provision of Utilities General • All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electric, and gas are available to this site. • All utilities will be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. • A comprehensive storm water management system will meet City of Dublin design criteria. • All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the lots that will best preserve the existing trees that are in good or fair condition. Sanitary Sewer • Sanitary sewer service to Stansbury at Muirfield will be provide from one (1) location. • The proposed development will be serviced from an existing 8 -inch line that is located adjacent to Muirfield BOA property on its eastern property line at Cruden Bay Court. • Sanitary Lines will be sized and located to accommodate only the proposed property. No future connection into the new sanitary line is anticipated. Water • An exi sting 8 -inch water main along the east side of Drake Road will be adequate to provide service to this site. A public water main will be constructed along Stansbury Drive within the development. • Water lines will be sized and located to accommodate only the proposed property. No future connection into the new on -site water line is anticipated. Page 5 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation Storm Water -Existing • The site primarily drains from west to east. The existing stream on the site collects run -off and flows west to east. 0.46 acres of off -site area drains from the west and north across the site to the existing stream. • The predominately soil type is Glynwood, a Type C soil, corresponding to the pre- developed run -off curve number of 78. Storm Water -Post Developed • In the post - development condition, the site drainage will be handled by one (1) stormwater management system consisting of two basins, one (1) wet (retention pond) and one (1) dry (detention pond). The system will accept drainage from pervious areas such as rear yards, side yards, and the off -site 0.46 acres mentioned above, and impervious areas such as roadways, roofs, and sidewalks. • Rear yard drainage has been provided to transport sheet flow from the lots to the proposed storm water system. Impervious surfaces will drain to catch basins in the roadway and will flow to either basin. The wet basin will have a fore- bay collection pool that will pre - filter heavy debris before entering the wet basin. The wet basin (retention pond) will have a permanent pool elevation of 918.00. • The system will also direct a smaller portion of run -off into a dry basin located in the island at the end of the cul -de -sac. This basin will discharge into the existing stream. • One (1) property, Lot #13 will free drain into the adjacent Swale due to its elevation relative to the stormwater basins. • The existing stream will be protected by a 55 foot Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ). IV. Access and Circulation • Vehicular access to the site will be from a single access point on Drake Road off Springburn Drive. • It is intent of the developer to rename Drake Road as well as the proposed roadway improvement to Stansbury Drive. SECTION II : DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 6 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation I. Development Standards Basic development standards are addressed in this text regarding the proposed density, general site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 152 and 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. II. Permitted Uses Permitted uses shall include the following: A. Single - family detached homes. B. Open space and related park features. III. Density A maximum of 18 residential homes shall be permitted in this PUD. The proposed density for this project is 1.5 dwelling units per acre. IV. Lot Standards Single - family homes in this development will be constructed on traditional lots with fee simple ownership. Specific lot standards shall apply to each of these development types: Fee Simple Lots A. Lot Size Lot Area: 10,000 square feet minimum Lot Width: 62 feet minimum (at the building line) Lot Depth: 120 feet minimum B. Lot Setbacks Front Yard: Each lot shall have a mandatory Build- Zone of 10 feet as indicated on the preliminary and final plat. A portion of the front elevation of the home must be located within the Build - Zone, which will encourage staggering the distance from the Page 7 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT V VI As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation road right -of -way where the placement of the home begins, thus creating more visual interest along Stansbury Drive. Subdivision Regulation 152.019(C) (6) shall not apply to this development. Rear Yard: Lots 1 through 5: 50 feet Lots 6 through 12: 45 feet Lot 13: 10 feet Lots 14 through 18: 15 feet Side Yard: Tree Preservation Zone: 7.5 feet for building structures. Lots 1 through 5: 35 feet Lots 6 through 12: 30 feet Lots 13 through 18: None Street Access and /or Improvements Stansbury Drive: The existing Drake Road access point that connects to Springburn Drive will be improved per the Street Standards listed below and be renamed Stansbury Drive. Street Standards A. Public Streets: 1. Right -of -Way: 50 feet minimum 2. Pavement Width: 24 feet of asphalt pavement, 2.0 feet of curb and gutter for a gross roadway width of 28 feet, as measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 3. Drive Lanes: Two (2) 4. Parking Lanes: Parking shall be allowed on one side of the public streets internal to the PUD opposite to the waterlines and hydrants. 5. Tree Lawn: No Less than Win width 6. Sidewalk 4 Feet minimum; sidewalks shall be concrete. No sidewalk shall be required where it does not front a single family lot. The sidewalk will terminate at the driveway for Lot 13. Page 8 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation 7. Multi-Use Path: 8 Feet width minimum; multi -use paths shall be constructed of asphalt. B. Private Sidewalks: A minimum of 4' wide sidewalk shall be required for every residence. This private sidewalk shall extend from the front door and connect to the driveway, where applicable, as the driveway may abut the front door. VII. Utilities A. Design and Construction: All utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. B. Location: All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the individual homesites that will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition. VIII. Storm Water Management A. Design and Construction: A comprehensive stormwater management system shall be developed, following the City of Dublin stormwater management policies. IX. Tree Preservation, Removal and Replacement A. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the Developer to preserve as many good and fair condition trees as possible on the site. A good faith effort will be made to preserve existing trees in good and fair condition where appropriate. Any trees 6 inches of caliper or greater will be accounted for on the Tree Replacement Plan. B. Tree Preservation Zone: 1. A tree preservation zone, as indicated on the preliminary and final plat, shall be established at the rear of lots with significant mature tree stands. Page 9 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation 2. A temporary metal or wood construction fence, minimum 4' in height, shall be installed around the perimeter of the tree preservation zone prior to any construction activities. 3. No building, structure, fence, patio, recreational or athletic facility, or any other improvement of any kind may be placed temporarily or permanently upon, in or under the area designated hereon as a "Tree Preservation Zone" nor shall any work be performed thereon which would alter the natural state of the zone or damage any of the trees or vegetation herein. 4. Disturbance of any part of the zone by maintenance shall be restored as nearly as practicable to the original condition. No tree or vegetation may be removed from the zone except for the removal of dead, diseased, decayed or noxious trees or other vegetation or as may be required for conversation or aesthetic purposed or in keeping with good forest management practices. C. Tree Reforestation: Upon completion of the removal of dead trees and non -native plant material, a tree reforestation program has been identified as a integral improvement component for the site. A mixture of deciduous trees of various sizes will be installed where appropriate in order to augment, re- establish or create a new treed buffer between adjoining lots. This natural, reforestation buffer will have an unmaintained understory (no manicured turfgrass). Details will be included in the final development plan. On an as needed basis, trees or other vegetation may be removed from any area in order to maintain drainage facilities. X. Parks and Open Space Based on the location of the development within Muirfield and past practices, the proposed open space reserves will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Association. Approximately 4.5 acres of open space will be held in Reserves, labeled'A', 'B', 'C', and'D' on the preliminary development plan. This open space shall be considered to fulfill Subdivision Regulation requirements for Open Space Requirements (152.086) and Land Dedication For Municipality's Portion of Recreational Facilities (152.087). The open space areas may contain a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to enhance the rural character of the area. XI. Architecture Page 10 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation General Character: The character of the development shall be 1, 1.5 and 2 story single - family, high quality homes with 2 or 3 car garages that complement the quality of the surrounding homes in adjacent neighborhoods and will adhere to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards Code. Vinyl shall not be permitted as cladding or trim. Permitted Building Height: Maximum height of 35, as per the Dublin Code. Plan Approval: The Muirfield Association shall retain the right of individual plan approval for all single - family homes within the subdivision. The City of Dublin will be responsible for ensuring home plans adhere to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards Code. Architectural Diversity: The same or similar front elevations shall not be repeated within: 1. Two lots on either side of subject lot. 2. Three lots directly across the street from subject lot. 3. Any lot on the cul -de -sac bulb. A diversity matrix shall be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. A themed development shall not be required to adhere to the architectural diversity requirements, but must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the final development plan. XII. Landscaping Entry Feature: • The entry feature may include integrated landscaping. • Final location, design and standards for the entry feature and related landscaping and signage details shall be presented and approved during the Final Development Plan stage. • All entry features will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Association. • An entry feature sign shall not be permitted. Street Trees: Page 11 of 12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to City Council for First Reading of Ordinance 49 -13 on June 10, 2013 Incorporating conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Approval Recommendation Street Trees will be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. Final location shall be determined by the City Forester. Fencing: • No fencing shall be permitted unless it is decorative in nature and does not enclose an area. • Fences around pools shall be permitted and conform to the requirements of the governing building code. Cul -de -sac: The cul -de -sac island shall be landscaped with lawn and /or plant material and maintained by the Muirfield Association. XIII. Homeowner's Association All residential property owners located within the Stansbury at Muirfield Village PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in the Muirfield Association. SECTION I : EXHIBITS Page 12 of 12 MMQWA� I C ZO � r ll J 0 GSTrP ��di. 10 1 GP < i I I \ MUIRFIELD VILLAGE GOLF CLUB SpR l� RN DR FVF C =:) ✓// __..... —.._ ...__..._ I �_.....— ......_.YILL -A DENTIAL 1 ZONED O U z i Z i i 'MUIRFIELD - VILLAGE PHASE ZONED / ` '.E 7 _._..... L IA `, - C ' ., GP PNOJ ` o - - - -- BIRNAM W000S lo p cNG \\ v i ._. czsnoog PHasE 9 ]• r / < ,._.. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OFFSET _ ', — — — — — — THE FAI NAYS AT j f MUIRFIEL :VI LLAGEi ZO RESID �{TIjAL j _ -, - CD SITE DATA O SURVEY EXISTING I _ O PROPOSED LEGEND MU19 D O VILLA G HA,SE - 7 9 p _J W W 0 D'* 9 ,> � a SIDEN IAL N I � — i �\ LOT SIZE: 541,722 SO FT OR 12.43 AC 1. PARCEL DATA, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED Y EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY •• • • PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY ADDRESS: 10799 DRAKE ROAD FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. Z ,, V! c,, < L r DUBLIN OH 43017 2. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY OR THE W EXISTING PROPERTY LINE — -- — - - — PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE MUIRF E D - -- VLCLAOE A 7 ZO ED -..� SHOWN. _RESI NT.i EXISTING STREAM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE 0 I C ZO � r ll J 0 GSTrP ��di. 10 1 GP < i I I \ MUIRFIELD VILLAGE GOLF CLUB SpR l� RN DR FVF C =:) ✓// __..... —.._ ...__..._ I �_.....— ......_.YILL -A DENTIAL 1 ZONED O U z i Z i i 'MUIRFIELD - VILLAGE PHASE ZONED / ` '.E 7 _._..... L IA `, - C ' ., GP PNOJ ` o - - - -- BIRNAM W000S lo p cNG \\ v i ._. czsnoog PHasE 9 ]• r / < ,._.. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OFFSET _ ', — — — — — — THE FAI NAYS AT j f MUIRFIEL :VI LLAGEi ZO RESID �{TIjAL j 500' PROP RTY OF E ` �n —EXISTING PHASE < -- LINE (TYP) m 9 �G i ITF.- I --------- H US I I. sooates, inc. 1= IiEEr:S E, =1_ 'TST= -- - 1 E =5 e 6: i6ta) 79a s oo m Pa6lcwnr u611) es.a 6l 6 SUITE ue D Ta a3016 �rr.h linc.co>t Project Title: SITE DATA O SURVEY EXISTING LEGEND _ O PROPOSED LEGEND Z _J W W Q J a O W LOT SIZE: 541,722 SO FT OR 12.43 AC 1. PARCEL DATA, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED Y EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY •• • • PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY ADDRESS: 10799 DRAKE ROAD FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. Z ,, V! Q L r DUBLIN OH 43017 2. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY OR THE W EXISTING PROPERTY LINE — -- — - - — PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN. — — — — EXISTING STREAM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PHASE LINE PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE BENCHMARKS BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY TO SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE — — 500' PROPERTY OFFSET CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ARE ST EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE REFERENCED TO OHIO STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OH -N NAD 83 AND NAVE 88, RESPECTIVELY. w EXISTING WATER LINE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT Ohio Utilities Protection Service FLOODZONE INFORMATION EXISTING GOLF FAIRWAY ,�° THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE D.2o ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, hefo re you COMMUNITY PANEL NOS. 39049C0019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 17, 2008, IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO. 800 - 362 -2764 NOTE 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. 500' PROP RTY OF E ` �n —EXISTING PHASE < -- LINE (TYP) m 9 �G i ITF.- I --------- H US I I. sooates, inc. 1= IiEEr:S E, =1_ 'TST= -- - 1 E =5 e 6: i6ta) 79a s oo m Pa6lcwnr u611) es.a 6l 6 SUITE ue D Ta a3016 �rr.h linc.co>t Project Title: LL O Q �J_ 19t O I > _ O Z Z _J W W Q J a O W 0 W 0 W C Y Q � U Z ,, V! Q L r � Y• V / W CL o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is copynghS d a,d is the sole prapedy of Hull & Assxiates, Irk. It is produced for use by the protect owner Raproduc6on or all, use of the dawmg or the Mormat'on mats n Sd herein without the wMten perm ss on of Hull is stri611y proh holed All rights reserved Copyright 2013 Mark Description Dale DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 P roject N o.: DRP001 CAD DWG File: DRP001_YIC MAP Plot Date: 05/28/13 Loyout By: J B Drown By: JTH Check By: MJB Scale: AS NOTED Issue Date: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: VICINITY MAP (500' RADIUS) Sheet Number: 1 OF 8 C1.0 EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE JJJJJ N — — — — EXISTING STREAM _ 00__ PROPERTY OFFSET _,_ - /�: EXISTING PHASE LINE 2,0 TAG ART ,-� T}RTAN 1 � EXISTING GOLF FAIRWAY --�1 EST ES F ELDS l/" v I W F r / j ro PROPOSED LEGEND BE 150 300 600 — — — — PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ' WEYBRIDGE VIA, PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE UIR EL - - MU RF ELD _ OUNT :pl — �.l — q WEST I O - _PASE _ - HA SE ( A PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE MUIRFIELD o 25 24 1 MUIRFIELD '� 2,000' PROPERTY OFFSET VILL.9GE MUI L ",.� U �, �\ �. S . _ ✓'\ VILLAG 3 SEE O lJ 9 r 3 I mg- 6LICK ROAD V Ohio Utilities Protection Service 1 Caw) r, � r c b '- fore you y 800 - 362 -2764 F iat- \ _ �,� �J•> /�; - y � PRO rD�'C J 1 r, A E ` ��� T •.PHA E c \,i 8 n MUIBEI D" Vf Q9 B IAN AM a `' Np LLA E �/\ Wb17OS U. CD_ G S p OC < MUIRFI D �.BIRN 2 �> VIL E MUTfi61ELD GdObD GO F LAGE CONDOS • ✓ CL B pHA PHA$ / \41 e. Y 00 LD � � J r� �, ♦ - - � u RF, � L'O _ O _ ASE ' SITE DATA LOT SIZE: - 12.05 AC ADDRESS: 10799 DRAKE ROAD UIRF L OEM D 4� : l; a, ` w �i DUBLIN OH 43017 SE \/ MUIRFIELD 3 ` _ p O �/ SURVEY 9 — VILLAGE < ' 1. PARCEL DATA, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED GOLF \� .p FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. O CLUB 37 ��1 2. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY OR THE -q L... - ., �• ^> ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE `� SHOWN. c MUIRFIELD BENCHMARKS -s0 O O \ BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO OHIO STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OH -N NAD 83 AND NAVD 88, RESPECTIVELY. wigwam 2,000' PROPERTY OFFSET � FLOOOZONE INFORMATION THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL NOS. 3904900019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 17, 2008, IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO. M NOTE 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. H ssociates, inc. _I._iiEEF.S E=5 s111EE200 PAPw344v 0.Y:E (6in)a>9399o>on Project Title: �L. r Q W LL O Z Q J O _I J = O z� z �'- 0 CL 0 M ❑ UJ Y > �- ❑ O v z� a W Q W CL ❑ Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OR 43017 This drzw ng is wpydghted and I, dte wie p,operh of Hull flASSOC:ates, inc It - s p,aduced ro, use by the pmieC, owner Repmdudion o, o— use of this dewing o, the nrom lb wnW.dherenrnmoat me d.n permsson of Hull is smelly p,oh Me M rights reserved .Pon' 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Project No.: DRP001 CAD DWG File: DRP001_REG MAP Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB D r a wn By: J TH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Date: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP (2,000' RADIUS) Sheet Number: 2 OF 8 C2.0 M / J v sT w / I FIEL r �J \ VIJ,LAGE �� \ ASE r7' J \ / Mid II�FI t:�D \ cc / E / EXISTING DRAfCF{ ROAD RIGHT OF WA1 TO BE VACATEb AFTER p , ~ V -0ELAWARE /COUNTY r \ r 3 L E VACAT� 60 D DRAI� ,W GH'i� -OF -W ORDINANCE NO. 30 -K / SPRINGBURNjDRIVE Project No.: DRP001 0 LL EXISTING LEGEND et 0 J CL - = 0- — — EXISTING PARCEL LINE tV DRIVE )\ rte\ p J lir �a a \\ \\— \ y�� \ �� w\ SP RING6UR J� \ \—'� . ENDIROAD —r l I�AP.OVEMENTS'- \� 1 3', — - -fir / )'._�_ —. \ .l \— (1 r\ \\ t MUIRFIELD R ( VILLAGE __" ;/ I t — ,. x' J r o ` / \ \ __ r J 1S \ —� \\ \ : —\_ —�1 i\ j . r /,-.\ \/ r .x . ....r..� ` � \ - -� _ -__'lj )-- 1."j._,1 \ \ 9 301 / \.,- \; .EXISTING c USE/ r R0 \ 1 /_: ! r EX\SRGSATER/ — — J, _� MUIRFIEIy P \ \ \ \ \ I t, _._ _ _ \ \\ \ �_- r �..._ .._.�.... / r U I R FI E(L`4 TYPE Y ) ) / / r LZNE"(TYPj - � l h._., --.__7 VILLAGE BASE 12 r ' — — — — — — \ _ _ �__\ 1 I' \ \ \ \ +1I'LLAJE \\ \ \ - 60' /W I \ \/ / — /^ ga. �'/ J t - 1 I PROPER�I' 1 _ `�\ \ \� ....._...)_..... I \ ,__._._.... i ; PHASE- 12 �• ! 1 6-• — 92' .- — _ _ '_ `it - -\ _ — I LINE t4S6 NZi` •�!,) °\ \— (TYP) 1 \ SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE x 922 �- ST I c l I \ \ /\4^ Project No.: DRP001 0 LL EXISTING LEGEND et 0 J CL - = 0- — — EXISTING PARCEL LINE WiFt p J V Ate_% — — +• - `\ \_ �) PARCEL LINE, (TYP y�� \ �� :< \ \\ :,;'.... \ \ .` \ � j ` \ � EXISTING t MUIRFIELD R ( VILLAGE 2126 -2127 OR QUICK CLAIM DEED FILED FOR RECORD IN DELAWARE PHASE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD REMOVED. APPRgXiM�P�T LOCATION, ( r ) \\ \ 1 cSTBEAM \` J y \ \ Q826— d J r \ _ {.:. FROM EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR �t tQ zip , EXISTING STORM e ( + \ `, SEWER (TYP), — — — — — EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR :.\ IMPROVEMENTS,TO SPRZNGBURN_�RIVE EXISTING TREE LINE FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIS DATA. �• EXISTING WATER FEATURE, EX_I SJTPf. \ 1T1 ) I Yr \ �TARYJ z / ! )e-n SE EB (TYP) / •Q T, ) 7 • \ f t4S6 NZi` ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE �;\ y{ p GRAVEL DRIVE, 428— APPROXIMATE SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE ST I BENCHMARKS BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY TO AERIAL TO BE W t \ \ \ CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ARE c l I \ \ /\4^ Mlf — MUTRFI- BCD_,— \ / — // / —/ l \ \ \ E �.,\ � `_\ ( \ \_._ / �� 1 /\ MUIRFIELD EXZSTING aATH, \ - ����E -..do- \ -; , \\ VILLAGE, ^JS.E�B_ --'� / c �te�c \ PHASE �' l \ j'\ \ \ c i / / / / i� t \ r VILLAGE APPR6ZIMATE l J \ \ ` / /pr1A $ 7 \ - PHASE 7 0. AERIAL IMAGERY) M JV > ✓\ �\ / \` ^/ ! \� / / r top Project No.: DRP001 0 LL EXISTING LEGEND et 0 J CL - = 0- — — EXISTING PARCEL LINE WiFt p J V Ate_% — — PH�Sk 12 ^ J MAY 2013 f ^ w / \ r EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 0 30 60 120 SCALE IN FEET 0 t MUIRFIELD R ( VILLAGE 2126 -2127 OR QUICK CLAIM DEED FILED FOR RECORD IN DELAWARE PHASE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD COUNTY, OHIO ON 10 -15 -1999. W ~ STINfi d J 2. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION IS BASED ON OSIP BARE -EARTH r C — —930— — EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR �t tQ zip , EXISTING STORM e ( + \ `, SEWER (TYP), — — — — — EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR -994— \ SS EXISTING TREE LINE FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIS DATA. EXISTING WATER FEATURE, EX_I SJTPf. \ 1T1 ) I Yr \ �TARYJ z / ! )e-n SE EB (TYP) / •Q T, ) 7 • APPROXIMATE LOCATION ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE Mlf — MUTRFI- BCD_,— \ / — // / —/ l \ \ \ E �.,\ � `_\ ( \ \_._ / �� 1 /\ MUIRFIELD EXZSTING aATH, \ - ����E -..do- \ -; , \\ VILLAGE, ^JS.E�B_ --'� / c �te�c \ PHASE �' l \ j'\ \ \ c i / / / / i� t \ r VILLAGE APPR6ZIMATE l J \ \ ` / /pr1A $ 7 \ - PHASE 7 0. AERIAL IMAGERY) M JV > ✓\ �\ / \` ^/ ! \� / / r top I . HU inc. wile zoo I.p a xpx 1 1 a W9L[x, 0x[0 a30t6 vw.hullinc cam Project Title: Project No.: DRP001 0 LL EXISTING LEGEND et 0 J CL - = 0- — — EXISTING PARCEL LINE LLI W_ p J a — — EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY MAY 2013 SURVEY w \ 0 LLI EXISTING PROPERTY LINE p Q 1. FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY INFORMATION SEE DEED BOOK 5, PAGE 0 U 2126 -2127 OR QUICK CLAIM DEED FILED FOR RECORD IN DELAWARE Q EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD COUNTY, OHIO ON 10 -15 -1999. W ~ Q d W p 2. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION IS BASED ON OSIP BARE -EARTH — —930— — EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) DERIVED FROM DIGITAL LIDAR — — — — — EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR DATACE. 3. PARL DATA, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED EXISTING TREE LINE FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIS DATA. EXISTING WATER FEATURE, 4. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY OR THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN. SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE ST EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE BENCHMARKS BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY TO W EXISTING MATER LINE CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ARE CB ® EXISTING CATCH BASIN REFERENCED TO OHIO STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OH -N HAD 83 AND NAVD 88, RESPECTIVELY. O EXISTING MANHOLE -0- EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT Ohio Utilities Protection Service FLOODZONE INFORMATION THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE ® EXISTING BUILDING /STRUCTURE. TO BE REMOVED OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2e ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, U2fOi'e YOU COMMUNITY PANEL NOS. 39049C0019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE, 77, 2008, IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO. TO BE REMOVED 800- 362 -2764 EXISTING PAVEMENT, NOTE TO BE REMOVED 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. EXISTING SITE TREE LINE, TO REMAIN (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) EXISTING SITE TREE LINE, TO BE REMOVED (APPROXIMATE LOCATION) I . HU inc. wile zoo I.p a xpx 1 1 a W9L[x, 0x[0 a30t6 vw.hullinc cam Project Title: Project No.: DRP001 0 LL o Cl) z Q J et 0 J CL - = 0- z� z LLI W_ p J a 0 Issue Dote: MAY 2013 = w \ 0 LLI UJ p Q 5 0 U Z C Q W ~ Q d W p Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is copyrighted and is the sole propedy of Hull& ASSonates, Inc. I[ is prod. "d for use by the prolect wn oer Reproduction or other use of this drawing or the information mntained herein without the written permission of Hull 5 sWdly prohibited All rights reserved Copyright2013 Mark Description Dote DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Sheet Llle: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Sheet Number: 3 OF 8 C3.0 Project No.: DRP001 CAD DWG Rle: DRP001_EX COND Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Chec By: MJB Scale: AS NOTED Issue Dote: MAY 2013 Sheet Llle: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Sheet Number: 3 OF 8 C3.0 20'-30' 4' 936-, QgNCRFTE ZONE WUIR�19 LD 0 _ . _ . . 'S IDEWALK - acrals ' ------ IDEWALK VILLAG 0 4!' Ou 0 FTROPOSEQ RE SERVE 4E, 3� Fo�_ 4�O4 ,BRIDGE ' �E -7 yr T% LIMITS 78.21 "T, ------- --- EXISTING- DRAKE BOA Ro 80,00 ac . --- RIGHT _`� --- D ac . -WAY T 6� E 20, B , 50' VAUA41 BUILD /ZO LU :U. ;A l t , ee /P�OI.SED / LOT 1 LOT 16 RESERVE LOT I S' RETENTION ro O .w LOT 1,6 _LD�T 14 BASTN LU AREA "B' 5 ASP HALT. RESERV o) , , Q� 3.436 AC 1314(E PATH 3. 436 AC: ti a7.44 CD aR., _'PRO - ZONE - 432.l6­-___ -� .PA R C EL _ 4 E (Typ) ------------------------- -- - V i I I VACATE6 60 Ul­(At�t I MUIR MEL LLAGE VILLAGE PHASE 7 E, MUI9FIELD ROAD PHASE 7 g Gml,UV , 30-77 RESERVE A­EjE" VILLAGE R AREA 'EEl /P HASE 7 EXISTING LEGEND R /W LENGTH SURVEY REAR YARD S ETBACK SIDE YARD S ETBACK SPRINGBURN,,DIVE ; 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION IS BASED ON OSIP x EXISTING ISTI LU U EXISTING`,Q > BARE -EARTH DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) DERIVED FROM 7.5' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE APPROXIMATE - -------- - 20'-30' 4 S p R INqBURN DRIVE KOCATIDN EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. XIS TIN G PLOPOSED WATER 7.5' 3. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY _930- ��ROPERT `i Pfi DSED OFF -SITE '_�E56 VI N E C N` r SC-HOEAER 36FREY A C CUNNINGHAM PARRIS SUSAN L LI (TYP), A-& ICARLINJOHN- F R1 LAND & ZLTESNA;tJAMILS A & H.1I bLTFUl I & 'WILSON G ----1FEE0G'E 'WINE IMP 6 S,. 24' .VEMENT 2 NGELA 4 STEPkoANIE H� W/ ONCRETE CURB ;8�17� M�G E KATHLEEN &GREGOR RALPH D :ARO 0 N13 , VA ------ 3 D U 6ENEDIE A L LE U rTK _ ZLIZASEit44 K­--1 D IX ON _RJ44� URN �$p 1 i'5829'5l`IUNGBpRN 5813 SPRINCBWRN 5801 SPR -,��93 SP�INGSURN S76i SPhNGBU"RN 5 SP SPRINGS I RINGS1*W' S�85 SPRINI3BURNI 56�,7 SPRINGS R SP UR 6 N1 565 RGl G _TES (TYP) NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND 7.5' ....... 12885.3 3,0 r MUIRFIELD EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE � . ..... MU IRFIELD 7 MU PROPOSED 90' EXISTING WATER LINE 172.06 CO .. CO RRIDOR - -, VIeLLAGE 9 WATER LINE PUAELE, FLOODZONE INFORMATION CB 9 PROTECTION PHASE IZ, - MUIRFIELD LLAGE PH 7 THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE MH 0 EXISTING ZONE OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL 10 55.90 20'-30' EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, I> EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT COMM UN I TY PANEL NOS. 39049C0019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 43.14 P PROP CENTERL , IJIE 3­9 677 05.51 11-T 113.01' ROPOSE5U EXISTING TREE 31),' TREE TREE ASPNAL - ROAD - 11YPI r 61s PRESERVATI ON PRESERVATION PRESERVATION ­77 ZONE ZONE --777, LOT SETBACKS 10 13 72.63 92 r, -0 N 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 - LOT 10 i MUIRFIELD VILLAGE, PHASE 7 T P T LOT 1 LOT LOT LOT 2 L0T_q L 5' A S ­_,RESE AREA "EE 14 0. 01� UYL�O 20' 30' PARCEL LINE REAR YARD: ZONE', _ iBUIL D ZONE NONE 14680.9 76 69 65.0 6,1 20'-30' 4' 936-, QgNCRFTE ZONE WUIR�19 LD 0 _ . _ . . 'S IDEWALK - acrals ' ------ IDEWALK VILLAG 0 4!' Ou 0 FTROPOSEQ RE SERVE 4E, 3� Fo�_ 4�O4 ,BRIDGE ' �E -7 yr T% LIMITS 78.21 "T, ------- --- EXISTING- DRAKE BOA Ro 80,00 ac . --- RIGHT _`� --- D ac . -WAY T 6� E 20, B , 50' VAUA41 BUILD /ZO LU :U. ;A l t , ee /P�OI.SED / LOT 1 LOT 16 RESERVE LOT I S' RETENTION ro O .w LOT 1,6 _LD�T 14 BASTN LU AREA "B' 5 ASP HALT. RESERV o) , , Q� 3.436 AC 1314(E PATH 3. 436 AC: ti a7.44 CD aR., _'PRO - ZONE - 432.l6­-___ -� .PA R C EL _ 4 E (Typ) ------------------------- -- - V i I I VACATE6 60 Ul­(At�t I MUIR MEL LLAGE VILLAGE PHASE 7 E, MUI9FIELD ROAD PHASE 7 g Gml,UV , 30-77 RESERVE A­EjE" VILLAGE R AREA 'EEl /P HASE 7 EXISTING LEGEND R /W LENGTH SURVEY REAR YARD S ETBACK SIDE YARD S ETBACK TREE PRESERVATION ZONE 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION IS BASED ON OSIP 1 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY BARE -EARTH DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) DERIVED FROM 7.5' EXISTING PROPERTY LINE DIGITAL LIDAR DATA. 81.94 20'-30' 50 2. PARC RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED 35 EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. 20 50 7.5' 3. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY _930- EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR OR THE ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE - - - - - - EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE SHOWN. _5 EXISTING WATER FEATURE, BENCHMARKS 7.5' APPROXIMATE LOCATION BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND 7.5' 30' 12885.3 ELEVATI ARE REFERENCED TO OHIO STATE PLANE GRID -ST- EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE COORDINATES OH-N NAD 83 AND NAVO 88, RESPECTIVELY. 30' EXISTING WATER LINE 172.06 20'-30- 45' 7.5' FLOODZONE INFORMATION CB 9 EXISTING CATCH BASIN THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE MH 0 EXISTING MANHOLE OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL 10 55.90 20'-30' EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, I> EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT COMM UN I TY PANEL NOS. 39049C0019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 43.14 35'-45' 45' JUNE 17, 2 008, IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO - 1 30' EXISTING LANDMARK TREES 43.14 61s 45' 7.5' LOT SETBACKS 19757.6 13 72.63 FRONT YARD: PROPOSED LEGEND NONE AS SHOWN. 14 PROPOSED PARCEL LINE REAR YARD: 7.5' NONE 14680.9 LOTS 1 THROUGH 5: 50 FEET 78.21 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOTS 6 THROUGH 12 45 FEET NONE 13134.1 16 LOT 13: 10 FEET TING ICTURE MACD (ty F) 562 MO RE ai MUIRFIELD VILLAGE,__ PHASE 12 0 30 60 120 SCALE IN FEET .MGiRFIELD VILLAGE LOT 1C-111 �-PHASE 8 EXISTIN GY0.4E INN OR R a -F 6841 CR UDE10A YZT 1? - - XISTING 2_',WATET LINE - GE N - DA R U DE N. "I Y_ CT / LO;P 1 2 2G ZONE L qTA SITE DATA LOTS LOT NO R /W LENGTH FRONT YARD BUILDZONE REAR YARD S ETBACK SIDE YARD S ETBACK TREE PRESERVATION ZONE TOTAL AREA ISO FT.) 1 297.11 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35 25374.9 2 81.94 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35 16407.0 3 81.94 20 50 7.5' 35' 16085.1 4 81.94 20'-30' 501 7.5' 35' 1 15452.4 _5 81.94 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35' 1 14486.8 6 73.78 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30' 12885.3 7 71.19 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30' 13561.5 8 172.06 20'-30- 45' 7.5' 30' 16232.9 9 54.72 20'-31. 45' 7.5' 30' 14345.7 10 55.90 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30' 16207.4 11 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' 1 30' 23773.9 12 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' 30 19757.6 13 72.63 20'-30' 10 7.5' NONE 14672.5 14 78.21 20'-30' 15' 7.5' NONE 14680.9 15 78.21 20'-30' 15 7.11 NONE 13134.1 16 78.21 20'-30' 15 7.5' NONE 12084.9 17 78.21 20'-30' 15 7.5' NONE 11502.7 18 80.65 20'-30' , 15' 7.5' NONE 11057.1 PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE LOTS 14 THROUGH 18: 15 FEET PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ZONE SIDE YARD: o UJ 7.5 FEET EACH SIDE. PROPOSED BUILD20NE LINE TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: _J _J 3: a > SITE DATA - OPEN SPACE PROPOSED 4' CONCRETE SIDEWALK LOTS 1 THROUGH 6: 35 FEET 4_1 !r= _ LLJ LLJ 0 _ AREA LOCATION AREA (AC) LL M L OTS 6 THROUGH 12 3 0 FEET 0 - LEO LLJ cc LU RESERVE AREA 'A" 0.490 PROPOSED 8' ASPHALT BIKE PATH L OTS 13 THROUGH 1 6: NONE a 5 0 RESERVE AREA "B' 3.436 PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE W z LU RESERVE AREA 'C' 0.225 WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER W 0. UJ STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLG P.O. BOX 1422 RESERVE AREA 'D' 0.341 and i, the sole p,peq,f inc. his pad-foruse by the phoject,whier Ropriaudiih other use f this drawing the ho-i permission of Hull is strictly ,rolibiteii All rights --d MANHOLE`, W/. PI, H' EXISTING, 8 WATER LINE- ee MUIRFIELD, PHASE% - Rp" MUIR F E? Lb VILLAGE PHA 7 RE�RVE AREA WJ SIGNATURES SIGNATURES BELOW SIGNIFY ONLY CONCURRENCE WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND GENERAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ASSURANCE TO OPERATE AS INTENDED. ALL TECHNICAL DETAILS REMAIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER PREPARING THE PLANS AND ALL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THEREOF. APPROVED: APPLICANT/OWNER DATE DIRECTOR OF LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING, DATE CI TY OF DUBLIN, OHIO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DATE: DATE COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: DATE NOTE 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. Ohio Utilities Protection Service a i w I , before you t �1 800-362-2764 HuII a ssociates, inc. 64197 EM-D PHONE 1 93 _ 2uh 1 4 6 6 1 79 4) -8777 3 rulit-1h, .10 QuItt 'uIlihit.- -07 Project Title: o UJ U. 0 0 QJ _J _J 3: a > 0 I­ a - 4_1 !r= _ LLJ LLJ 0 _ E < co LL M U =) 0 - LEO LLJ cc LU > LLJ Z a 5 0 R D W z LU z W 0. UJ STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLG P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This Jawing iswpyighted Hull Ait-hilett. and i, the sole p,peq,f inc. his pad-foruse by the phoject,whier Ropriaudiih other use f this drawing the ho-i permission of Hull is strictly ,rolibiteii All rights --d Copyright 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Project No, DRP001 CAD DWG File: DRP001 DEV PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Scale: AS NOTED Issue Date: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Sheet Number: 4 OF 8 C4.0 55:.,$TREAM ------ STORM S EXISTING 27 S ORM SEWER CORRIDORTflIBU7 Y - PROTECTION LIMI S -.( MUIRFIELD )� ZONE VILLAGE C -' _ = PHASE 7 -. v, .s .._, .. - 9 - 922- 2 3$;` TREE 15,,,"_' -- `H PR. ESERVATION UTIL ,OPOSED STORM PROPO$ED 4T P ITY`. ' ,' _ `SEWER (TYP)_ ., ZONE EASEMENT':._ ( TY ) `` Y1 il:._, - - ST '• ..� .. Si ? ST " - si St; ST -/ PROPOSED FIRE - - _ -- - - - s.- - -'�_, , `�` � O',. HYDRANT TYP. w LOT 1 '�- , REkRVE LO ( . ' F. F. ELEV - LOT 2 LOT 3' "' LOT 4 SOT ;5 \ AgEa� A F. F. F.F. ELEV F.F. ELEV F.F. ELEV F F., _ max-935.25 max max..932.59 6 max "930.7' " Inax - 928 26 '`max 95.55 .,1 \� - min 930.1 ', -min 9 3 - 7. min 2 'n 920.4 . f 92 35 9 5 55 min 923i 1 min t PROPOSED WATER � -'- -. + ` _ _ � f A t / SPR INGBURN + DRIVE ro EXISTIN6� -' - ` PROPERTY , ti` LINE ...... (TYPj, - � , N VILLA E HASE a2 �/. ELD }' F- E'`71?g T O GE - B $IN A ° 12 19 S FT /0 26 AC S 926 30' reEE S ON SFTE-TRIBTO, - -_ D 30 6o t2o PRESERVATION - ,`16' -` UTILITY UTILITY ZONE_ EASEMENT D ENTION BASI B 15' UTILITY SCALE IN FEET EASEMENT ST S s - '' 88,784 SQ FTJ2i 7 AC 926, LOT 7 `"LOT 8 .,_U LOT _ 10 `" .'MUIRFIELD ` F.F. ELEV N F:F. ELEV F.F'. ELEV VILLA GE =` -- -max 923.0 LOT 9 , max -923.9 LOT it„ i I ' 8 max 924.6, LOT ELEV ` 918.4 min-_917.5' - ` F. F. E ,EV� - -, in 19 '{'' L .EXISTING m 9 m U - 15' UTICITY ', ax 925. 20' m ' 12 6 0 8 r`RT OF, -WAY ''EASEMENT 20� '- mi 920.1 m tJt6 _ " ' PR POSED CURB & n I3 ME _ VALVE. (,TYP'r '.✓ - -` 15, '� � :� .,. - - _ _ EASEMENT - . INLET (TYP) :_ •:.__� � ,., , � � - -_ � ` _ -92ff p -� NT\ 15 , EASEM ;. a ASE _ g PRO OSE Ss IT _ - ., q �l \ WA _ :. PROP ;ED 8 "``.,� ,.. MANHOLE ,EASEMENY ...:� ds _ \, m, ci \ : \ E _ 1AT \ `t . � `� ASEMENT= .. 974 -- `CEXZ,STING 2 'v EF(�LINE ' i \ - SIDE LK _ -, ITAR Y . (TYP) -- 938-- .,MUZAFZECD `227 ( ss U ITL TY SESNE (TYP `, _ ,.tr o 5 VILLAGE, EASEMENT 12 '. EXIS j ,. - ___� ,. -... - c \ ', ., �� ' \�. f ,I 3p y ,. ,\^. AS TING SANITAIt`(`.SEWER _...c D� RAINAG �..9�, � ice- � yl _ + a - _ .F.F: ELEV - 1�. 't EASEMENT_ #nax,'919.75' 1 Z PN S -- 9 �.T-F xr.- -^ 4. _,... Yj Fi _: -: h :;is" ~ \ \,� 9 1" 4 20' , UTILIT,'i' `, z ....... ...... -. g • ,. _ - ._,�>. - _ f 20 1 UT t PITY 5. EXZ `^:,,•S -... ,. - -- 1 ' _ 4Y+- - ; `_ /,� \. ____AREA ,�- °- ��!'". , •......� . ' -�✓ ,' ,' ... . U , , .,�., �'__ _ - ..._,... , 928.1 :__� -� ._ d a,. .. ` - ___ _ - :../�' EASEME .P h - ' SIDEWALK - y ` - - TE TRIB; T0, urxLlTV, n r EASEMENT -..� `r' SLIP tOQi L0.;13 EASE NT 1 -t , I s• PETEN ION - - BASIN A "°� _ _- -- -� _ � • `� , , :� E _ _ _ F F ELEV 338 643 Q FT 774 ! - ' 7. ' T \ \' RESERVE RESERVE _ C - �� :.a All DRAIN - � ON 2sII EAASEMENT `E i i k AREA D" AREA "B° COT 78 LOT 17 ,- - % J-OT 18 LOT 75' LOT 14 s i j .F. F. ELEV F, %F. ELEV F:F. ELEV F. F:'EL`EY F.F. ELEV \( 1- �y� ` -, - - >_�,.-- _,_.,,•�- '�__ \ \ \ \\ -`� _ , -. 1 O- '( „ x(ax 932 r75 maX ,931.45 max 929.3 U '" •, min 929. min 6 7 0 ( 9T. min 826.3 mi.n 924.15 min 921`.65 .- x ASEMENT. EA '� , 3 CO _ H ` `', � ;.:,..,' _ - - - - � _/- _ __ �. =i \ • - ' ^Z \ xR ya; dam._ - - ST 6T S 6T ST ST ST .� `RRIDO -� t ^- . U .. , .. PROPOSED 100.' T CTI N' ONE_ - - NORMAL__WA ER' ti ; / `- "PROTE O 15' UTILITY: EASEMENT' - . YE '; RESERVE AREA "8'" FACE ELEVA7`2t7N AR' ELEVAT.I, _ .__ ON`, , ,U - s ILLAGE - - MUIRFIELD - `^.,- `[ PHASE 7 VILLAGE 'PHASE 7 -- PROPOSED LEGEND EXISTING LEGEND - - - PROPOSED PARCEL LINE - - EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY - - - - - -- PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD - - - - - PROPOSED EASEMENT - - -930 - - - EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR -------............ .... - - -- PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK LINE -- - °- - -- -- -- - -- EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR PROPOSED 4' CONCRETE SIDEWALK - - EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION )% PROPOSED 8' ASPHALT BIKE PATH SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE _ PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE ST EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER W EXISTING WATER LINE ST PROPOSED STORM SEWER ca ® EXISTING CATCH BASIN SS PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER O EXISTING MANHOLE W PROPOSED WATER LINE (> EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT CO. PROPOSED 6" SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED MANHOLE Ohio Utilities Protection Service PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED WATER VALVE wwagm 11 PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR before you I J_ PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR 800 - 362 -2764 ----- - - - PROPOSED STORM DETENTION TRIBUTARY AREA LIMITS - - PROPOSED SWALE -► DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE 1. THERE IS NO OFF -SITE SANITARY TRIBUTARY BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. i EXISTING 'It S7176 i+7 INV 893.00 9 )SED.' d �! rtE m�. e" MUI REEFED / ELD PHASE B 46.0' AUTOTURN Q IN B.C DETAIL -� - TRACK D.C. LOCK TO LOCK TIME 6.0' SCALE:1' =100' - STEERING ANGLE SCALE: N.T.S. C0� 3 SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROW VARIES V ° a ROW VARIES B' SIDEWALK EASE. - 26' -o' a' -0' 2' -0' 12' -D' 12' -0' 2' -0' 9' -0' 4' -0' , SIDEWALK TNEE LAWN TgEE LAWN SIDEWALK T ,1 �UM 3/16' PER Fi 3/16' PEfl FT 3116' PEA FT 3/16 PER F 3/16' PER FT 3/16' PER FT 3. ! gaA}M0« TYPICAL STREET SECTION STA. 0 + 00 TO STA. 3 +26.54 SCALE: N.T.S. SCALE: N.T.S. H II. U ssoc(ates, inc. t91 EMEGNLU PMKW PHONE I6f aj F u6t4) JBB RU'0 DUBLIN 10 430'6 h lint con Project Title: o r W O LL Z Q d O ..� J �- > O Z 0 Z W W 0 J a " N O N Q = M 0 W M Y _ in r- IX� EJ 0 LU V Z c W aJ W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is mpoghted and is Ne mle property of Hull &A ,UDdBtes,lna. It is produced foruse by the mqo owner ReproduCllon or o .r use of IN. drawing Cr the inlom,adon contained herein without the VURon peonission of Hull is stncdy prohibited All ngMS reserved Copynght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Pr oject N o.: D CAD DWG File: DRP001 -UTIL PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Dale: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 M _ _ - W _ S SPRINGB N N "DRIVE �EXISTINO, B" \ _ \ ST- W WATER L - ' 1, 7` I .TO`. BASIN':A $700 $Q. D �- - I - 20 c,- ` ,� - ..N M VILLAGE:' LyNE, "(TYPE - - PHASE ` - _ � f A t / SPR INGBURN + DRIVE ro EXISTIN6� -' - ` PROPERTY , ti` LINE ...... (TYPj, - � , N VILLA E HASE a2 �/. ELD }' F- E'`71?g T O GE - B $IN A ° 12 19 S FT /0 26 AC S 926 30' reEE S ON SFTE-TRIBTO, - -_ D 30 6o t2o PRESERVATION - ,`16' -` UTILITY UTILITY ZONE_ EASEMENT D ENTION BASI B 15' UTILITY SCALE IN FEET EASEMENT ST S s - '' 88,784 SQ FTJ2i 7 AC 926, LOT 7 `"LOT 8 .,_U LOT _ 10 `" .'MUIRFIELD ` F.F. ELEV N F:F. ELEV F.F'. ELEV VILLA GE =` -- -max 923.0 LOT 9 , max -923.9 LOT it„ i I ' 8 max 924.6, LOT ELEV ` 918.4 min-_917.5' - ` F. F. E ,EV� - -, in 19 '{'' L .EXISTING m 9 m U - 15' UTICITY ', ax 925. 20' m ' 12 6 0 8 r`RT OF, -WAY ''EASEMENT 20� '- mi 920.1 m tJt6 _ " ' PR POSED CURB & n I3 ME _ VALVE. (,TYP'r '.✓ - -` 15, '� � :� .,. - - _ _ EASEMENT - . INLET (TYP) :_ •:.__� � ,., , � � - -_ � ` _ -92ff p -� NT\ 15 , EASEM ;. a ASE _ g PRO OSE Ss IT _ - ., q �l \ WA _ :. PROP ;ED 8 "``.,� ,.. MANHOLE ,EASEMENY ...:� ds _ \, m, ci \ : \ E _ 1AT \ `t . � `� ASEMENT= .. 974 -- `CEXZ,STING 2 'v EF(�LINE ' i \ - SIDE LK _ -, ITAR Y . (TYP) -- 938-- .,MUZAFZECD `227 ( ss U ITL TY SESNE (TYP `, _ ,.tr o 5 VILLAGE, EASEMENT 12 '. EXIS j ,. - ___� ,. -... - c \ ', ., �� ' \�. f ,I 3p y ,. ,\^. AS TING SANITAIt`(`.SEWER _...c D� RAINAG �..9�, � ice- � yl _ + a - _ .F.F: ELEV - 1�. 't EASEMENT_ #nax,'919.75' 1 Z PN S -- 9 �.T-F xr.- -^ 4. _,... Yj Fi _: -: h :;is" ~ \ \,� 9 1" 4 20' , UTILIT,'i' `, z ....... ...... -. g • ,. _ - ._,�>. - _ f 20 1 UT t PITY 5. EXZ `^:,,•S -... ,. - -- 1 ' _ 4Y+- - ; `_ /,� \. ____AREA ,�- °- ��!'". , •......� . ' -�✓ ,' ,' ... . U , , .,�., �'__ _ - ..._,... , 928.1 :__� -� ._ d a,. .. ` - ___ _ - :../�' EASEME .P h - ' SIDEWALK - y ` - - TE TRIB; T0, urxLlTV, n r EASEMENT -..� `r' SLIP tOQi L0.;13 EASE NT 1 -t , I s• PETEN ION - - BASIN A "°� _ _- -- -� _ � • `� , , :� E _ _ _ F F ELEV 338 643 Q FT 774 ! - ' 7. ' T \ \' RESERVE RESERVE _ C - �� :.a All DRAIN - � ON 2sII EAASEMENT `E i i k AREA D" AREA "B° COT 78 LOT 17 ,- - % J-OT 18 LOT 75' LOT 14 s i j .F. F. ELEV F, %F. ELEV F:F. ELEV F. F:'EL`EY F.F. ELEV \( 1- �y� ` -, - - >_�,.-- _,_.,,•�- '�__ \ \ \ \\ -`� _ , -. 1 O- '( „ x(ax 932 r75 maX ,931.45 max 929.3 U '" •, min 929. min 6 7 0 ( 9T. min 826.3 mi.n 924.15 min 921`.65 .- x ASEMENT. EA '� , 3 CO _ H ` `', � ;.:,..,' _ - - - - � _/- _ __ �. =i \ • - ' ^Z \ xR ya; dam._ - - ST 6T S 6T ST ST ST .� `RRIDO -� t ^- . U .. , .. PROPOSED 100.' T CTI N' ONE_ - - NORMAL__WA ER' ti ; / `- "PROTE O 15' UTILITY: EASEMENT' - . YE '; RESERVE AREA "8'" FACE ELEVA7`2t7N AR' ELEVAT.I, _ .__ ON`, , ,U - s ILLAGE - - MUIRFIELD - `^.,- `[ PHASE 7 VILLAGE 'PHASE 7 -- PROPOSED LEGEND EXISTING LEGEND - - - PROPOSED PARCEL LINE - - EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY - - - - - -- PROPOSED RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD - - - - - PROPOSED EASEMENT - - -930 - - - EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR -------............ .... - - -- PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK LINE -- - °- - -- -- -- - -- EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR PROPOSED 4' CONCRETE SIDEWALK - - EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION )% PROPOSED 8' ASPHALT BIKE PATH SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE _ PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE ST EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER W EXISTING WATER LINE ST PROPOSED STORM SEWER ca ® EXISTING CATCH BASIN SS PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER O EXISTING MANHOLE W PROPOSED WATER LINE (> EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT CO. PROPOSED 6" SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED MANHOLE Ohio Utilities Protection Service PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED WATER VALVE wwagm 11 PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR before you I J_ PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR 800 - 362 -2764 ----- - - - PROPOSED STORM DETENTION TRIBUTARY AREA LIMITS - - PROPOSED SWALE -► DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE NOTE 1. THERE IS NO OFF -SITE SANITARY TRIBUTARY BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. i EXISTING 'It S7176 i+7 INV 893.00 9 )SED.' d �! rtE m�. e" MUI REEFED / ELD PHASE B 46.0' AUTOTURN Q IN B.C DETAIL -� - TRACK D.C. LOCK TO LOCK TIME 6.0' SCALE:1' =100' - STEERING ANGLE SCALE: N.T.S. C0� 3 SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROW VARIES V ° a ROW VARIES B' SIDEWALK EASE. - 26' -o' a' -0' 2' -0' 12' -D' 12' -0' 2' -0' 9' -0' 4' -0' , SIDEWALK TNEE LAWN TgEE LAWN SIDEWALK T ,1 �UM 3/16' PER Fi 3/16' PEfl FT 3116' PEA FT 3/16 PER F 3/16' PER FT 3/16' PER FT 3. ! gaA}M0« TYPICAL STREET SECTION STA. 0 + 00 TO STA. 3 +26.54 SCALE: N.T.S. SCALE: N.T.S. H II. U ssoc(ates, inc. t91 EMEGNLU PMKW PHONE I6f aj F u6t4) JBB RU'0 DUBLIN 10 430'6 h lint con Project Title: o r W O LL Z Q d O ..� J �- > O Z 0 Z W W 0 J a " N O N Q = M 0 W M Y _ in r- IX� EJ 0 LU V Z c W aJ W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is mpoghted and is Ne mle property of Hull &A ,UDdBtes,lna. It is produced foruse by the mqo owner ReproduCllon or o .r use of IN. drawing Cr the inlom,adon contained herein without the VURon peonission of Hull is stncdy prohibited All ngMS reserved Copynght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Pr oject N o.: D CAD DWG File: DRP001 -UTIL PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Dale: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 NOTE 1. THERE IS NO OFF -SITE SANITARY TRIBUTARY BEING ROUTED THROUGH THE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. i EXISTING 'It S7176 i+7 INV 893.00 9 )SED.' d �! rtE m�. e" MUI REEFED / ELD PHASE B 46.0' AUTOTURN Q IN B.C DETAIL -� - TRACK D.C. LOCK TO LOCK TIME 6.0' SCALE:1' =100' - STEERING ANGLE SCALE: N.T.S. C0� 3 SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROW VARIES V ° a ROW VARIES B' SIDEWALK EASE. - 26' -o' a' -0' 2' -0' 12' -D' 12' -0' 2' -0' 9' -0' 4' -0' , SIDEWALK TNEE LAWN TgEE LAWN SIDEWALK T ,1 �UM 3/16' PER Fi 3/16' PEfl FT 3116' PEA FT 3/16 PER F 3/16' PER FT 3/16' PER FT 3. ! gaA}M0« TYPICAL STREET SECTION STA. 0 + 00 TO STA. 3 +26.54 SCALE: N.T.S. SCALE: N.T.S. H II. U ssoc(ates, inc. t91 EMEGNLU PMKW PHONE I6f aj F u6t4) JBB RU'0 DUBLIN 10 430'6 h lint con Project Title: o r W O LL Z Q d O ..� J �- > O Z 0 Z W W 0 J a " N O N Q = M 0 W M Y _ in r- IX� EJ 0 LU V Z c W aJ W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is mpoghted and is Ne mle property of Hull &A ,UDdBtes,lna. It is produced foruse by the mqo owner ReproduCllon or o .r use of IN. drawing Cr the inlom,adon contained herein without the VURon peonission of Hull is stncdy prohibited All ngMS reserved Copynght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Pr oject N o.: D CAD DWG File: DRP001 -UTIL PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Dale: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 SCALE: N.T.S. H II. U ssoc(ates, inc. t91 EMEGNLU PMKW PHONE I6f aj F u6t4) JBB RU'0 DUBLIN 10 430'6 h lint con Project Title: o r W O LL Z Q d O ..� J �- > O Z 0 Z W W 0 J a " N O N Q = M 0 W M Y _ in r- IX� EJ 0 LU V Z c W aJ W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is mpoghted and is Ne mle property of Hull &A ,UDdBtes,lna. It is produced foruse by the mqo owner ReproduCllon or o .r use of IN. drawing Cr the inlom,adon contained herein without the VURon peonission of Hull is stncdy prohibited All ngMS reserved Copynght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Pr oject N o.: D CAD DWG File: DRP001 -UTIL PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Dale: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is mpoghted and is Ne mle property of Hull &A ,UDdBtes,lna. It is produced foruse by the mqo owner ReproduCllon or o .r use of IN. drawing Cr the inlom,adon contained herein without the VURon peonission of Hull is stncdy prohibited All ngMS reserved Copynght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Pr oject N o.: D CAD DWG File: DRP001 -UTIL PLAN Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: JTH Check By: MJB Sca AS NOTED Issue Dale: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Sheet Number: 5 OF 8 C5.0 RE LOCH- SPRINGEURN DRIVE COURT i4 1 'J G _S M S & Z7S�I`+ ' WILSO N 4 ly PlE GE MA ELAN[) I'm PA p I G' o ENbm __,LI,-K__ 3t;6 ;S�� &, �Z_ =38, t :ARbL, L - - I K J I SP 8701 SPRINGBOFIN' �685 SPRINPBURN 5667 SPRINGSURN 56555PRING 1, 5 2 D E U. U fR E D ' s MUIRF F �L V AG 922- P14ASE 12, 1, PHASt 12 1472 ° 11'51.91 a 1171. 0 30 60 120 135. SCALE IN FEET '*"� SETBACK ------ 11 PBESERVAT YAR IETB K NE Z( E _"B -�7 15 UTILITY Z 1 E' UTILI TY 30' TREE ION FE T V EASEMENT irSER A'I E D 921 LOT 7 -' LOT 8 IMUIRF I L LOT 9 'tOT'10 LOT 11 VILLAGE LbM 6 E 4 D B ON1 B Z" __ LOT - 1 4345�7 SO F D M 2 EASEMENT 635 I- 4 , 2 L _6 I It 135811 .1,­,," SQ. FT. 16232.9 14345.7 _iI2 1", 1 :2 -_ S 1§207. B I PH 23773.9 ASE 8 � T T SO- FT. - T SO. FT. ... ... cu. HE. � 4� 15' UTILITY 0 r if - 20 1 IVN �0. "1 ­ 1 1 , , )gKE ' INNX-SANI�Ol el EAS E UT IL ITY ; GY 7 b E ASEM E NT , UTIL . "7�21TILIT se on -A 717e EASE MEN _ O %Sao - ------ --- -i DRAINAGE " LOT 12,-.- SWEARINGEN ALANP BEMENT A" - - ------ 8881 CiUDEN BAY CT Z", SQ', FT,' 8 0, ENT c, - �O 79.40' 'ZONE FILITY-, 'iXJST '45R�KE ROAD 9 'E ASEMENT Bo.00l x EASE L S I 1�1 "_4. ;� SQ. ft. �,"' ; $ - , ..RIGHT --OF-WAY T�O',BE 50. 20 -ft. <;� VAUAI;:U. BEJIL�IZON -SIDE CO -30- "'tit E 9-le 20' UTILITY. E �Y(Aflb SETBAC S TING WE LIMITS _EXSIEM�NT LOT I LOT 15-- LOT 14 , 8 .L OT 17 LOT 16 ------------ . 11057il 11502.1 12 *�4.9 13134.1 l4 RESERV�,AREA. B AREA S SO. FT.'­ ll�' ASPHALT; 'T, AU MLO SQ. F SQ. P7. SQ. F1. 0. FT. AU . 3.436 AC Bl�(E PATH < p PHAbt se ' SEMENt DRAINAGE, M A C 432­ _PROTECTION _7 3G NE:_ UTILITY EASEMENT REAR IYX'Rr LINE '(T-YP) l- 7 N72'I N72 ° 25 11'9 } "E iM.06' . ............. __ .............................. ------------- - MUIRFIE�Lcr MUFAFSELD b VILLA ' Mu L VACATED 64- DRA VILLAGE V ROAD R'113HT'OF- tt MUIRFr MUIRFIELD PHASE 7 - PHASE 7 YTLLAGE P11AS 4 S VILLAGE 7OF ORDI NA NO. 30-7 RE AREA "EE 1A E 7 1 ; 'PHASE 7 RES01VE AREA EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT- OF-WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD ara W MSWMNNAWWe EXISTING PHASE LINE -93o- EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED PARCEL LINE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT/SETBACK PROPOSED BUILDZONE LINE CENTERLINE CURVE DATA CURVE NO. RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA Cl 150.00' 233.30' 210.49' S63'31'09"E 89*11'73" C2 1289.04' 417.07' 415.25' MUIRFI VILL PHASE 7 Fl ER 3tFFREY A TUCkER.NATHAN - SUSAN PARRIS SU I -A-,&, 62'41'55" STEPHANIE H MEGAN E 1 6G IG KATHLEEN R 0" RALPH D 2537Cg PT. 16407.0 SO FT 5825 SPRI�NqBURN 5813 SPRINGEURN 5801 Sln",49BUHIN -57 3 SPRINGBURN _9 576�.,SPrkINq§URN 930 MUIRFI��b I C6 1 63.10' SO FT FT N52*41'14"E 'A vIl 4 MUIRFIELD 20.10' 1 18.33' 55�,, -STREAM ` PRASE R8 - VILLAGE PkXjEE_ - 12 274.28' 1 263.13 CORRIGOR 7.5' R9 'MUIRFIE CONCRETE Z�7 PROTECTION ZONE N7 I 2 0 0 R10 125.00' 92-2- 175.01- EASEMENT 131.49 45' 6179 .8.10 6962' 7 55.90 5 0' REAR ­ YARD 'SETBACK 45' 7.5 35' TREE On X, . , 1 , 154 U ITY E EM 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' PRESERVATIO 23773.9 12 43.14 RE LOCH- SPRINGEURN DRIVE COURT i4 1 'J G _S M S & Z7S�I`+ ' WILSO N 4 ly PlE GE MA ELAN[) I'm PA p I G' o ENbm __,LI,-K__ 3t;6 ;S�� &, �Z_ =38, t :ARbL, L - - I K J I SP 8701 SPRINGBOFIN' �685 SPRINPBURN 5667 SPRINGSURN 56555PRING 1, 5 2 D E U. U fR E D ' s MUIRF F �L V AG 922- P14ASE 12, 1, PHASt 12 1472 ° 11'51.91 a 1171. 0 30 60 120 135. SCALE IN FEET '*"� SETBACK ------ 11 PBESERVAT YAR IETB K NE Z( E _"B -�7 15 UTILITY Z 1 E' UTILI TY 30' TREE ION FE T V EASEMENT irSER A'I E D 921 LOT 7 -' LOT 8 IMUIRF I L LOT 9 'tOT'10 LOT 11 VILLAGE LbM 6 E 4 D B ON1 B Z" __ LOT - 1 4345�7 SO F D M 2 EASEMENT 635 I- 4 , 2 L _6 I It 135811 .1,­,," SQ. FT. 16232.9 14345.7 _iI2 1", 1 :2 -_ S 1§207. B I PH 23773.9 ASE 8 � T T SO- FT. - T SO. FT. ... ... cu. HE. � 4� 15' UTILITY 0 r if - 20 1 IVN �0. "1 ­ 1 1 , , )gKE ' INNX-SANI�Ol el EAS E UT IL ITY ; GY 7 b E ASEM E NT , UTIL . "7�21TILIT se on -A 717e EASE MEN _ O %Sao - ------ --- -i DRAINAGE " LOT 12,-.- SWEARINGEN ALANP BEMENT A" - - ------ 8881 CiUDEN BAY CT Z", SQ', FT,' 8 0, ENT c, - �O 79.40' 'ZONE FILITY-, 'iXJST '45R�KE ROAD 9 'E ASEMENT Bo.00l x EASE L S I 1�1 "_4. ;� SQ. ft. �,"' ; $ - , ..RIGHT --OF-WAY T�O',BE 50. 20 -ft. <;� VAUAI;:U. BEJIL�IZON -SIDE CO -30- "'tit E 9-le 20' UTILITY. E �Y(Aflb SETBAC S TING WE LIMITS _EXSIEM�NT LOT I LOT 15-- LOT 14 , 8 .L OT 17 LOT 16 ------------ . 11057il 11502.1 12 *�4.9 13134.1 l4 RESERV�,AREA. B AREA S SO. FT.'­ ll�' ASPHALT; 'T, AU MLO SQ. F SQ. P7. SQ. F1. 0. FT. AU . 3.436 AC Bl�(E PATH < p PHAbt se ' SEMENt DRAINAGE, M A C 432­ _PROTECTION _7 3G NE:_ UTILITY EASEMENT REAR IYX'Rr LINE '(T-YP) l- 7 N72'I N72 ° 25 11'9 } "E iM.06' . ............. __ .............................. ------------- - MUIRFIE�Lcr MUFAFSELD b VILLA ' Mu L VACATED 64- DRA VILLAGE V ROAD R'113HT'OF- tt MUIRFr MUIRFIELD PHASE 7 - PHASE 7 YTLLAGE P11AS 4 S VILLAGE 7OF ORDI NA NO. 30-7 RE AREA "EE 1A E 7 1 ; 'PHASE 7 RES01VE AREA EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT- OF-WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD ara W MSWMNNAWWe EXISTING PHASE LINE -93o- EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED PARCEL LINE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT/SETBACK PROPOSED BUILDZONE LINE CENTERLINE CURVE DATA CURVE NO. RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA Cl 150.00' 233.30' 210.49' S63'31'09"E 89*11'73" C2 1289.04' 417.07' 415.25' MUIRFI VILL PHASE 7 18*53'81" C3 LOT 1 Y LOT 2 LOT 3 t LOT 4 62'41'55" C4 RE (ft•AREA 45.97' 45.26' 2537Cg PT. 16407.0 SO FT 16085.1 SO FT 15452.4 - SQ 110.20' N09*19'30"W EA C6 1 63.10' SO FT FT N52*41'14"E 1 54-87'55 4 92 20.10' 1 18.33' N68'05'49"E 84 °45' R8 276.00' 274.28' 1 263.13 BUILD 7.5' R9 'MUIRFIE CONCRETE _ TILITY N62-46'43"E ZONE R10 125.00' - .VILLAGE 175.01- EASEMENT 88*86'58" 45' 7.5' 30 .9 10 55.90 20'-30' 45' 7.5 30' On X, . , 1 , 11 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' 30' RE LOCH- SPRINGEURN DRIVE COURT i4 1 'J G _S M S & Z7S�I`+ ' WILSO N 4 ly PlE GE MA ELAN[) I'm PA p I G' o ENbm __,LI,-K__ 3t;6 ;S�� &, �Z_ =38, t :ARbL, L - - I K J I SP 8701 SPRINGBOFIN' �685 SPRINPBURN 5667 SPRINGSURN 56555PRING 1, 5 2 D E U. U fR E D ' s MUIRF F �L V AG 922- P14ASE 12, 1, PHASt 12 1472 ° 11'51.91 a 1171. 0 30 60 120 135. SCALE IN FEET '*"� SETBACK ------ 11 PBESERVAT YAR IETB K NE Z( E _"B -�7 15 UTILITY Z 1 E' UTILI TY 30' TREE ION FE T V EASEMENT irSER A'I E D 921 LOT 7 -' LOT 8 IMUIRF I L LOT 9 'tOT'10 LOT 11 VILLAGE LbM 6 E 4 D B ON1 B Z" __ LOT - 1 4345�7 SO F D M 2 EASEMENT 635 I- 4 , 2 L _6 I It 135811 .1,­,," SQ. FT. 16232.9 14345.7 _iI2 1", 1 :2 -_ S 1§207. B I PH 23773.9 ASE 8 � T T SO- FT. - T SO. FT. ... ... cu. HE. � 4� 15' UTILITY 0 r if - 20 1 IVN �0. "1 ­ 1 1 , , )gKE ' INNX-SANI�Ol el EAS E UT IL ITY ; GY 7 b E ASEM E NT , UTIL . "7�21TILIT se on -A 717e EASE MEN _ O %Sao - ------ --- -i DRAINAGE " LOT 12,-.- SWEARINGEN ALANP BEMENT A" - - ------ 8881 CiUDEN BAY CT Z", SQ', FT,' 8 0, ENT c, - �O 79.40' 'ZONE FILITY-, 'iXJST '45R�KE ROAD 9 'E ASEMENT Bo.00l x EASE L S I 1�1 "_4. ;� SQ. ft. �,"' ; $ - , ..RIGHT --OF-WAY T�O',BE 50. 20 -ft. <;� VAUAI;:U. BEJIL�IZON -SIDE CO -30- "'tit E 9-le 20' UTILITY. E �Y(Aflb SETBAC S TING WE LIMITS _EXSIEM�NT LOT I LOT 15-- LOT 14 , 8 .L OT 17 LOT 16 ------------ . 11057il 11502.1 12 *�4.9 13134.1 l4 RESERV�,AREA. B AREA S SO. FT.'­ ll�' ASPHALT; 'T, AU MLO SQ. F SQ. P7. SQ. F1. 0. FT. AU . 3.436 AC Bl�(E PATH < p PHAbt se ' SEMENt DRAINAGE, M A C 432­ _PROTECTION _7 3G NE:_ UTILITY EASEMENT REAR IYX'Rr LINE '(T-YP) l- 7 N72'I N72 ° 25 11'9 } "E iM.06' . ............. __ .............................. ------------- - MUIRFIE�Lcr MUFAFSELD b VILLA ' Mu L VACATED 64- DRA VILLAGE V ROAD R'113HT'OF- tt MUIRFr MUIRFIELD PHASE 7 - PHASE 7 YTLLAGE P11AS 4 S VILLAGE 7OF ORDI NA NO. 30-7 RE AREA "EE 1A E 7 1 ; 'PHASE 7 RES01VE AREA EXISTING LEGEND EXISTING RIGHT- OF-WAY EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD ara W MSWMNNAWWe EXISTING PHASE LINE -93o- EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION PROPOSED LEGEND PROPOSED PARCEL LINE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED EASEMENT/SETBACK PROPOSED BUILDZONE LINE CENTERLINE CURVE DATA CURVE NO. RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA Cl 150.00' 233.30' 210.49' S63'31'09"E 89*11'73" C2 1289.04' 417.07' 415.25' N62*39'11'E 18*53'81" C3 251.00' 273.42' 260.10' S84*35'30"W 62'41'55" C4 75.00' 45.97' 45.26' S81'45'46"E 35'12'45" C5 55.10 173.10' 110.20' N09*19'30"W 180 C6 1 63.10' 60.43' 58.15 N52*41'14"E 1 54-87'55 CENTERLINE TANGENT DATA TANGENT NO. BEARING DISTANCE CTI S18'57'38"r 98.17' CT2 S64'12'01"E 23.42' CT3 N80*40*29"E 68.42'_ CT4 S80'40'29"W 39.54' I CT5 I S25-47'58"W , 68.80- RIGHT- OF-WAY TANGENT DATA TANGENT NO. BEARING DISTANCE RT1 S18'57'38"E 97.68' RT2 N64G12'01"W 4.30' RT3 S80'40'29"W 84.06' RT4 N80'40'29"E 39.53' ITS I N25'47'58'E 31.50- PROPOSED 4' CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED 8' ASPHALT BIKE PATH PROPOSED 24' ASPHALT DRIVE WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER SUBDIVISION RECORDED NAME: STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE ENGINEER: HULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6397 EMERALD PARKWAY SUITE 200 DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 OWNER: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC Ohio Utilities Protection Service RIGHT- OF-WAY CURVE DATA CURVE NO. RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARING DELTA R1 175.00' 271.42' 245.02' S63*23'36"E 88 °86' R2 1314.04' 430.93' 429.00' N62'46'43"E 18*7897' R3 226.00' 246.19' 234.20' N84'35'30"E 62*41'55" R4 100.00 61.30' 60.34' S81'45'46"E 35'12'45' R5 69.10' 217.08' 138.20' N09*19'36"W 180*00 RG 77.10' 73.84' 70.15' N52*41'14"E 54'87'55" R7 3.64' 20.10' 1 18.33' N68'05'49"E 84 °45' R8 276.00' 274.28' 1 263.13 S81-51'13"W 7.5' R9 1264.04' 414.53' 412.68- N62-46'43"E !�.:?%RE IV R10 125.00' 193.87' 175.01- S63-23 88*86'58" SITE DATA LOTS LOT NO. R 1W LENGTH FRONT YARD BUILOZONE REAR YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD S TREE PRESERVATION ZONE TOTAL AREA (SQ.FT.) 1 297.11 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35' 25374.9 2 81.94 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35' 16407.0 3 81.94 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35' 16085.1 4 81.94 20'-30' 50 7.5' 35' 15452.4 5 81.94 20'-30 50' 7.5' 35 14486.8 6 73.78 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30' 12885.3 7 71.19 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30' 13561.5 8 172.06 20'-30- 45' 7.5' 30 16232.9 9 54.72 20'-30' 45' 7.5' 30 14345.7 10 55.90 20'-30' 45' 7.5 30' 16207.4 11 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' 30' 23773.9 12 43.14 35'-45' 45' 7.5' 30 19757.6 13 72.63 20'-30' 10 7.5' NONE 14672.5 14 78.21 20'-30' 15' 7.5' NONE 14680.9 15 78.21 20'-30' 15' 7.5' NONE 13134.1 16 78.21 20'-30' 15' 7.5' NONE 12084.9 17 78.21 20'-30' 15' 7.5' NONE 11502.7 18 80.65 20'-30' 15' 7.5 NONE 1 11057.1 LOT SETBACKS FRONT YARD: AS SHOWN. REAR YARD: LOTS 1 THROUGH 5: 50 FEET LOTS 6 THROUGH 12: 45 FEET LOT 1 3 : 10 FEE LOTS 14 THROUGH 18: 15 FEET SIDE YARD: 7.5 FEET EACH SIDE. TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: LOTS 1 THROUGH 5: 35 FEET LOTS 6 THROUGH 12: 30 FEET LOTS 13 THROUGH 18: NONE P. 0 . BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 NOTE 1w, 1. THIS PLAN IS FOR PLANNING & ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. before ou 2. FOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY INFORMATION SEE DEED BOOK 5, PAGE 2126-2127 OR Y 9!3� QUICK CLAIM DEED FILED FOR RECORD IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO ON 10-15-1999. 3. THE PROPOS OPEN SPACE RESERVES WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE 800-362-2764 MUIRFIELD ASSOCIATION 0 NINE= .J UJ H� II . sates, inc. soc ­TE %­ '11]9 3 99 0 707> -81 .OLIN, OHIO '3016 --tte-, Project Title: Project No.: DRPGO1 o UJ LL 0 c Z le 0 CL 0 - LL J J Al Check By: MJB Seefle OD III- Date: MAY 2013 UJ LU > LLI Z Ex =) 0 0 D z LU Z UJ LU IL a Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This denting in copyrighted and is the .1c phu Ely of H111 & A Iodates, Inc. It is P'.,, for use by the proje owner R,pree'l . project owner ­ 1eh dieqI,rth, nehee.hhe cente red --in without the writt permission of Hut is einly p.hietchl All right, reserved Prom Mork Description Dote DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03Z26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05I21ZI3 CITY COMMENTS 05z28/13 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT Sheet Number: 6 OF 8 C6.0 Project No.: DRPGO1 CAD DWG File: DRPO01_C6.0 PRE PLAT Plot Dole: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB 0-I By: JTH Check By: MJB Seefle AS NOTED III- Date: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT Sheet Number: 6 OF 8 C6.0 SPRIN RN-\D VE SPRINGBURN DRIVE ✓j \ \ ; J (/ ♦ 'WING �' i -i _ c1UBE/ .. .__ t ♦ r .. _ ..., 1 / . _ _) ®ryx _ C �`?s / �� STRWC TY) \ MUIRFIEL ___ -- VILLAGE / J IL - _._ 'MUILLIELQ \ `\ 930 PHASE 12 \ LA �2z /' - �\ EXISTING \ — �_.; — PHASE 12 \ PHASE 12 f / ` PROPERTY' 928 \ LINE .` \ \-, J - \ 926 .(TYP) v - gg �IRFIE ! _ s- 2 �1 ♦��� 3 ( 92. g 584 5Z7 5]4 ��v]1 566 565 i VIj LME MU i ( 5 0 30 ao 120 .19 191394"199 2 200 2 04 t2' 214, 21b: 219 \ y,° J ( \ - �6p ' 0 588 581 `✓ e' - r 17 JEXE$T�N(`i�\ p 9n3.. s]s - SCALE IN FEET 216 ` B L- \ \599 `i 569 563 _ ( {88 - `' � V 28 T l\ 592 `,151 '�. \ =. 5]5 570 227 (TYP) 23z' - 1 \'s7 58 0 7 - �y \ ,...,\ masse 5 s9a_. - -'� � ,EXISTING INDEX / zz5 \3og�a z4za \s4s ss9 sb�$7 54� CONTOUR (TYP) - z2a \ '\ za1 \ z3 ' \ 9�� �¢ - s26. sss sae MUIRFIELD 53s2ao i VILLAGE r/ < , 2 84' 1, - �^ 547 Z -`` Y4.: [ `'. Y 4]8 6 555 `v}5. it 531 J -1 f RASE 23d _ F 245 475 0 / }y> ^' y 5 ' 552 .546' \ t ,.5326 39 \ \\ (�3.Sd8 479. ]7 5 3 l {y yn11a 23'5 5� ` "'���°"" "" S 5 5 161 1158 1, _ t3�{ , G Bu ?� �44,,,.�r�y 1 } 2 � 6 V11t )igF708 -- \`_ - l A 474 ( \ l 1 162 75 �'t'2' 4r?"' 12g� I 607 t �`a6 .'9j \ t' __ EXISTINGr INDEX „ 476 4 536 5 23 _- y-�9 27 g ; - ) ( „ 423 '+ 1 y�13 i "'"125: r ' }p �,n \. - - CONTOUR (TYP p• d24 428 - az9 \y� - .' ZZ .i �.. ' �b3FISTIN6`' .' 130' 112 \ �?OS 4 \ 426 2 913'�� - i R 11 zs7 \ g 142 }}''``yy 723 ^` 9 - \ 5 . ' 42] �7 540, -' 51 \ ( ( yg7 g 163' Y5 ��b 115', C ^ `' i 42 42 4�5 54 IGHT - WAY \ l '1180 164 ig86i 14 133 132 131124 ti3 \ 2 '. \ _• '' 422 �.° 433_. 468 \ 1B� 936 'MUI FIELD l � 166 \ 4 /. ry22 114 02 248,' EXTST,ING 44}177 434 4 � t 46 V` l^ R. \ Q - 03 " - PARCEL, LINE. -38 4 a a3 ' dGV 18slts3 ��7 i 1\ a7 f 3 yY116 2 G 24 zso \ _ \ o $z' as74az45s6 4 � 2 i i, VILLAGE 184 7 1 / 16g 120 1 11171. � `-254 ` - 914 l t `.� 33 4 466 N �\ X85 / / r` 255 �.J \ •� \ 31 411 44F qm$ -RASE 7: !� c ' 1 �3s n \ml s - " ,119. ns 't \ zs4 25 - g _ . ,.`s -/ { ✓'` k.:: f <..' j''� 93292] \ 29 V � - 404 40. 443 5� ` "�6 .., 5 '�� , 2 2 - ^ 2 .. 3;35 327 334' 4 � 4 y `iJ 96 ,-� i 148 \ 2 B qq 3 _ 7 444 ." 41 t / .• ' '` ..; 24- - i_- .749 :6] 8226' 292 .29301 ♦ %d 91 23 \I 259? 7 yy 324 -'✓ 3 Sa i 290 299 302 0 v J 44] C • \ _`: 55S.TT 9- Z5._ • /':' , 88 - -� \ J'- „,�64 _25`^ Ob 93 3.�., 1 f /' 86 .,. ' � ,, l , 526] 269 4 28� \. 3) 22 .3 ..33 XISTING 29 f' / ]0 64 1 � _. 91 ' '98 99 b$TI :' 27x 1 ��, zae 7 0 _ Q 1 .. __ ., 4x43 INTERMEDIATE; I17 a1, °.f SJ-eso � ,- 31 � / % B5` WETLAND EX NG 8.. . _ _ 389 a `. ry yy� .�''� _ SZv.'66 V _ 69 /,�' ' '' `,J 9`3.96 ( y 303 ifl - -'3-„ CONTOUR ST'YP)� / ',.9Q / 83 _ i '(TYP)4]i 272 T�32 {^� 6 ,.3 i 2 I 305 • -. _ 'K, 350 82 - f352' . .. / 'd. 92 ! 4] .r 81 .. ) `__ \. , -....� 2]7 �. 3 Q 4 �\ 316 68 345 349 'r 0 •45Y.. S) 75 - 83 13 [ \ ( / W75, 9 %���.pga 516 3 BL, 46' -, (� ,” 80 i ".284 `• X ]� ��18 31 \\ � 4, 452� 14 34 5^L 9 ,' / "-]]/7 79 _ f .,. I ' /`\ A16: - 575 �. 30] 312 .308 314 \ ) / 5 �� , 378 Q y � 5 0 67J -- ._ v - \ $1533 _. ` : ,,[� 947 1 J `� 7 "j JV - � `\ t \ .,(S} J 380 1 \ .. t 2 35 .' t l _ \ / _ \ ✓; '� 3605^, 35 in 10 'v' 44 '3 -(\ n l ' \\ ` \ ` \311 .. '' \... \6189 362 1.371 g l \ m ! / / - 9 36 ` 4b EXISTING - _ 81 ` \,.. 1��. \ " f , .. , \ ..; �- iA/ s - i 'P ➢', Q /' BUILDING \`T m EXISTING \ / : \ \9{e -_ t^� 360' -3 �Y '' �a� 42 49�lJILDING _. / g2 \ - \ � 363 368 / - i \ - l 2 `\ 7, .f 3a3 TO BE -I� T6\ REM BE , \ -�\o/ \g '.-\\ \-" (� tt O j REMOVED 5 1. - ^ 12 2g... ^ CEL .LFNE., LIA9 41F m \Q� �3� �+`�. OVED 4s1 _.,- .500 Q - \��� PROPO'SE,D \D €VELOP,MENT /-` G! 492' 50z 48 - � ._ � 49n 498 4e2 485 � 501 `• 05 s ?4 !(` \♦ °I -- 4fa - - -- / so _ _. -, \ ♦ MUIRFIELD \\ Jr V1 L _ \ , / __MUIRFIELD,_ \ \ i ' � �n�U.IRFIELR \ VILLAGE. MUIRFIELD EXISTING PATH, �11:LA E \_ \ i 7 �^ VILLAGE APPROXIMATE p .g ' / r / - LOCATION (FROM \ SE 7 AERIAL IMAGERY) J \ ~3 /,/ "PHA AER t EXISTING LEGEND SURVEY - - EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY 1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION IS BASED ON OSIP BARE -EARTH DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL (DEM) DERIVED FROM DIGITAL LIDAR EXISTING PROPERTY LINE DATA. 2. PARCEL DATA, RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY INFORMATION OBTAINED EXISTING EDGE OF ROAD FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR TAX MAPS AND GIB DATA. 3. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SURVEY OR THE — — 930 — — EXISTING INDEX CONTOUR ACCURACY OF THE EXISTING INFORMATION AND THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWN. EXISTING INTERMEDIATE CONTOUR EXISTING TREE LINE BENCHMARKS EXISTING WATER FEATURE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION BENCHMARKS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. THE COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS ARE SS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE REFERENCED TO OHIO STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OH -N NAD 83 AND ST EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE NAVD 88, RESPECTIVELY. W EXISTING WATER LINE FLOODZONE INFORMATION Uj CB ® EXISTING CATCH BASIN THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE Ohio Utilities Protection Service OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. BY THE FEDERAL MH O EXISTING MANHOLE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, EXISTING TREE IDENTIFICATION W/ TRUNK COMMUNITY PANEL NOS. 39049CO019K, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE F�} 1 DIAMETER LESS THAN 24 INCHES. SURVEYED BY "9 17, 2008, IN DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO. HULL & ASSOCIATES ON XX /XX /XXXX. NOTE r n� EXISTING TREE IDENTIFICATION W/ TRUNK 800 -362 -2764 T DIAMETER EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 24 INCHES. 1. THIB PLAN IS FOR PLANNING &ZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL ONLY. 2 SURVEYED BY HULL & ASSOCIATES ON XX /XX /XXXX. EXISTING BUILDING /STRUCTURE EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE EXISTING PAVEMENT H u associates me E EMLD PPP F ) DDPL ID <3016 xmw.M1ellinc com 6 Project Ti I.L r o W M LL 0 Z Q O CL > O Z Z W W 0 (L 0 � / O Li 0 Uj W LU � Z O Z co Q W CL W 0 Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This d—o, is wpydghted and is me wle property of Hull &Assaiates, inc. puced f.' uw by the pm7ed owner I[ is md Reproduction or other infon ton use of this drawing or the containedhereinwftutthewditen permissionof Hull is uidly prohibited NI rights ro—d Copyright 2013 Mork Description Dole DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 Project No.: D RP001 CAD DWG File: DRP001_C7.0 TREE Plot Dote: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drown By: ARW Check By: MJB Scale: AS NOTED Issue Dote: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: EXISTING TREE SURVEY Sheet Number: 7 OF 8 C7.0 TREE SURVEY # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 1 White Ash 15.0 Dead 2 Mulberry 6.0 Fair 3 White Ash 8.0 Dead 4 White Ash 8.0 Dead 5 White Ash 10.0 Dead 6 White Ash 15.0 Dead 7 White Ash 7.0 Dead 8 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 9 White Ash 6.0 Dead 10 White Ash 7.0 Dead 11 White Ash 8.0 Dead 12 Elm 9.0 Poor 13 White Ash 6.0 Dead 14 White Ash 7.0 Dead 15 White Ash 9.0 Dead 16 White Ash 9.0 Dead 17 White Ash 10.0 Dead 18 White Ash 7.0 Dead 19 White Ash 7.0 Dead 20 White Ash 8.0 Dead 21 White Ash 6.0 Dead 22 Australian Pine 11.0 Poor 23 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 24 Norway Spruce 8,0 Poor 25 Australian Pine 9.0 Poor 26 Australian Pine 9.0 Poor 27 Norway Spruce 9.0 Fair 28 Norway Spruce 7.0 Fair 29 Norway Spruce 7,0 Fair 30 White Pine 17.0 Dead 31 White Pine 16.0 Fair 32 Mulberry 15.0 Fair 33 Australian Pine 9.0 Poor 34 White Pine 6.0 Fair 35 White Pine 6.0 Fair 36 White Pine 6.0 Fair 37 White Pine 6.0 1 Fair 38 White Pine 6.0 Fair 39 White Pine 7.0 Fair 40 White Pine 6.0 Fair 41 White Pine 6.0 Fair 42 White Pine 6.0 Fair 43 White Pine 7.0 Fair 44 White Pine 7.0 Fair 45 White Pine 6.0 Fair 46 Sugar Maple 15.0 Poor 47 White Pine 11.0 Fair 48 Crabapple 6.0 Poor 49 Crabapple 7,0 Poor 50 I Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 51 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 52 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 53 Australian Pine 9.0 Poor 54 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 55 Cottonwood East 16.0 Fair 56 Colorado Spruce 8,0 Poor 57 Colorado Spruce 7,0 Poor 58 Australian Pine 9.0 Fair 59 Australian Pine 10.0 Fair 60 Australian Pine 9.0 Poor 61 Australian Pine 8.0 Poor 62 Crabapple 15.0 Poor 63 White Ash 16.0 Dead 144 Australian Pine 9.0 Fair r65 White Pine 10.0 Fair 146 Australian Pine 6.0 Fair 147 White Pine 13.0 Poor 148 Sugar Maple 14.0 Poor 69 White Pine 13.0 Fair 70 White Pine 14.0 Fair 71 White Pine 6.0 Poor 72 Scotch Pine 13.0 Poor 73 Australian Pine 17.0 Fair 74 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 75 White Pine 18.0 Fair 76 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 77 White Pine 14.0 Fair 78 White Ash 7.0 Dead 79 White Ash 6.0 Dead 80 White Ash j 6.0 Dead # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 81 White Ash 11.0 Dead 82 White Ash 9.0 Dead 83 Crabapple 8,0 Poor 84 Crabapple 15.0 Dead 85 White Ash 11.0 Dead 86 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 87 White Ash 8.0 Dead 88 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 89 White Ash 9.0 Dead 90 White Ash 9.0 Dead 91 White Ash 6.0 Dead 92 White Ash 6.0 Dead 93 White Ash 8.0 Dead 94 White Ash 9.0 Dead 95 Crabapple 9.0 Poor 96 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 97 White Ash 6.0 Dead 98 White Ash 6.0 Dead 99 White Ash 6.0 Dead 100 White Ash 6.0 Dead 101 White Ash 6.0 Dead 102 Osage Orange 15.0 Fair 103 White Ash 6.0 Dead 104 Elm 6.0 Poor 105 White Ash 8.0 Dead 106 White Ash 10.0 Dead 107 White Ash 10.0 Dead 108 White Ash 10.0 Dead 109 Scotch Pine 15.0 Poor 110 Crabapple 6.0 Poor ill White Ash 8.0 Dead 112 White Ash 8.0 Dead 113 Elm 8.0 Poor 114 Elm 8.0 Poor 115 White Ash 9.0 Dead 116 Elm 6.0 Poor 117 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 118 White Ash 7.0 Dead 119 Elm 15.0 Poor 120 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 121 Elm 6.0 Poor 122 Cherry 8.0 Dead 123 Elm 9.0 Poor 124 White Ash 8.0 Dead 125 White Ash 15.0 Dead 126 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 127 White Ash 7.0 Dead 128 White Ash 6.0 Dead 129 White Ash 7.0 Dead 130 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 131 White Ash 9.0 Dead 132 Cherry 8.0 Poor 133 Scotch Pine 11.0 Dead 134 Scotch Pine 15.0 Poor 135 Scotch Pine 13.0 Poor 136 Scotch Pine 17.0 Poor 137 Scotch Pine 11.0 Poor 138 Scotch Pine 10.0 Poor 139 Elm 15.0 Poor 140 White Pine 10.0 Fair 141 White Pine 6.0 Fair 142 Crabapple 9.0 Poor 143 White Ash 7.0 Dead 144 White Ash 7.0 Dead 145 White Ash 9.0 Dead 146 White Ash 11.0 Dead 147 Crabapple 15.0 Poor 148 White Ash 15.0 Dead 149 White Pine 8.0 Poor 150 Pear 15.0 Poor 151 White Ash 8.0 Dead 152 White Pine 8.0 Fair 153 White Pine 13.0 Fair 154 White Pine 11.0 Fair 155 Elm 6.0 Poor 156 White Pine 12.0 Fair 157 White Pine 19.0 Fair 158 White Pine 9.0 Fair 159 White Pine 8.0 Poor 160 White Pine 13.0 1 Fair # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 161 Australian Pine 9.0 Fair 162 Norway Spruce 8.0 Poor 163 Scotch Pine 8.0 Dead 164 Scotch Pine 15.0 Dead 165 Scotch Pine 14.0 Poor 166 Scotch Pine 14.0 Poor 167 Crabapple 7,0 Poor 168 White Ash 7.0 Dead 169 White Pine 12.0 Fair 170 White Pine 12.0 Fair 171 Australian Pine 6.0 Poor 172 White Pine 6.0 Fair 173 White Pine 6.0 Good 174 White Pine 6.0 Fair 175 White Pine 6.0 Fair 176 Australian Pine 8.0 Poor 177 Norway Spruce 10.0 Fair 178 White Pine 6.0 Fair 179 White Pine 6.0 Fair 180 White Pine 6.0 Fair 181 White Pine 7.0 Fair 182 White Pine 9.0 Good 183 White Pine 6.0 Good 184 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor 185 Australian Pine 6.0 Fair 186 Norway Spruce 7.0 Fair 187 Pear 10.0 Fair 188 White Ash 14.0 Dead 189 White Ash 16.0 Dead 270 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 271 Crabapple 7,0 Fair 272 White Ash 14.0 Dead [ 19111 White Ash 12.0 Dead 274 White Ash 16.0 Dead 275 Australian Pine 7.0 Poor Cottonwood East 18.0 Fair 197 Australian Pine 6.0 Poor 198 White Ash 9.0 Dead 199 Elm 22.0 Fair 200 Australian Pine 6.0 Poor 201 White Ash 10.0 Dead 202 White Ash 10.0 Dead 203 White Pine 7.0 Fair 204 White Ash 14.0 Dead 205 White Pine 6.0 Fair 206 White Ash 7.0 Dead 207 White Ash 16.0 Dead 208 White Ash 12.0 Dead 209 White Ash 6.0 Dead 210 1 White Ash 7.0 Dead 211 White Ash 6.0 Dead 212 White Ash 10.0 Dead 213 White Ash 11.0 Dead 214 White Ash 15.0 Dead 215 Crabapple 6.0 Fair 216 White Ash 12.0 Dead 217 White Ash 10.0 Dead 218 White Ash 8.0 Dead 219 White Ash 11.0 Dead 220 White Ash 16.0 1 Dead 221 White Ash 10.0 Dead 222 White Ash 10.0 Dead 223 White Ash 10.0 Dead 224 White Pine 6.0 Fair 225 White Pine 6.0 Fair 226 Elm 15.0 Fair 227 White Ash 6.0 Dead 228 Crabapple 15.0 Poor 229 White Ash 12.0 Dead 230 White Ash 9.0 Dead 231 Black Willow 7.0 Fair 232 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 233 Black Willow 9.0 Fair 234 Black Willow 9.0 Fair 235 Black Willow 16.0 Fair 236 Black Willow 11.0 Fair 237 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 238 White Ash 6.0 Dead' 239 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 240 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 241 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 242 Pear 8.0 Fair 243 Black Willow 15.0 Dead 244 Black Willow 8.0 Dead 245 Pear 6.0 Fair 246 Black Willow 6.0 1 Fair 247 Black Willow 6.0 Fair 248 White Ash 6.0 Dead 249 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 250 Elm 12.0 Fair 251 Elm 14.0 Fair 252 Elm 12.0 Fair 253 Black Walnut 16.0 Fair 254 Elm 8.0 Fair 255 White Ash 22.0 Dead 256 White Ash 8.0 Dead 405 Sugar Maple 11.0 Dead 485 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 326 White Ash 7.0 Dead E White Ash 6.0 Dead 486 White Ash 10.0 Dead 327 Black Willow 15.0 Fair 263 Elm Black Willow 10.0 Fair 264 Black Willow 16.0 Fair 265 White Ash 6.0 Dead 266 Black Willow 20.0 Poor 267 Elm 7.0 Poor 268 Elm 6.0 Poor 269 Black Willow 13.0 Fair 270 Black Willow 13.0 Poor 271 Black Willow 13.0 Dead 272 Black Willow 13.0 Poor 273 White Ash 6.0 Dead 274 Black Willow 7.0 Fair 275 Black Willow 7.0 Fair 276 Black Willow 7.0 Fair 277 Pin Oak 15.0 Good 278 White Ash 6.0 Dead 279 White Ash 15.0 Dead 280 Cottonwood East 20.0 Poor 281 White Ash 6.0 Dead 282 White Ash 19.0 Dead 283 White Ash 7.0 Dead 284 White Ash 12.0 Dead 285 Black Willow 16.0 Fair 286 Black Willow 6.0 Fair 287 Black Willow 8.0 Fair 288 Black Willow 11.0 Fair 289 Black Willow 11.0 Fair 290 Osage Orange 6.0 Fair 291 Black Walnut 12.0 Fair 292 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 293 Black Walnut 16.0 Fair 294 Elm 10.0 Poor 295 Elm 22.0 Poor 296 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 297 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 298 White Ash 6.0 Dead 299 White Ash 17.0 Dead 300 White Ash 7.0 Dead 301 White Ash 10.0 Dead 302 Pin Oak 6.0 Fair 303 White Ash 7.0 Dead 304 Cottonwood East 22.0 Fair 305 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 306 Sugar Maple 15.0 Poor 307 Sugar Maple 10.0 Fair 308 Black Walnut 15.0 Poor 309 White Ash 16.0 Dead 310 Sugar Maple 22.0 Poor 311 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 312 Hickory Pignut 14.0 Fair 313 Elm 6.0 Poor 314 Black Walnut 8.0 Poor 315 Elm 7.0 Poor 316 Elm 7.0 Poor 317 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 318 Hickory Pignut 15.0 Good 319 Pin Oak 8.0 Good 320 Pin Oak 9.0 Good # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 561 # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION Sugar Maple # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 321 Pin Oak 9.0 Good 401 Sugar Maple 14.0 Good 481 Cottonwood East 20.0 Fair 322 Hickory Shagbark 18.0 Fair 11.0 402 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair Poor 482 White Pine 26.0 Poor 323 White Ash 9.0 Dead 403 Elm 6.0. Poor 483 White Pine 12.0 Poor 324 Hop Hornbeam 6.0 Fair 404 White Ash 14.0 Dead 484 Pear 7.0 Fair 325 White Ash 11.0 Dead 405 Sugar Maple 11.0 Fair 485 Pin Oak 80 Fair 326 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 406 Sugar Maple 10.0 Fair 486 White Pine 12.0 Poor 327 White Ash 6.0 Dead 407 Sugar Maple 13.0 Fair 487 White Pine 6.0 Fair 328 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 408 White Ash 9.0 Dead 488 White Pine 16.0 Poor 329 Hop Hornbeam 8,0 Fair 409 White Ash 10.0 Dead 489 White Pine 7.0 Poor 330 White Ash 7.0 Dead 410 White Ash 7.0 Dead 490 White Pine 9.0 Poor 331 Pin Oak 6.0 Fair 411 Sugar Maple 7.0 Dead 491 Elm 9.0 Poor 332 Pin Oak 7.0 Good 412 Sugar Maple 9,0 Fair 492 White Pine 6.0 Poor 333 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 413 Sugar Maple 6.0 Poor 493 While Pine 6.0 Poor 334 Sugar Maple 8.0 Fair 414 White Ash 8.0 Dead 494 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 335 Sugar Maple 8,0 Fair White Ash 11.0 Dead 495 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 336 Sugar Maple 10.0 Fair Sugar Maple 8,0 Fair 496 White Pine 6.0 Poor 337 Hickory Pignut 8,0 Fair [419 White Ash 7.0 Dead 497 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 338 White Ash 8.0 Dead White Ash 7.0 Dead 498 Pear 6.0 Fair 339 Hickory Pignut 18,0 Fair White Ash 9.0 Dead 499 Elm 7.0 Poor 340 Hackberry 6.0 Fair Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 500 Pear 6.0 Fair 341 Mulberry 15.0 Fair 421 White Ash 11.0 Dead 501 Crabapple 6.0 Fair 342 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 422 White Ash 17.0 Dead 502 White Pine 6.0 Poor 343 Black Walnut 14.0 Fair 423 White Ash 9.0 Dead 503 Elm 6.0 Fair 344 Hackberry 14.0 Dead 424 Sugar Maple 6.0 Dead 504 Pin Oak 11.0 Fair 345 Sugar Maple 32.0 Poor 425 White Ash 17.0 Dead 505 Elm 8.0 Fair 346 Black Walnut 10.0 Good 426 Sugar Maple 7,0 Fair 506 Hickory Pignut 8.0 Fair 347 Sugar Maple 24.0 Poor 427 Sugar Maple 8,0 F 507 Hickory Pignut 7.0 Fair 348 Hickory Pignut 18.0 Good 428 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 508 Hickory Pignut 6.0 Fair 349 White Ash 12.0 Dead 429 White Ash 11.0 Dead 509 Sugar Maple 7.0 1 Fair 350 Elm 6.0 Poor 430 Sugar Maple 7,0 Fair 510 White Pine 6.0 Poor 351 Elm 10.0 Poor 431 Sugar Maple 11.0 Fair 511 White Pine 9.0 Poor 352 Elm 8.0 Poor 432 Sugar Maple 8.0 Fair 512 Pear 8.0 Fair 353 White Ash 12.0 Dead 433 Elm 10.0 Poor 513 Sugar Maple 24.0 Poor 354 Elm 8.0 Poor 434 White Ash 8.0 Dead 514 Cottonwood East 23.0 Fair 355 White Ash 13.0 Dead 435 Sugar Maple 8,0 Fair 515 White Pine 6.0 Poor 356 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 436 White Ash 9.0 Dead 516 Sugar Maple 8.0 Fair 357 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 437 1 Sugar Maple 20.0 Fair 517 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 358 Hickory Shagbark 10.D Fair 438 Elm 7.0 Fair 518 White Pine 20.0 Poor 359 Black Walnut 15.0 Fair 439 White Ash 8.0 Dead 519 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 360 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 440 White Ash 14.0 Dead 520 Elm 7.0 Poor 361 White Ash 9.0 Dead 441 White Ash 12.0 Dead 521 White Pine 9.0 Poor 362 Hickory Pignut 11.0 Good 442 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 522 Elm 14.0 Poor 363 White Ash 8.0 Dead 443 1 White Ash 20.0 Dead 523 Black Walnut 6.0 Poor 364 Elm 8.0 Poor 444 Sugar Maple 8.0 Fair 524 White Pine 8.0 Poor 365 White Ash 12.0 Dead 445 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 525 White Pine 13.0 Poor 366 Hickory Pignut 11.0 Fair 446 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 526 White Pine 8.0 Poor 367 Sugar Maple 9.0 Poor 447 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 527 Hackberry 6.0 Fair 368 White Ash 14.0 Dead 448 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 528 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 369 Elm 7.0 Poor 449 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 529 Black Walnut 14.0 Fair 370 Hickory Pignut 12.0 Fair 450 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 530 Black Walnut Fair 371 Sugar Maple 9,0 Poor 451 Black Walnut 13.0 Fair 531 Sugar Maple Fair 372 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 45 2 Sugar Maple 6.0 Poor 532 Sugar Maple Poor 373 Sugar Maple 6.0 Poor 453 Hickory Pignut 14.0 Fair 533 Sugar Maple F17.0 Fair 374 Elm 9.0 Poor 454 Elm 7.0 Poor 534 White Pine Poor 375 Elm 7.0 Fair 455 White Ash 9.0 Dead 535 Sugar Maple Poor 376 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 456 Cottonwood East 24.0 Fair 536 Hickory Pignut Fair 377 Sugar Maple g,0 Good 457 Cottonwood East 24.0 Fair 537 Black Walnut 13.0 Fair 378 Hickory Pignut 13.0 Fair 458 Cottonwood East 15.0 Fair 538 Sugar Maple 10.0 Fair 379 Hickory Pignut 8,0 Fair 459 Cottonwood East 17.0 Fair 539 Black Walnut 25.0 Fair 380 Hickory Pignut 10.0 Fair 460 Black Walnut 16.0 Fair 540 White Pine 14.0 Poor White Ash 9.0 Dead 461 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 541 White Pine 6.0 Poor Elm 6.0 Poor 462 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 542 Black Walnut 23.0 Fair Elm 7.0 Poor 463 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 543 White Pine 7.0 Poor F 3.4 Elm 10.0 Dead 464 Elm 6.0 Poor 544 White Pine 8.0 Poor Elm 10.0 Dead 465 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 545 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 466 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 546 White Pine 9.0 Poor 387 Black Walnut 19.0 Poor 467 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 547 White Pine 14.0 Poor 388 Sugar Maple 16.0 Fair 468 Elm 6.0 Poor 548 Sugar Maple 9.0 Poor 389 Sugar Maple 7,0 Poor 469 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 549 Sugar Maple 7,0 Poor 390 White Ash 10.0 Dead 470 White Ash 15.0 Dead 550 White Pine 9.0 Poor 391 White Ash 14.0 Dead 471 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 551 White Pine 10.0 Poor 392 White Ash 9.0 Dead 472 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 552 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 393 White Ash 20.0 Dead 473 Sugar Maple 7.0 Dead 553 White Pine 12.0 Poor 394 Sugar Maple 9,0 Fair 474 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 554 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 395 Black Walnut 9.0 Fair 475 White Ash 19.0 Dead 555 White Pine 11.0 Poor 396 Sugar Maple 9,0 Poor 476 Sugar Maple 9,0 Fair 556 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 397 Sugar Maple g_0 Fair 477 Pear 6.0 Fair 557 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 398 Sugar Maple 28.0 Dead 478 Black Walnut 7.0 Fair 5S8 Sugar Maple 9,0 Fair 399 White Ash 14.0 Dead 479 Black Walnut 9A Fair 559 White Pine 18.0 Poor 400 Sugar Maple 7,0 Fair 480 Cottonwood East 28.0 Fair 560 White Pine 1 9.0 Poor # COMMON NAME DBH CONDITION 561 White Pine 11.0 Poor 562 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 563 Hackberry 7,0 Fair 564 Hickory Shagbark 9,0 Fair 565 Hickory Shagbark 8.0 Fair 566 Sugar Maple 6.0 Poor 567 Elm 11.0 Fair 568 Sugar Maple 8,0 Poor 569 Pear 8.0 Fair 570 Pear 7.0 Fair 571 White Pine 13.0 Poor 572 White Pine 7.0 Poor 573 Elm 6.0 Poor 574 White Pine 6.0 Poor 575 Pear 7.0 Fair 576 White Pine 12.0 Poor 577 Hackberry 9,0 Fair 578 Hackberry 10.0 Fair 579 Sugar Maple 6.0 Fair 580 Pin Oak 11.0 Fair 581 Black Walnut 14.0 Fair 582 Hickory Pignut 7,0 Fair 583 Elm 9.0 Fair 584 Elm 7.0 Fair 585 Hickory Shagbark 6.0 Fair 586 Hackberry I1.0 Fair 587 Hackberry 9,0 Fair 588 Hackberry 10.0 Fair 589 Elm 8.0 1 Poor 590 White Pine 7.0 Poor 591 White Pine 6.0 Poor 592 Black Walnut 6.0 Fair 593 Hackberry 8,0 Fair 594 Black Walnut 10.0 Fair 595 White Pine 6.0 Fair 596 Black Walnut 8.0 Fair 597 Pear 6.0 Fair 598 Pear 6.0 Fair 599 Elm 8.0 Fair 600 White Pine 7.0 Poor 601 White Pine 7.0 Poor 602 White Pine 12A Poor COUN' SPECIES COUNT Australian Pine 1 25 Cherry 2 Colorado Spruce 2 Cottonwood East 11 Crabapple 14 Elm 54 Hackberry 10 Hickory Pignut 17 Hickory Shagbark 5 Hop Hornbeam 2 Mulberry 3 Norway Spruce 7 Osage Orange 2 Pear 14 Pin Oak 10 Scotch Pine 12 Sugar Maple 69 Black Walnut 76 White Ash 150 White Pine 92 Black Willow 25 f BY SIZE AND COI U. UOII 0 ' 0' U. LU IDITIO H ssoc iates, inc. -1 cEJI Ts = .r'E =s 63ITEE206 PA6kNAT eroxE: (6fa' ]93 -6'P] aueiix, oxen 4-a �+.XI.I iom mo Project Title: r Q LU O Z Q I* J 0 J J_ _ a. > 0 0 Z J Z LLI LLI J E (L 0 0 = W 0 w Y >= 0 O LU Z Q U, a W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is wpy,ghled It tl is Ne sole property of Hull &ASSOOaIes, Inc. It Is pmd d for use by the project owner Reproduction or other use of this drawing m the iniprmalion ..lamed herein withoul the written pefmission of Hull is strictly prohibited Aft rights reserved Copyrght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 P roject Na.: Total Good Fair Poor Dead 6" to 12" 452 10 210 111 121 12" to 18" 117 3 43 31 40 18" to 24" 24 1 11 7 5 24 "+ 9 0 4 4 1 TOTAL TREES 602 14 268 153 167 H ssoc iates, inc. -1 cEJI Ts = .r'E =s 63ITEE206 PA6kNAT eroxE: (6fa' ]93 -6'P] aueiix, oxen 4-a �+.XI.I iom mo Project Title: r Q LU O Z Q I* J 0 J J_ _ a. > 0 0 Z J Z LLI LLI J E (L 0 0 = W 0 w Y >= 0 O LU Z Q U, a W a o Owner: STANSBURY MUIRFIELD, LLC P.O. BOX 1422 DUBLIN, OH 43017 This drawing is wpy,ghled It tl is Ne sole property of Hull &ASSOOaIes, Inc. It Is pmd d for use by the project owner Reproduction or other use of this drawing m the iniprmalion ..lamed herein withoul the written pefmission of Hull is strictly prohibited Aft rights reserved Copyrght 2013 Mark Description Date DEV PLAN SUBMITTAL 02/01/13 P & Z COMMENTS 03/15/13 CITY COMMENTS 03/26/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/21/13 CITY COMMENTS 05/28/13 P roject Na.: D RP 00 1 CAD DWG File: DRP001_C7.0 TREE Plot Date: 05/28/13 Layout By: JB Drawn By: ARW Check By: MJB Scale: AS NOTED Issue Date: MAY 2013 Sheet Title: TREE SURVEY LIST Sheet Number: 8 OF 8 C8.0 I ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION fax 614.410.4747 www.d ti bl inohiousa. gov APRIL 4 2013 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Stansbury at Muirfield Village 13- 009Z /PDP /PP 10799 Drake Road Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: Rezoning an 11.5 -acre site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for 19 residential lots and approximately four acres of open space. The site is located on the east side of Drake Road, 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning with Preliminary Development plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. This is also a request for review and recommendation to City Council of a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: William Adams, represented by Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: To recommend approval to City Council for this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan review criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with six conditions: 1) That the development text be revised to not require the driveway location for Lot 1 to be to the west; 2) That the development text be revised to clarify enforcement of the Association architectural requirements and Zoning Code required residential appearance provisions; 3) That the text be revised to require an architectural theme, if proposed, be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the final development plan; 4) That the development text be revised to permit a maximum of 18 Lots and the proposed plans be revised to remove Lot 6 and incorporate a minimum lot width of 80 feet for Lots 1 through 5; 5) That the applicant verify the building envelopes to ensure all landmark trees are preserved; and 6) That the development text be revised to not permit an entry feature sign for this development. *Ben Hale Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4-0 RESULT: This Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Recused Warren Fishman Recused Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Absent Victoria Newell Yes Page 1 of 2 7 ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 shier Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION fax 614.410.4747 www.dub II nohiousa.gov APRIL 4 2013 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Stansbury at Muirfleld Village 10799 Drake Road 13- 0092 /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: Rezoning an 11.5 -acre site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for 19 residential lots and approximately four acres of open space. The site is located on the east side of Drake Road, 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning with Preliminary Development plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. This is also a request for review and recommendation to City Council of a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: William Adams, represented by Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us Motion #2: To recommend approval to City Council for this Preliminary Plat because this proposal complies with the preliminary plat review criteria, with four conditions: 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat be made prior to City Council submittal, including noting the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and setback information; 2) That the applicant works with Delaware County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this preliminary plat; 3) That the preliminary plat be revised to match the preliminary development plan in terms of the elimination of Lot 6 and the width of Lots 1 through 5; and 4) That the sidewalk along Lot 9 be redesigned to a more curvilinear pattern. *Ben Hale Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Preliminary Plat application was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Recused STAFF CERTIFICATION Warren Fishman Recused Amy Kramb Yes John Hardt Yes Joseph Budde Absent Claudia D. Husak, AICP Victoria Newell Yes Planner II Page 2of2 City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4 301 6 -1 236 Phone 614.410.4600 MEETING MINUTES fax 614.410.4747 ww .dublinohiousa.gov APRIL 4, 2013 AGENDA NEW CASES 1. Stansbury at Muirfield Village 10799 Drake Road 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat (Approved 4 — 0 - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan) (Approved 4 — 0 - Preliminary Plat) Richard Taylor and Warren Fishman recused themselves from this case due to personal conflicts of interest. Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application to rezone an 11.5 -acre site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for 19 residential lots and approximately 4 acres of open space, located on the east side of Drake Road, 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Lane. She explained that two motions on this application will be necessary, and both components will be forwarded to City Council for final approval. Claudia Husak presented this rezoning with preliminary development plan and preliminary plat application. She said the proposed site is surrounded on all sides by single - family homes within Muirfield Village with access on Drake Road from Springburn Drive. She presented a photograph of the site. Ms. Husak said there exists a 30 -foot change of terrain and a vacant house and several outbuildings are currently located on the site. She referred to a preliminary tree survey included in the meeting materials which identified many mature evergreens and deciduous trees including ash trees on the site. She said there is a Stream Corridor Protection Zone on the site. Ms. Husak presented the previous informal proposal and the October 2012 Concept Plan for this site which were reviewed previously by the Commission. She said 24 cluster units were proposed in the informal proposal with 2 acres of open space. She said for the Concept Plan the density was reduced to be more in line with the surrounding Muirfield Village neighborhoods to 19 units. She said while the Commission supported the proposed lower density, it was mentioned that they preferred the clustering of the lots as proposed at the Informal. Ms. Husak said the applicant has combined those two ideas and provided 19 single family lots arranged in a cluster design in the northeast, northwest, and southeast area of the site, preserving just over four acres of open space. She said this proposed plan has a density of 1.62 units per acre, which is the lower density of the surrounding Muirfield Village sites. She said there are large areas of open space provided with this proposed plan. Ms. Husak said the proposed open space on the south side stretches along the lots and is adjacent to existing open space within Muirfield Village. She said a bikepath connection to the existing Muirfield Association bikepath is shown. Ms. Husak said the applicant proposes a 55 -foot area around the stream corridor as a protection zone. She said one street will access all of the lots that end in a looped, cul -de -sac type arrangement. She said the two areas proposed for stormwater management are within the cul -de -sac and the outer area to the south of the road. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 Ms. Husak said the applicant proposes to create a tree preservation zone along the northern and western property boundaries. She said the zone for Lots 1 through 6 is 45 feet wide and 35 feet wide for Lots 7 through 13. She said that lately, in a couple of developments where existing trees were to be preserved, the applicants have also indicated that the area would be heavily replanted with the replacement trees that they were required to provide, on the site. Ms. Husak said there is not a tree preservation zone shown, but because all of the area indicated in a green color is within a Reserve, it would have tree preservation also taking place and again it creates a wider strip of open space. Ms. Husak said that Muirfield Village is willing to take all the wide open spaces into their ownership as well as into their maintenance. She explained that typically, the open space is required to be dedicated to the City, but in Muirfield Village that is not typically the case. She said that the Park Director supports the open space requirements being waived in this case because the open space was being dedicated to Muirfield. She said the open space will still count toward the requirements, but the City will not be taking ownership of it. Ms. Husak said that a Build Zone for all of the lots is shown on the plan as a 10 -foot line in front of each of the lots. She said that it differs slightly, depending on which lot it is, and the development text has that lined out per lot bases. She said the line starts 20 feet from the road right -of -way and then it is a 10- foot Zone in which the home has to be located. She said this is creating more of a natural setback for each of the homes. Ms. Husak said that the applicant is also providing sidewalks beginning at Lot 1 and ending at the driveway of Lot 14 and along Lots 15 through 19, which would access a path within the Muirfield Village open space. She pointed out that even though it was not an amenity that has been typical in Muirfield, Planning and the applicant feel strongly about having an opportunity for people to walk along their street within a safe area and having access to the paths through a sidewalk system. Ms. Husak presented the preliminary plat outlining the Reserve areas. She said that the applicant has indicated that the road will be named Stansbury Drive. She said since it is a continuation of Drake Road, there is a condition that the applicant work with staff on the road renaming because the existing small area of Drake Road also needs to be renamed so that the road name does not change halfway. She said that the applicant has been asked to work with staff and Delaware County to vacate the road since the right -of -way is located in Delaware County instead of the City of Dublin. Ms. Husak said the Commission recommendations for the preliminary plat and preliminary development plan will go to City Council for final approval. She said that Planning is recommending approval of this rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions, and two conditions for the preliminary plat. Ben Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, (37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio), representing the applicant Bill Adams, said that they had made an agreement with the Muirfield Association to take the property within the Association to own the open spaces. He said they also agreed that before the Association took title to the open space, that would they clean it up and remove any dead or diseased trees. He said the lots will be subject to the Muirfield deed restrictions, rules and regulations, and a forced and funded homeowners association. He said the all homes will be subjected to the Muirfield Association's architectural review process and standards. Mr. Hale said that although sidewalks are not allowed in Muirfield, they have an agreement with the Association that they will waive that part of their requirements and allow them in this development. He said that the market for these cluster homes will be for the active adult community. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 Gretchen Randall (8883 Belisle Court) pointed out that the Public Notices for this case were received during Spring Break week when many residents were vacationing. She asked if the case could be tabled to another date so that more residents could be notified to attend the meeting. Jennifer Readier said that the notice delivery complied with Dublin's Code requirements and that circumstances typically would not justify a tabling. Ms. Randall said that there was a group of organized residents that contact everyone involved with the discussion of these properties. She said she received her notice on Monday, March 25"' and that most residents left Thursday or Friday for vacation. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the good news was that this was not the last hearing for this application. She said since the notification requirement had been met, they could proceed with this meeting, but that there would be an additional opportunity for everyone's thoughts to be heard. Ms. Randall said she thought the Commission would want to make sure that the residents were available to have the most information possible. She said that the City of Dublin should know when the Dublin Schools were on vacation. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked Ms. Randall to share her thoughts about this application with the Commission. Ms. Randall said this plan was a little better, but the group she was speaking for would like to see 15 homes. She asked what the square footage and the price range proposed for the homes was. She said they would like to see one -story homes instead of the proposed mixture of 1 -, 1 1 /2 -, and 2 -story homes. Ms. Randall said with this lot orientation, residents will literally be staring into the second story of homes due to the dip in some areas on the site. She said they would like to see a protection zone around the entire property. Ms. Randall said this was the first time she had seen the plans and so her comments were 'off the cuff.' Allan Swearingen, (8881 Cruden Bay Court) agreed that this plan was getting in line with what they were expecting, but that it was not what had been represented on the City website. He said on the initial plan with 23 lots, there was a concern where the water ran off the buffer zone of the drainage there. He said it appeared before that the lots were held back off of what would be the existing property line, but now the lot goes straight back to the property line. He said he was trying to understand what was the reasoning was, but now there seemed to be more buffer zones there. He asked how to access the current plan proposed being proposed. Ms. Husak explained that the information on the website being referred to was based on the application originally filed as the public record. She said that an updated application was what was being reviewed at this meeting and it is also available for view on the website. She said that the original application is not deleted from the website because it was a trail of the process. Mr. Swearingen said as a homeowner, he expected this site to be developed in the same low density as the surrounding development. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that when she pulled up this case on the website, she saw that there were 23 lots. She said she assumed that after this meeting, the most recent information would be uploaded. Ms. Husak explained they way it was organized was that there was the application and site plan that were originally submitted, and then an updated site plan was posted underneath that. Mr. Swearingen asked where was the property line of the homeowner and where did the setback start for the proposed buffer zone. He asked if it came from the property line or the tree buffer. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 Ms. Husak explained that the lots on the north would directly back up to lots, and then the first dotted line was the tree preservation zone, and the second dotted line was the rear yard setback. Mr. Swearingen said that could not be seen on the website and that caused concern about where the setbacks would be and how that would be addressed. Ms. Husak said her contact information was available on the website, and she offered to provide the additional details to anyone interested. Carol Rieland, (5733 Springburn Drive), said one of the concerns that she shared with other residents was the square- footage of the houses. She said she would like to see that they are similar to the houses that surround the area, in keeping with the neighborhood. She said she was also concerned about the amount of traffic created that will spill onto their street and the surrounding streets. She said that Springburn Drive does not have sidewalks, and with 19 houses, there would probably be 38 vehicles that will pass onto Springburn Drive, Whitecraigs Court, and McIntyre Drive. She said she was concerned about the traffic and the children that play in the street and in the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Reiland asked if the entire area would be razed then the spec houses would be built one by one. She said she was concerned there would be construction noise for several years. Ms. Rieland said regarding the buffer zone, she recalled that originally, there was a 50 -foot buffer from the houses on the north side, and today, it was decreased. Ms. Husak explained there were setbacks and tree preservation zones. She said that Lots 1 through 6 have a 50 -foot setback and a 45 -foot tree preservation zone. She said because there needs to be room for utilities and that was why the tree preservation zone did extend as far. Ms. Husak said that there was a total of 45 feet of setback on Lots 7 through 12. Ms. Rieland said she was also concerned because currently, when it rains heavily, the creek overflows behind her house. She said she wanted to make sure they did not have flooding issues after this development was complete. Jeff Schoener, (5825 Springburn Drive) asked for the definition of a tree preservation zone and where the applicant would remove dead trees. Mr. Hale said that there were many Ash trees which will have to be removed and the applicant has agreed to do that. He said they are required to meet Code with the tree replacement and some of the trees will go in the open space that Muirfield is taking. He said that Muirfield wants to keep that area as natural as they can because they think that aesthetically, it would be best and it would reduce maintenance by keeping it in its natural state. Mr. Schoener asked if that would be just on property owned by Muirfield or on individual lots. Mr. Hale said it was for individual lots also. He said in the tree preservation zone near where the current residents live, they will also replace trees and create more of a wooded area. Mr. Schoener asked if living Ash trees would be removed. Mr. Hale explained that they were asked to remove the existing Ash trees and replace them with trees not subject to diseases. He said when they come back with the final development plan, they will submit a Landscape Plan showing where those trees will be located, and if approved by the Commission, they will plant them. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 Mr. Hale addressed the question regarding house values and said with the price of the property and the development they will cost more than $500,000. He said because they will be subject to Muirfield's Design Review they will be in keeping with what exists there now. He said they hoped that it would provide the neighbors comfort to know that this development will be part of their association and will have the same standards. He said ultimately, the Commission and the City have the right to approve the tree planting program. Ms. Husak said that a definition for a tree preservation zone similar to what had been used in the past required that the zone be fenced off with a sturdy metal fence prior to construction, and that no building structure, fence, patio, recreational or athletic facility, or any other improvement of any kind can be within that zone, so no patios, decks, swimming pools are permitted. She said also, no work can be performed that would alter the natural state of the zone and that no tree or vegetation may be removed from the zone, except for the removal of dead, diseased, decayed, or noxious trees and vegetation. Mr. Schoener asked if that meant the replanting of trees. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that would be determined at the final development plan stage when the applicant will be required to submit a Landscape Plan. She explained that the tree study would be overlaid with the Landscape Plan to identify significant voids and supplemental plantings will be made in those areas where there are deficiencies. Ms. Husak said in addition, the applicant is also stating that in the development text that the reforestation will take place primarily in those areas. John Hardt clarified that the fence around the tree protection zone was to be a temporary construction - type fence. Vincent Resor, (5837 Springburn Drive) said that his house was next door to Lot 1, and all 38 vehicles will be driving by his house every morning and evening, so he was interested in the plans to widen the road. He asked if it would be widened to his property or into the community property on the other side, towards the trail. Aaron Stanford said currently the existing pavement is around 22 to 24 feet in this area and that would be proposed for the 28 -foot section from the back of the curb to the other side of the curb and 50 feet of right -of -way. He said in this area, there is actually more than that. He said they will widen the existing roadway much as it exists, center it, and actually perform any work within the existing right -of -way. He said there would be no need to encroach onto any private property on either side of that area. Mr. Resor said from his perspective, it would certainly encroach into his property, but he would review the notes to get the math straight. Mr. Resor said regarding the reforestation', they cut down probably the largest tree in Dublin which shaded his driveway and his daughter's basketball court in his backyard, which left him with a beautiful view of his neighbor's house. He said the record with tree preservation left something to be desired. He said looking out his back window, 50 feet will provide a striking view of the construction fence and then the houses on the other side. He asked for reassurance about the integrity of the reforestation plan definition. He asked what could be offered in terms of understanding. Ms. Husak reiterated that these plans move from the Commission to City Council, and then come back to the Commission for final approval of the final development plan. She said a detailed Landscape Plan is part of that approval which requires that all of the trees to be removed to be shown as well as all of the trees to be replaced, so that there is an enforceable document. She said if any tree is removed from the plan after it has been planted, the developer will still have to replace them, even if they do not survive. Mr. Resor asked when it said 'all of the trees on the plan' did the plan includes the green at the top on the north side. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 Ms. Husak said that was correct. Mr. Resor said understanding that he had no trees on his side of the creek, that meant literally every tree in his backyard would be cut down. Ms. Husak said only the trees that are dead or diseased would be cut down. Mr. Resor said he had some of those trees. Ms. Husak reiterated that all trees that will be cut down will have to be shown on the plans as being scheduled to be removed. Mr. Resor asked where the stop sign would be located. He also asked what would be the deposition of his mailbox that appeared to be in the right -of -way and at the end of his driveway. Ms. Husak said based on Mr. Stanford's math, if the roadway is going to be 28 feet and it is currently 22 or 24 feet wide, it will either have to extend two or four feet within the existing right -of -way. She said the road will extend two feet or four feet towards Mr. Resor's house, and hence, the mailbox will have to move beyond the road. Greg Cunningham, (5801 Springburn Drive) recalled that at the time of the Commission's review of the Concept Plan in October it was discussed giving the buffer zone to Muirfield also so that there was some control over it. He asked if something is built in that zone and a tree dies that needs to be replanted, how it will be enforced. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that the plan would be submitted and it will go into the files that are enforceable by City Code. She said there are several Code Enforcement employees that inspect, but certainly do not count every tree, everywhere, every time. She said however, on the City website there is a phone number listed to call to report a tree that is no longer there. She said at that point, a notice would be sent to have that tree replanted. Mr. Cunningham asked the advantage of not having the buffer area go with the rest of the open space area through Muirfield. Ms. Husak explained that the responsibility would be that of the homeowner to replace those trees once the lot is sold. Mr. Cunningham said it would seem a lot harder to do than to have the Association do it. He said if that green area was added to the other green area in Muirfield there would be a dependable method. Ms. Husak said it was her understanding that Muirfield did not want that area because it is difficult to access. Mr. Cunningham asked if in this process was there house value assessment done which showed how the development affected surrounding existing houses. Ms. Husak said that a house value assessment was not part of the City review process. Mr. Cunningham it was a big oversight when ultimately the development could affect the surrounding community's biggest investments. Ms. Husak said that Planning's consideration goes along the lines of the type of architecture required and the type of architectural review and detailing that the Association will require and with that there is an expectation that values will be created that are comparable to surrounding areas. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 Mr. Cunningham said he bought a house in a lower density neighborhood, and that was the value of the house. He said he would like to know if this rezoning will majorly impact the value of it. He said he understood that the houses will look very similar and will be upheld to the highest standards, but he would like to know that when he bought a house with a very, very low density behind it at X value, that it being rezoned did not make it 'X- minus' a certain value, but he understood it was not a part of the process. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that was part of the risk and the reward of buying a house next to vacant land. Mr. Cunningham said he understood, but as a Dublin resident, he relied on the Commission to consider those when they were reviewing plans. He said the Commission represents the Dublin residents. Jeanne Fox, (8860 Braids Court), recalled that originally, single -story homes were proposed and she asked for clarification on that. She also asked for a definition of active adult.' She recalled that in the original proposal, it talked about an empty - nester type of community. She asked if a marketing study was done to see if the $500,000 price point worked for the target market sought. She asked about density in regards to the various floor levels proposed. Judy Boyles, (8890 Belisle Court), said she had no problem with the property being developed. She said no other homes in the area were as clustered or crowded as these would be. She said that the Commissioners had always done a beautiful job of developing Dublin. She said most of the new residents were told that this property was going to be low density. She said she hoped that rezoning the property would make it a safer place. She said this was too much in such a small area. Ms. Boyles suggested the Commissioners visit the bike trail and observe what she was talking about because it looked a lot different on paper than in person. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that she walked those paths all the time and that this was a beautiful piece of property. Barry Boyles, (8890 Belisle Court), said knowing how important this was to many people and how passionate they were about this project, to bring it up in the middle of Spring Break and not have that consideration was concerning to him. He said this was not thought through, or and maybe there was something else going on there. Mr. Boyles said he did not appreciate the date this case was scheduled to be heard by the Commission. Mr. Boyles said the tree taken down was a magnificent 100 -year old plus tree. He said he heard that the tree was removed over a holiday, and that the workers said the tree was diseased. Mr. Boyles asked if they would have to deal with this throughout the entire project of which trees are diseased and which are Ash. He asked who would patrol all that. He said a resident on the next cul -de -sac had a beautiful Oak tree in his front yard, and on a holiday, the tree was cut down to the base because some acorns fell on his dog or something. Mr. Boyles said they reported it to Muirfield, but nothing was ever done to make him replace that tree. He said he was also concerned about the 38 vehicles coming out onto Springburn Drive, and the water flow when there is a heavy rain. Mr. Boyles asked who would watch over this project to make sure that all the trees, green area, everything else is maintained, and if they were not maintained, what would happen. Ms. Amorose Groomes verified that there were no additional public comments, and closed the meeting for Commission discussion. John Hardt said he was in favor of this rezoning because the Planned Unit Development District that will be established provides a degree of protection that does not exist there today. He said the density now is consistent with the neighborhoods that surround it, which was an improvement. Mr. Hardt said the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 specifics of some of the PUD regulations being proposed such as the Tree Protection Zones, the entry into the Muirfield Village Association, and the submission of the proposed homes to the Muirfield Design Review Process, were strong benefits that go a long way in protecting the home values and the surrounding homes in the area. He said the quality of the homes that are built is more important than the quantity once they arrive at the right density, and he thought they were there. Mr. Hardt asked if there were any Drake Road addresses currently. Ms. Husak said there were not any existing Drake Road addresses. Mr. Hardt noted that the submitted documents had a couple of references to Lot #1, in particular, a requirement that the garage must face west. He said he was not comfortable with that because entering into this neighborhood, the first thing that will be seen is the garage which is not consistent with the rest of Muirfield Village. He said as he looked at the engineering drawings and the plat that the Commission is being asked to vote on tonight, the first lots, Lots 2 through 6, are quite narrow, being in the 75 to 79- foot range. He said he would like to see them be at least 80 -foot lots because narrower lots have a real impact on the architecture of the house in terms of how the garage is positioned relative to the rest of the house. He said if the lot is narrow, the garage tends to get pushed out and becomes more prominent which he did not think was the quality that they were after here. Mr. Hardt asked why on Lots 2 through 6 and 7 through 12 the tree preservation zone changed dimensions. Ms. Husak said that it had to do with the location of the utilities, and the road curves north a little, making the lots move up a little. She said it was just to allow the lots a little more buildable area. She said the dimensions for the tree preservation zone were between 35 feet at one end and 30 feet at the other end. She said the Build Zone was between 20 feet and 30 feet for all of the lots, except for Lots 12 and 13. Mr. Hardt referred to Lots 15 through 19, and said that there seemed to be equal amounts of green space', but not a tree preservation zone. He asked for an explanation why it was that way. Ms. Husak said that Planning and Muirfield Village wanted a wider buffer where the footpath passed through, and it was the same width as what is on the other side so there is a wider swath of open space. Mr. Hardt referred to the proposed development text and said regarding architecture, there are provisions that he found troubling or confusing. He said that it referred to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards, but he understood tonight that it would be taken into the Muirfield Village Association where the Muirfield Design Review Standards would apply. Mr. Hardt said colleagues in his field have indicated that sometimes the two documents conflict with each other, so he would like to see that scrutinized a little. He suggested referring to both documents and say whichever is stricter should prevail on a given subject matter. Ms. Husak asked if that should be left to the City to determine. Mr. Hardt said following that in the development text, 'The Muirfield Association shall retain the right to individual plan approval for all single family homes', which he thought was a good thing. He asked however, if that meant the Muirfield Village Association is being given the authority to enforce the City's Residential Appearance Standards. Ms. Husak explained that typically what happens is that Planning receives with the Building Permit for an individual home, a letter from the association or from an architectural review committee saying the home has been approved by the association, or by their architectural reviewing body. She said then, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 Building Department and the Design Review staff reviews that Building Permit against City requirements. She said if the Association approved anything that did not meet the Appearance Code, staff would not be able to approve the plan. Mr. Hardt said he understood that the Association has the design review of responsibility and enforcement authority over the Muirfield Design Review Guidelines, and the City subsequently, enforces the Dublin Appearance Code, but he thought the text was a little sloppy in that regard. He suggested it should be made clear that one document is being enforced by one body and another document is being enforced by the other. Mr. Hardt referred in the same area of the text, a reference to the possibility of being this being a themed community, which meant essentially, all the homes would follow a similar architectural theme. He said he did not have a strong opinion whether or not this is a good place to do that, but he had a strong opinion that it should be established now instead of saying it might or might not happen. He said he was concerned that without a thematic statement which way they are going with this, they could start with a themed community and if the market goes another way, it changed. Ms. Husak explained that the text language is intended to say that if there were a theme, that the Commission had to approve it and then they would have to adhere to that theme. She said since the Commission and staff did not know now whether there will be a theme, the Development Text basically states that it has to come back to the Commission at the final development plan stage with the theme for the Commission's review and approval. Mr. Hardt said it was an enhancement to the text that stated 'If a themed community were pursued, it needs to be approved by the developer and Planning and Zoning Commission' however, it did not say when. He said he would like it to say that it has to happen at the final development plan stage, so that they are setting up at the beginning which way it is going to go. Ms. Husak acknowledged his suggestion. Amy Kramb said she also was concerned about the varying width of the tree preservation zone, but thought with the stream dividing it, it would not cause as much confusion. She noted that there were 5 feet extra for the lots and the people on Lot 7 would wonder why Lot 6 had 5 feet more than they did. She suggested it would be simpler to enforce if the zone was the same distance all the way across. Ms. Kramb said she wanted to make sure that if there are any Landmark trees anywhere on the property that it is known now, before they are cut down to build a house on a lot. Ms. Husak said that the Landmark trees were identified in the Preliminary Development Plan. Ms. Kramb said she had reviewed the list, but did not know which were considered Landmark trees. She said she knew there was a 23 -inch Black Walnut tree that would certainly be cut because it was in the middle of Lot 12 or 13. She said it was hard to tell because the Tree Plan did not have the lots superimposed on them. Ms. Kramb said it was identified as Tree #542 — Black Walnut, 23- inches, in fair condition.' Ms. Husak explained that it was not considered a Landmark tree because its diameter was not 24- inches. Ms. Kramb noted that there was a 32 -inch Sugar Maple in the Stream Corridor Protection Zone. She said she reviewed all 602 trees on the plan, but could not find them all. She wanted to make the note now that they will not allow a tree to be cut because it was in the middle of a lot. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 Ms. Husak said there were four trees that would meet the Landmark tree requirement on the entire property. Ms. Kramb said she strongly advised the developer to know where those four Landmark trees were and to know that the City is not going to let them cut them down for a house to be built. She said the building lines should be adjusted accordingly before the Commission sees this development again. Ms. Kramb said she also thought Lots 1 through 6 seemed very narrow, especially compared to the lots on the next street. She said they did not align perfectly and they are slightly angled. Ms. Kramb suggested that if Lot 6, the smallest and narrowest, could be eliminated to make the other lots a couple of feet larger. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed that Lot 6 was entirely too tight, and it encroached on the Stream Corridor. She said that 10 feet could be added to Lots 2 through 5, and the balance could be added to the stream corridor. Ms. Kramb agreed that instead of seeing the garage on Lot 1, there should be a nice entrance Ms. Kramb said she was curious how Lot 14 was oriented the way the sidewalk ended. Ms. Husak said typically, the sidewalk is ended at the driveway since it is not known where the driveway is going to be located. She said the sidewalk location would be determined with the Building Permit because that was when the sidewalk is constructed. She clarified that the sidewalk would not necessarily end at Lot 14, and that the text stated that as well. Ms. Kramb said that the elimination of Lot 6 would get closer to the better density. Ms. Kramb asked if it was obvious that the backyards of Lots 19 to 15 were the part of the Association's right -of -way and bikepath. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that was the way it was throughout all of Muirfield Village. Victoria Newell said she shared the concerns about Lots 1 through 6. She also made the suggestion that Lot 6 be eliminated and that the other lots be re- spaced. Ms. Newell said the overall density on this site is comparable to what the density is for the surrounding neighborhoods. She agreed that rezoning this property as a PUD gave the opportunity to protect the surrounding residents. Ms. Newell said she supported this proposed rezoning, but she thought the lots should be rearranged to make them more buildable. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the text mentioned an entry feature, and entry features are not consistent in individual neighborhoods within Muirfield Village. She said she was not sure where would be an appropriate location for an entrance feature sign since there are neighbors on the corner. She said she would like to see the elimination of any entrance feature sign. She said this would be a nice addition, and it should stand on its own merits and not need an entry feature. Ms. Amorose Groomes said ending the sidewalk at Lot 14 seemed like an unusable location. She said she thought the sidewalk should extend all the way down. She pointed out that to get to the path from Lot 14, you have to come down and cross the street. She said she preferred to see the sidewalk wrap around. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she hoped that the pond shape indicated on the drawings was just to indicate the area on which a pond will be located. She said it should look far more natural, free flowing, and more appropriate than having an 85- degree angle as shown. She said at the final development plan stage, she Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 would like to see where the pond will go and how it will look. She said the old farm split rail and wire fencing should be removed as part of the cleanup of the unnatural materials on the site. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission has always asked that when infill is taking place, that the setbacks exceed that of the neighbors. She said she was appreciative that the applicant heeded the Commission's input provided in that the setbacks for this development do exceed the setback for the adjoining properties. She said she thought for the increase, that it was a step in the right direction. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that regarding potential flooding issues, this developer will have to prove to Dublin's Engineering Department that the flooding issues and the water handling will be better when they are finished that it was before they started. She said that between the handling of the drainage area and the addition of the pond, she was sure that it had already gone through some engineering process so that it will be resolved in the end. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked that the previous question about the approximate square footage of the homes be answered. Mr. Hale said the houses will cost more than $500,000, which is appropriate to the surrounding properties. He said he thought these houses will probably be 3,200 to 3,500- square -feet in area. Mr. Adams said that the Muirfield Village deed restrictions dictate the minimum square- footage and he was confident that the houses will be in excess of that. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that the deed restrictions were included in an information packet when the existing homeowners purchased their homes. She said she believed that the minimum square footage allowed per the deed restrictions was 1,800- square -feet, but Mr. Hale had indicated that in this development, they would be approximately 3,500- square -feet. Ms. Amorose Groomes referred to the previous question regarding how long the construction would take place to complete the development. She said that the Commission can not dictate to the applicant the duration that they have to build the lots. Mr. Hale said all of the street construction, tree replanting, and those things will happen up front. He said he thought in this price point, most people will want to customize these houses, so other than the specs the builder builds up front, almost all of these houses will be built on a contract. Mr. Hardt said regarding the sidewalk that currently does not loop around and finishes the cul -de -sac; he suggested that the south side of the road would be the most pleasant place in the neighborhood to walk up against the stream corridor. He said the proposed sidewalk shown connecting to the Muirfield Village Association system should be labeled. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that could be added for the final development plan stage. Mr. Adams pointed out that the dashed area on the plan was actually an easement area where the pond is contained. He explained that the City needs access to that for maintenance. He said they would not build anything that looked like it came out of an industrial park. Mr. Adams explained that the primary reason they did not continue the sidewalk to the side was that the outlined area on the plan at the lower part of Lots 7, 8, and 9 was a wet area. He said they were trying to prevent the improvements from encroaching or even being remotely close there. He said they assumed that if you were at the back of the cul -de -sac you could walk around to connect to the path at Lots 15 or 1. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 Mr. Adams explained that their thought behind the dimensions of the tree preservation zone was that the majority of the Ash trees they will have to remove are in the southwestern portion of the site and in the area between Lots 1 and 5, there are many Ash trees. He said as the residents mentioned they have Ash trees in their yard. He said that was the majority of where they will have to be removed, so they made those areas more generous. Mr. Adams said that everything within the project that is currently meadow, whether in a Reserve or in a tree preservation zone, is going to be reforested. He said that Brian Kinzelman at a previous Commission meeting, talked extensively about the reforestation program. Mr. Adams said they will be planting thousands of park grade trees in the area so that it can come back to a natural state, plus they also have to comply with the tree replacement requirement. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the applicant would be applying for a waiver as part of this application. Mr. Adams said no. Ms. Kramb said she was not in favor of adding more sidewalk there because that end has many trees. She said when this plan is rearranged for the final development plan she did not want to see a point in the sidewalk at Lot 9, but a more curvilinear transition which was more practical. She reiterated that she was not in favor of adding more sidewalk, especially were the trees were located. Mr. Hale said that they could make Lots 1 through 6 work as suggested, but they would like to have the opportunity at the final development plan stage to move Lot 6 to the south. He said the lots will be generous and there will be the same amount of open space as is seen now. Ms. Kramb said she could not see how an extra lot could fit in by moving Lot 6 to the south. She suggested a tabling so that the applicant could return with another preliminary plan that showed where a lot could be relocated. Mr. Adams said he did not understand the concern on the north side. He said when they began this, 65- foot lot widths was the objective, and he has made them physically larger to 75 and 80 -foot lots. He said this is intended to be a smaller lot with more open space that is specifically earmarked to the type of buyer that they are trying to attract. He said buyers do not want larger lots and they want less maintenance. He said a 65 -feet width at the building line was the criteria that he was told to work with when he first approached staff last summer. He said these lots were much denser. Mr. Adams said he respected Mr. Hardt's comment that they did not match to the north, but it was never intended to match to the north. He said they presented to the Commission last time a traditional 19 -lot single - family plan. He said the Commission said they did not want more of the same. He said this was a unique infill opportunity and the Commission agreed there was a demand for similar sized house with a different in function. He said it was all about design, first floor living, and lower level entertainment and bedrooms for the grandchildren. He said they could go back to 90 -foot lots and be compliant with density, but it will be more of the same. Mr. Adams said the traffic issue was also a big concern if they went to traditional single family with three - car garages, and three and four cars per family. He said the development was for people his age or older who have children in college or already through school that want to stay in the community. He said he lived a quarter -mile from here and this was his neighborhood. He reiterated the clear message he got from the Muirfield Village Association and from the Commission was to make this development special. Mr. Adams said the first plan had 24 units on 65 -foot wide lots, which resulted in a density of 2.0 units per acre that was higher than the existing neighborhood. He said the surrounding density was 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9 units per acre. Mr. Adams said the current plan is lower than the surrounding density in the contiguous sections of Muirfield. He pointed out the other sections also did not have as much open space as proposed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 15 Ms. Husak asked if the Commission's preference for Lot 1 was to eliminate any requirements for the driveway location, force its location to the south, or not permit it to be located to the west. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the preference was to limit the driveway location to the west. Mr. Hardt said when a lot and a house start to get too narrow, even with a two -car garage, the garage tends to sit in front of the house so it can overlap on the rest of the living space behind it. Mr. Hardt said this design results in a street frontage that consists entirely of garage doors. Mr. Hardt said he was happy to be proven wrong about that, and it will not be known until footprints or layouts are shown at the final development plan stage. He said he was not opposed to voting on this preliminary development plan as proposed, but he would be looking at how this potential issue is addressed and if those houses have that problem, he may not support the final development plan. Mr. Hardt suggested a tabling would provide the applicant an opportunity to revise this preliminary plat or the Commission could vote on this preliminary plat with the understanding of the Commission's expectations to address these potential problems in the future. Ms. Husak asked if a court- loaded garage with a concealed garage door would be acceptable. Mr. Hardt said that could be architecturally handled in good and bad ways, depending on how it is done which is a final development plan issue. He said he was concerned about casting a die here that then paints the houses into an architectural corner later down the road. Ms. Husak explained her concern that architectural drawings or footprints would not be seen at the final development plan stage, unless there is a theme. Mr. Hardt said the applicant could voluntarily show the Commission what they had in mind. Mr. Hardt asked if it was the intention to have court- loaded garages. Mr. Hale said there would be some court- loaded garages. He said another solution for front loaded garages would be to set the garage behind the front fagade two feet so has not to create the snout' house design. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought the Muirfield Village Design Committee could handle the lot width /garage issue. Mr. Hardt said he agreed, but said there could be a commitment made by the applicant. Mr. Hale said they would agree to a condition that any front - loaded garage be setback two feet behind the front vestibule of the house, including the front porch. Ms. Newell said she was uncomfortable with this restriction since the Commission has not seen the architecture causing design issues for the applicant. She agreed with the removal of Lot 6 and the retention of additional open space on the north side. Ms. Kramb said she did not want another lot somewhere else. She said four of the five lots on the south side are already smaller than Lot 6 and she would not want another lot squeezed in. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would not disagree. Mr. Hardt said the Commission had two choices, either to vote on this application as presented or to table it and provide the applicant the opportunity to revise the layout. Jennifer Readier said a condition could be placed on the preliminary plat to remove Lot 6, and then the proposed plan would be forwarded to City Council. She said existing Condition 4 could be revised to state, That the development text be revised to permit a maximum of 18 Lots and the proposed plans be revised to remove Lot 6 and incorporate a minimum lot width of 80 feet for Lots 1 through 5' to address the Commission's concerns. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 Ms. Amorose Groomes said if the applicant wanted to add Lot 6 back, City Council could make that determination. Ms. Newell asked if Mr. Hale agreed to remove Lot 6 and keep the lot layout as proposed without adding Lot 6 elsewhere. Mr. Hale agreed to remove Lot 6, adjust the lots appropriately, and increase the setback along the creek. He said he did not think they would take all of Lot 6 and put it in lots. He said they would create a very nice buffer along the stream. Ms. Kramb and Ms. Amorose Groomes said they were comfortable with that. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Ms. Newell and was not comfortable dictating the fagade design at this point. Mr. Hardt said he understood what they were saying, and he agreed. Mr. Hale said they had no issue with getting rid of the snout' house. He said the houses could be built with the garages two feet behind the back of the house which makes a much more attractive house. Ms. Amorose said Condition 7 listed in the Planning Report should be removed. Mr. Hale referred to Condition 5, That the applicant verify the building envelopes to ensure all landmark trees are preserved', and said because they did not know where those trees were located, they may want to discuss that with the Commission at the final development plan stage. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners if there were any other issues to address. [There were none.] Motion #1 and Vote - Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Kramb moved to recommend approval to City Council this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan review criteria and the existing development standards within the area, with six conditions: 1) That the development text be revised to not require the driveway location for Lot 1 to be to the west; 2) That the development text be revised to clarify enforcement of the Association architectural requirements and Zoning Code required residential appearance provisions; 3) That the text be revised to require an architectural theme, if proposed, be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of the final development plan; 4) That the development text be revised to permit a maximum of 18 Lots and the proposed plans be revised to remove Lot 6 and incorporate a minimum lot width of 80 feet for Lots 1 through 5; 5) That the applicant verify the building envelopes to ensure all landmark trees are preserved; and 6) That the development text be revised to not permit an entry feature sign for this development. Ben Hale Jr. agreed to the six conditions. Ms. Newell seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; and Ms. Kramb, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) Motion #2 and Vote - Preliminary Plat Ms. Newell moved to recommend approval to City Council this Preliminary Plat because this proposal complies with the preliminary plat review criteria, with four conditions: 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat be made prior to City Council submittal, including noting the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and setback information; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 15 2) That the applicant works with Delaware County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this preliminary plat; 3) That the preliminary plat be revised to match the preliminary development plan in terms of the elimination of Lot 6 and the width of Lots 1 through 5; and 4) That the sidewalk along Lot 9 be redesigned to a more curvilinear pattern. Ben Hale Jr. agreed to the conditions. Ms. Kramb seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) [Mr. Fishman and Mr. Taylor returned to the meeting room after they had recused themselves for this case.] 7 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OFI Planning Report Land u :e and Lang Range Planning Thursday, April 4, 2013 5600 Shler- ng Raaa Dubgn, Ohio 430161236 PhO a "FM 61 4 10-007 Fax: 61 44 0 -4747 Stansbury at Muirfield Village Web S'te: d'bl n oh. yes Case Summary Agenda Item 1 Case Number 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Site Location 10799 Drake Road East side of Drake Road, 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. Proposal Rezoning an 11.5 -acre site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for 19 residential lots and approximately four acres of open space. Applicant William Adams, represented by Ben Hale Jr., Smith and Hale. Planning Contact Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II 1 (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us Requests Review and recommendation to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. Review and recommendation to City Council of a preliminary plat under the provisions of Chapter 152, Subdivision Regulations. Planning Recommendation Approval of the rezoning with preliminary development plan; and Approval of the preliminary plat with 2 conditions. Based on Planning's analysis, the proposal meets the Community Plan designation for this site and the applicable review criteria for a Planned Development. Preliminary Plat Conditions 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal, including noting the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and setback information; and, 2) That the applicant works with Delaware County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this preliminary plat. Qty of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Cape 13 009Z/PDP/PP I Stansbury at founded Village April 4, 2013 Page 2 of S Qty of Dublin 13009ZLPDP/Pv Land Use and Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat feel Long Range Planning Stansbury at awned 0 Soo 900 10799 Drake Rd City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 3 of 15 Facts Site Area Zoning Surrounding Zoning and Uses P Site Features 2 parcels totaling 11.75 acres R, Rural District The site is surrounded by single - family residences of Muirfield Village, which are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the north is Section 12 with 11 lots; to the west and south are parts of Section 7 with three and eight lots respectively. To the east are three lots in Section 8. All lots were platted in the late 1970s and developed as single - family residences in the early to mid -80s. A Muirfield Village bikepath is located adjacent to the site on the west and south boundary between the site and the residential lots. Rectangular shaped site Slopes up almost 30 feet from the southeast corner and 20 feet from the northeast corner A vacant house and outbuildings are on the east portion of the site A Stream Corridor Protection Zone extends as two forks from the western portion of the site toward the southeast corner Mature evergreen and deciduous trees are primarily located in the central and eastern portion of the site and there are substantial tree rows along the site perimeter Case Background October 4, 2012 The Commission reviewed and commented on a Concept Plan proposing a new Planned Unit Development for 11.75 acres to be developed with 19 residential lots. The Commission appreciated the applicant's effort to respond to previous comments and concerns. Commissioners agreed that the previous layout, which included a clustered site design with greater preservation of open space, was the preferred layout while urging the applicant to keep the proposed lower density. August 9, 2012 The applicant informally presented a proposal for 24 cluster lots. Adjacent residents expressed their concerns regarding the proposed density, potential environmental impacts to existing trees, drainage, and traffic. The Commissioners agreed that the proposed density was too high and suggested that more clustering of lots may aid in addressing environmental challenges. The Commissioners wanted to ensure the applicant kept the density at or lower than the surrounding areas and address drainage and tree protection. Some Commissioners felt the density should not increase from what was currently permitted (0.5 to 1 unit per acre). 2003 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval to City Council of a rezoning application to R1, Restricted Suburban Residential City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 4 of 15 Fa District for the property since no formal Dublin zoning had been established after annexation. During review of the rezoning ordinance at City Council, the property owners requested Rural District zoning to keep horses on the property. Ordinance 66 -03 (Amended) established Dublin R, Rural District zoning on the property. Neighborhood The applicant presented the most recent proposal to the Muirfield Village Contact Board of Directors in March. The applicant informed Planning that the Association has no objections to the proposed layout or number of lots and that they see a benefit of having the Association take ownership of the reserve areas. Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Process Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation; the Zoning Code covers all requirements not addressed in the development text. This development text establishes a new Planned Unit Development District (Stansbury at Muirfield Village) with a development text that applies to these 11.75 acres for a total of 19 lots and 4.2 acres of open space. Plan Overview The rezoning with preliminary development plan includes: • Rezoning the 11.75 -acre site from R, Rural District to a PUD, Planned Unit Development District. • Establishing a new development text with requirements for a single - family detached residential development with 19 lots and 4.2 acres of open space. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page S of 15 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Development Text Permitted Uses L— Density and Lot Sizes The proposal includes a single public road, Stansbury Drive, serving all lots, extending from Drake Road, which stubs south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. The existing portion of Drake Road south of Springburn Drive will be improved as part of this development. Stansbury Drive is proposed to extend to the east and create a loop turnaround at the west end of the site. The existing Drake Road is proposed for renaming to Stansbury Drive to match the proposed name of the development's street. Street renaming requires approval by City Council with the approval of the plat. The plans propose 19 single family lots in a clustered layout sensitive tc the Stream Corridor Protection Zone requirements as well as existing vegetation. The proposed density is 1.6 units per acre, comparable or lower than surrounding Sections platted as part of Muirfield Village. The development is divided by a 55 foot wide Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ); 11 lots are west of the Zone and 8 lots west. There are 3 Reserve Areas with a combined area of 4.22 acres. Reserve 'A': This Reserve is 0.29 acres around the swale in the north central portion of the site, and is largely within the SCPZ. Reserve 'B': The 3.669 acre area encompasses the southern portion of the swale which runs to the southeast corner and majority of the southeast portion of the site. The Reserve includes a 30 -foot wide strip of land behind Lots 15 -19 adjacent to existing Muirfield Village open space and the area west of Lot 19. There is also a section of the existing right - of -way for Drake Road that is likely to be vacated. The eastern portion of Reserve 'B' is primarily for tree preservation. Reserve 'C': This is the interior of the loop cul -de -sac and is to be used for stormwater management. A tree preservation zone is provided at the rear of each Lots 1 through 13; 35 feet for Lots 1 through 6, and 30 feet for Lots 7 through 13. This area will allow for tree replacements. The applicant has provided a development text with development requirements and standards applicable to this 11.75 -acre site. Single- family detached homes, open spaces and related park feature Lots are required to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet with a minimum depth of 120 feet and minimum width of 62 feet at the building line. Lots vary in size from 10,600 square feet to 23,700 square feet and are similarly sized as lots in adjacent sections of Muirfield Village. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 6 of 15 Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan SKWdW Front Yards: The proposed development text requires a 10 foot Build Zone front yard setback within which a portion of the front elevation must be located. Except for Lots 15 and 16, all lots require a Build -Zone between 20 and 30 feet. The Build -Zone for Lots 15 and 16 is between 35 and 45 feet due to the larger size of these lots. Front yard setback Build Zones have recently been used in several residential developments and enable the staggering of homes as required by the Subdivision Regulations. Side Yards: 7.5 feet for all lots. Rear Yards: Setbacks differ depending on the lot location. Lots 1 through 6 are required to have a 50 -foot rear yard setback and Lots 7 through 14 require 45 feet. Lots 15 through 19 require 15 feet and Lot 14, due to its size and location requires 10 feet. The smaller rear yards proposed for Lots 14 through 19 are appropriate considering these lots border Reserve 'B' and are set back far from the property line. Traffic and Access Stansbury Drive will have a 50 -foot right -of -way and pavement width of 28 feet terminating in a cul -de -sac in the east portion of the site. The L II street will be designed to Dublin Standards and include curb and gutter. Traffic Study A traffic study has been submitted analyzing the proposed development traffic impact on the existing transportation network. The study demonstrates that the additional traffic generated by this development will have little to no impact on the level of service of the surrounding intersections. Additionally, these intersections will continue to operate at level of service "A" or "B ". Based on these results, no additional roadway improvements are necessary to accommodate this development. The division Regulations require a sidewalk or bikepath along Sidewalks public streets. Though not typical for a Muirfield Village neighborhood, the applicant is proposing a four -foot, public sidewalk along all street frontages, except where homes do not front the street. The sidewalk will extend along the frontage of Lot 14 and terminate at the driveway for this lot. An eight -foot asphalt bikepath is proposed in Reserve 'B' to connect the sidewalk along Stansbury Drive through the reserve to the Muirfield bikepath along the south site bou ndary. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 7 of 15 Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Tree Lawn The Zoning Code requires a minimum seven -foot tree lawn. The City Engineer has recently requested that nine -foot wide tree lawns be designed to allow more room for trees to grow and less interference with the sidewalk. To accommodate the wider tree lawns, the sidewalk moves toward the lot and a wider sidewalk easement will be dedicated. The development text requires and the plans show a nine -foot tree lawn. Parking On- street parking will be allowed only on the north side of the street opposite of the water line and fire hydrants. Due to limited maneuvering space and proposed driveway locations, parking will likely be restricted within the loop cul -de -sac. The development text describes the general character of the development as 1, 1 /2, and 2 story homes and requires adherence to the Residential Appearance Standards. The text prohibits vinyl. The Muirfield Village Association will have individual plan approval rights for the subdivision. The proposed text addresses diversity and requires the same or similar front elevations cannot be repeated on two lots on either side of a lot, three lots across the street from the subject lot or on any lot on the cul -de -sac. Should the developer propose a themed community, the homes do not have to adhere to the diversity requirements, but require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The text does not permit fences other than those required around swimming pools. Special requirements for Lot 1 include home orientation toward the south and a side - loaded garage accessed from the west side of the lot. F Preservation The text outlines a goal to preserve as many trees in good and fair condition as possible. A tree replacement plan will be required with the final development plan. The Zoning Code requires that protected trees (trees six inches in diameter and in good or fair condition) be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis with deciduous trees. The preliminary tree preservation plan shows 278 trees measuring 6 to 24 inches and four trees measuring 24 inches and above, all in good or fair condition. No removal information is shown at this time. A significant majority of the trees on the site are White Ash. The applicant has made efforts to maximize tree preservation with this proposal by clustering lots and creating open spaces that incorporate treed areas. A tree preservation zone, indicated on the preliminar I�at is City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 8 of 15 L Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan required for all los with mature tree stands. The preliminary plat shows a I 35 -foot wide tree preservation zone along the rear of Lots 1 through 6 and a 30 -foot wide tree preservation zone along the rear of Lots 7 through 13. ii The proposed development text states a tree reforestation program is a integral improvement component for the site. A mixture of deciduous trees of various sizes will be installed where appropriate to augment, re- establish or create a new treed buffer between adjoining lots. Details will be included in the final development plan. Open Space and The Reserves are as previously described encompass the planned open Landscaping space. The development text states that this open space will be owned by and maintained by the Muirfield Association. All final landscape details will be required at the final development plan stage. The text also states entry features are permitted for the development. Stormwater and FThis site will have access to adequate public water supply for both Utilities domestic use and fire protection through the proposed water main extension from the existing eight -inch water main located along the east side of Drake Road and the installation of five new fire hydrants. Sanitary sewer service is provided through the proposed sanitary sewer mains which will connect off -site to the existing sanitary sewer located to the west of Cruden Bay Court. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report that demonstrates compliance with the City of Dublin Stormwater Management Code. The proposed stormwater improvements of storm sewers, catch basins, and stormwater retention and detention ponds with permanent stormwater quality control devices will provide for adequate stormwater quality and quantity control. The City guidelines for stormwater runoff control, or the amount of water that this site would release to the existing ditch, require that the proposed site will detain the site stormwater and release it at a rate no greater than the predevelopment condition. As such, there are no anticipated additional impacts to downstream culverts. Stream Corridor A Stream Corridor Protection Zone currently exists on this site. This zone Protection Zone is intended to preserve the flood water capacity of existing drainage ways and limits stream erosion. The width of this zone is determined by the contributing drainage area upstream of the segment. This zone has been sized at a total width of 55 feet centered on the existing channel. This zone will be established by the execution of the plat. There are many uses and facilities prohibited in the stream corridor protection zone, including but not limited to: City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 9 of 15 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Disturbance of Natural Vegetation Buildings Stormwater Management Facilities In accordance with the Stormwater and Stream Protection Code, the applicant requested that a small portion of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone be exempted or removed. The City Engineer has determined this portion does not meet the definition of a stream. Analysis qF Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Process Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a rezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. 1) Consistency with Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code, except Dublin Zoning Code as appropriately altered in the proposed development text. 2) Conformance with Criterion met: The uses and density proposed for this site are adopted Plans consistent with the development patterns and densities of the surrounding area and meet the intended residential character. 3) Advancement of Criterion met: This proposal is compatible with the surrounding general welfare and residential development. orderly development 4) Effects on adjacent Criterion met: The proposal will safeguard the value of property within uses and adjacent to the area. 5) Adequacy of open Criterion met: There are 4.22 acres of open space provided within this space for residential development and the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the development open space is appropriately that of the Muirfield Association. The landscape design details of the open spaces will be required at the final development plan. 6) Protection of Criterion met: The plan retains the existing tree buffer area along the natural features and rear of lots. resources 7) Adequate Criterion met: With the proposed improvements installed, the site will infrastructure have access to adequate utilities. 8) Traffic and Criterion met: The applicant has provided a traffic analysis, which pedestrian safety accounts for the proposed future development. The plans also include sidewalk and bikepath which will improve pedestrian safety in an around the site. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 10 of 15 Analysis -Mq� Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 9) Coordination & Criterion met: The proposal maintains the existing development integration of building patterns of surrounding developments. & site relationships 10) Development Criterion met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly layout and intensity development of this site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density. 11) Stormwater Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management management. 12) Community Criterion met: The development text outlines all applicable benefit development requirements for this project. 13) Design and Criterion met: The proposal outlines architectural design standards appearance within the proposed development text and requires plan approval through the Muirfield Village Association. J 14) Development Criterion met: This is a single phase project. 1 phasing 15) Adequacy of Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed public services development. 16) Infrastructure Criterion met: No contributions are required as part of this proposal. contributions Recommendation 1W Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Approval In Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary J development plan criteria and the existing development standards within L the area. Approval is recommended. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 11 of 15 stabs Preliminary Plat Plat Overview The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 11.75 acres of land into 19 single - family lots and 4.225 acres of open space. The plat also provides right -of -way for the extension of Drake Road to serve the site. The plat indicates that the new road and the existing Drake Road stub will be renamed to Stansbury Drive. The road renaming will require separate action by City Council. The plat also shows the vacation of existing Drake Road right -of -way, south of the current existing terminus. The applicant will have to work with Delaware County to determine the appropriate means of the road vacation since the right -of -way, when annexed into the City, was existing county right -of -way. The preliminary plat should be revised to show rear yard setback and tree preservation zone requirements consistently. Open Space The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of 1.28 acre of open space and the proposal contains 4.22 acre of open space to be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Village Association. The development text permits the open space dedicated to Muirfield Village to fulfill the open space dedication requirements stipulated in the Subdivision Regulations Sections 152.086 and 152.087. • Reserve "A" is 0.297 acre located between Lots 4 and 7 on the north side of proposed Stansbury Drive. The reserve encompasses the 55- foot wide Stream Corridor Protection Zone. • Reserve "B" is 3.699 acres located in the southern portion of the site. This reserve includes the southern portion of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone and will accommodate a stormwater retention basin. This reserve also preserves existing tress, particularly along the south side of Lots 15 through 19 and along the west side of Lot 19. An eight- y foot asphalt bikepath is proposed in Reserve 'B' to connect the sidewalk along Stansbury Drive through the reserve to the Muirfield ^ F bikepath along the south site boundary. • Reserve'C' is the center of the cul -de -sac and includes 0.225 acre. The area will accommodate stormwater in a basin. The development text indicates that the open space areas will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Village Association and the preliminary plat should reflect this i nformation. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 12 of 15 Analysis Mp Process The Subdivision Regulations identify criteria for the review and approval for a plat. Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. f 1) Plat Information Criterion met with Condition: This proposal is consistent with the and Construction requirements of the Zoning Code and all required information is included Requirements on the plat. The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal, including reflecting open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and Condition 1 setback information. 2) Street, Sidewalk, Criterion met: Street widths, grades, curvatures, and intersection signs and Bike path comply with the appropriate Code sections and engineering requirements. Standards Sidewalks or bikepaths are required on both sides of all public streets in compliance with City construction standards, and are included on the Condition 2 preliminary plat. The preliminary plat includes the vacation of existing Drake Road right -of- way south of the access point to the site. Drake Road was originally Delaware County right -of -way and has since been annexed into the City of Dublin. The applicant will be required to work with the County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this preliminary plat. The plat indicates the renaming of existing Drake Road to Stansbury Drive to be consistent with the road name for the road serving the proposed development. No existing homes are addressed off Drake Road; however, the renaming of an existing road will require a separate action by City Council. 3) Utilities Criterion met: Utility lines are adequately sized and located to serve the development and provided within appropriately sized and accessible ease ments. 4) Open Space Requirements Criterion met: The open space provided exceeds the requirement stipulated in the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant will be dedicating the open space to Muirfield Village as has been common practice with parks in this area. The proposed development states the open space dedication to Muirfield Village fulfils all dedication requirements. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 13 of 15 Recommendation This proposal complies with the preliminary plat criteria and a recommendation to City Council for approval of this request is recommended with two conditions. 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal, including noting the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities and setback information; and, 2) That the applicant works with Delaware County to identify and follow the required vacation process as part of the Council review of this L preliminary plat. I Approval City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 14 of 15 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, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic 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 forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second reading /public hearing for a 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. In the case of a combined rezoning /preliminary development plan and final development plan, the final development plan is not valid unless the rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council. Review Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 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; 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; s) 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 City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 13- 009Z /PDP /PP I Stansbury at Muirfield Village April 4, 2013 Page 15 of 15 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; 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 acceptability of the development plan's contribution 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 development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin 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; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. PRELIMINARY PLAT If approved, the preliminary plat will be reviewed at a later date by City Council. If the Commission disapproves the preliminary plat, it must state its reasons for doing so. Approval of the preliminary plat is effective for 24 months and authorizes the developer to proceed with construction after meeting all Engineering requirements. The Commission and City Council will later review the final plat for each phase, generally after infrastructure is complete, to ensure that it conforms to the preliminary plat. Review Criteria: In accordance with Chapter 152, the Code sets out the following requirements as part of the platting requirements for the subdivision of land: 1) The proposed plat provides the minimum plat contents required by Sections 152.018(6) and 152.018(C); 2) The proposed plat will comply with all applicable subdivision improvement procedures as defined by Sections 152.035 through 152.053; 3) The proposed plat will provide required improvements as specified by Sections 152.065 through 152.072. C ONCORD TWP - 4� 1 PUD PUD PUq r , y � � $1T � j PUD / Muirfield Village Golf L'hUIL 13- 009Z /PDP /PP N City of Dublin Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ A Land Use and Preliminary Plat Feet Long Range Planning Stansbury at Muirfield o 300 soo 10799 Drake Rd Proposed Preliminary Development Plan a � .m u 1 1 J L w� mun.l 1 'r -- ---- - - - - - - - - -- ---------------------------- - - - - -= N 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield Proposed Preliminary Plat _ '�eservq Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot I 'Lot 4, Lot 5� Lot 6 1 � A rea i, Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 �., Lot 10 �" Lot 11 Lot 12 f A 1 ese ; V �� \', `' r. � l . � .� — � ` ice• � ` _ _4 � \ \ / ��'_- Y.+s1...& l Area Lot 13 _ a sic I Lot 19 ; Lot 18 a Lot 17 ;'Lot 16 - . Lot 15 1 1 \ \ ,�,\ ___ Lot 14 Reserve Area 1 Reserve Area N 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE DUBLIN, OHIO Land Owner. Developer.• The Everett E. Buckner, Sr. Trust Stansbury Muirfield, LLC 116 South High Street P.O. Box 1422 New Lexington, Ohio 43764 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone: 740.342.1377 Phone: 614.793.0001 Contact: Deborah Widdowson, Trustee Contact: William H. Adams Legal. Engineering: Smith & Hale Hull & Associates, Inc. 17 West Broad Street 6397 Emerald Parkway, Suite 200 Columbus Ohio 43215 Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614.221.4255 Phone: 614.793.8777 Contact: Ben Hale Jr. Contact: James F. Bischoff Land Planning / Landscape Architecture: MKSK 462 South Ludlow Alley Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone: 614.621.2796 Contact: Brian P. Kinzelman March 22, 2013 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning commission April 4, 2013 CONTENTS Section I: Development Review 1. Location and Size 4 II. Existing Conditions 4 Ill. Existing and Proposed Land Uses 4 IV. Parks and Open Space 4 V. Provision of Utilities 5 VI. Access and Circulation 6 Section II : Development Standards I. Development Standards 7 11. Permitted Uses 7 III. Density 7 IV. Lot Standards 7 V. Street Access and /or Improvements 8 VI. Street Standards 8 VII. Utilities 9 VIII. Storm Water Management 9 IX. Tree Preservation, Removal and Replacement 9 X. Parks and Open Space 10 XI. Architecture 10 XII. Landscaping II Page 2 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1()7Q a nrnlrc Rrl PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 XIII. Homeowner's Association I I Section III: Exhibits 1. Regional Context Map C 1.0 II. Vicinity Map C 2.0 III. Existing Conditions Map C 3.0 IV. Preliminary Development Plan C 4.0 V. Utility / Grading Plan C 5.0 VI. Preliminary Plat C 6.0 VII. Tree Survey C 7.0 VIII. Tree Survey List C 8.0 Page 3 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developn Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 SECTION I : DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW I. Location and Size • The site is located completely within the City of Dublin and Delaware County. • The 11.75 acre site is located on the south side of Springburn Drive and east of Drake Road, approximately 700' northeast of the intersection of Carnoustie Drive and Springburn Drive. The property is only remaining developable parcel in this area. • The property is surrounded by existing single- family residential development. • The site measures approximately 1266'x 440'. Il. Existing Conditions and Character • The site is rectangular in shape, with gently sloping land, fallow meadows with a variety of non - native plant materials, a dry Swale, mature trees that are primarily located at or near the boundaries of the property and a vacant house with small outbuildings. The property was once a small operating farm but was abandoned approximately 12 years ago. The property is located in the north central section of Muirfield Village and is completely surrounded by existing medium density single- family housing that was generally built in the 1980's 111. Existing and Proposed Land Uses The Dublin Community Plan - Existing Land Use Map designates the site as "undeveloped ". • The Dublin Community Plan - Future Land Use Map designates the site as "Residential Low Density (0.5 - 1 dwelling unit per acre) and the current zoning, Rural District would permit a maximum density of one unit per acre, or 11 units. The proposal includes 19 lots on 11.75 acres for a density of 1.6 units per acre. • Proposed use is single - family residential. Page 4 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developme t Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 M00 n. 1,- 0,1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 • The proposed Development Plan manifests the tenants of conservation design, clustered home sites with "reserve' areas of tree preservation, habitat conservation, reforestation and localized storm water management. IV. Parks and Open Space • A total of 4.228 acres (36 %) will remain free of development and be considered reserves. • The open space /reserves will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Homeowners Association. V. Provision of Utilities General • All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electric, and gas are available to this site. • All utilities will be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. • A comprehensive storm water management system will meet City of Dublin design criteria. • All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the lots that will best preserve the existing trees that are in good or fair condition. Sanitary Sewer • Sanitary sewer service to Stansbury at Muirfield will be provide from one (1) location. • The proposed development will be serviced from an existing 8 -inch line that is located adjacent to Muirfield HOA property on its eastern property line at Cruden Bay Court. • Sanitary Lines will be sized and located to accommodate only the proposed property. No future connection into the new sanitary line is anticipated. Water • An existing 8 -inch water main along the south side of Drake Road will be adequate to provide service to this site. A public water main will be constructed along Stansbury Drive within the development. • Water lines will be sized and located to accommodate only the proposed property. No future connection into the new on -site water line is anticipated. Page 5 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developme Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield in7gq nrakP Rd PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Storm Water - Existing The site primarily drains from west to east. The existing stream on the site collects run -off and flows west to east. 0.46 acres of off -site area drains from the west and north across the site to the existing stream. • The predominately soil type is Glynwood, a Type C soil, corresponding to the pre - developed run -off curve number of 78. Storm Water - Post Developed • In the post - development condition, the site drainage will be handled by one (1) stormwater management system consisting of two basins, one (1) wet (retention pond) and one (1) dry (detention pond). The system will accept drainage from pervious areas such as rear yards, side yards, and the off -site 0.46 acres mentioned above, and impervious areas such as roadways, roofs, and sidewalks. • Rear yard drainage has been provided to transport sheet flow from the lots to the proposed storm water system. Impervious surfaces will drain to catch basins in the roadway and will flow to either basin. The wet basin will have a fore- bay collection pool that will pre - filter heavy debris before entering the wet basin. The wet basin (retention pond) will have a permanent pool elevation of 918.00. • The system will also direct a smaller portion of run -off into a dry basin located in the island at the end of the cul -de -sac. This basin will discharge into the existing stream. • One (1) property, Lot #16 will free drain into the adjacent swale due to its elevation relative to the stormwater basins. • The existing stream will be protected by a 55 foot Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ). IV. Access and Circulation Vehicular access to the site will be from a single access point on Drake Road off Springburn Drive. It is intent of the developer to rename Drake Road as well as the proposed roadway improvement to Stansbury Drive. Page 6 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1Moo n,-�Lo 0,4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 SECTION II : DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Development Standards Basic development standards are addressed in this text regarding the proposed density, general site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 152 and 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. fl. Permitted Uses Permitted uses shall include the following: A. Single - family detached homes. B. Open space and related park features. 111. Density A maximum of 19 residential homes shall be permitted in this PUD. The proposed density for this project is 1.6 dwelling units per acre. 1V. Lot Standards Single - family homes in this development will be constructed on traditional lots with fee simple ownership. Specific lot standards shall apply to each of these development types: Fee Simple Lots A. Lot Size Page 7 of 12 13 -009Z/ PDP/ PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developmen, Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield In M-1— n-1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 V. Vi. Lot Area: 10,000 square feet minimum Lot Width: 62 feet minimum (at the building line) Lot Depth: 120 feet minimum B. Lot Setbacks Front Yard: Each lot shall have a mandatory Build- Zone of 10 feet as indicated on the preliminary and final plat. A portion of the front elevation of the home must be located within the Build - Zone, which will encourage staggering the distance from the road right -of -way where the placement of the home begins, thus creating more visual interest along Stansbury Drive. Subdivision Regulation 152.019(C)(6) shall not apply to this development. Rear Yard: Lots 1 through 6: 50 feet Lots 7 through 13: 45 feet Lot 14: 10feet Lots 15 through 19: 15 feet Side Yard: 7.5 feet for building structures. Tree Preservation Zone: Lots 1 through 6: 35 feet Lots 7 through 13: 30 feet Lots 14 through 19: None Street Access and /or Improvements Stansbury Drive: The existing Drake Road access point that connects to Springburn Drive will be improved per the Street Standards listed below and be renamed Stansbury Drive. Street Standards A. Public Streets: 1. Right -of -Way: 50 feet minimum Page 8 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developm� Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield lmoo n rnlro Oil PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 2. Pavement Width: 24 feet of asphalt pavement, 2.0 feet of curb and gutter for a gross roadway width of 28 feet, as measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 3. Drive Lanes: Two (2) 4. Parking Lanes: Parking shall be allowed on one side of the public streets internal to the PUD opposite to the waterlines and hydrants. 5. Tree Lawn: No Less than 9' in width 6. Sidewalk: 4 Feet minimum; sidewalks shall be concrete. No sidewalk shall be required where it does not front a single family lot. The sidewalk will terminate at the driveway for Lot 14. 7. Multi -Use Path: 8 Feet with minimum; multi -use paths shall be constructed of asphalt. B. Private Sidewalks: A minimum of 4' wide sidewalk shall be required for every residence. This private sidewalk shall extend from the front door and connect to the driveway, where applicable, as the driveway may abut the front door. VII. Utilities A. Design and Construction: All utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. B. Location: All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the individual homesites that will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition. VIII. Storm Water Management A. Design and Construction: A comprehensive stormwater management system shall be developed, following the City of Dublin stormwater management policies. Page 9 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developm Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 n-7nn n. i, DA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 IX. Tree Preservation, Removal and Replacement A. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the Developer to preserve as many good and fair condition trees as possible on the site. A good faith effort will be made to preserve existing trees in good and fair condition where appropriate. Any trees 6 inches of caliper or greater will be accounted for on the Tree Replacement Plan. B. Tree Preservation Zone: A tree preservation zone, as indicated on the preliminary and final plat, shall be established at the rear of lots with significant mature tree stands. A temporary metal or wood construction fence, minimum 4' in height, shall be installed around the perimeter of the tree preservation zone prior to any construction activities. 3. No building, structure, fence, patio, recreational or athletic facility, or any other improvement of any kind may be placed temporarily or permanently upon, in or under the area designated hereon as a "Tree Preservation Zone" nor shall any work be performed thereon which would alter the natural state of the zone or damage any of the trees or vegetation herein. 4. Disturbance of any part of the zone by maintenance shall be restored as nearly as practicable to the original condition. No tree or vegetation may be removed from the zone except for the removal of dead, diseased, decayed or noxious trees or other vegetation or as may be required for conversation or aesthetic purposed or in keeping with good forest management practices. C. Tree Reforestation: Upon completion of the removal of dead trees and non - native plant material, a tree reforestation program has been identified as a integral improvement component for the site. A mixture of deciduous trees of various sizes will be installed where appropriate in order to augment, re- establish or create a new treed buffer between adjoining lots. This natural, reforestation buffer will have an unmaintained understory (no manicured turfgrass). Details will be included in the final development plan. On an as needed basis, trees or other vegetation may be removed from any area in order to maintain drainage facilities. Page 30 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Developmen° Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rrl PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 X. Parks and Open Space Based on the location of the development within Muirfield and past practices, the proposed open space reserves will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Association. Approximately 4 acres of open space will be held in Reserves, labeled 'A','B', and 'C' on the preliminary development plan. This open space shall be considered to fulfill Subdivision Regulation requirements for Open Space Requirements (152.086) and Land Dedication For Municipality's Portion of Recreational Facilities (152.087). The open space areas may contain a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to enhance the rural character of the area. XI. Architecture General Character: The character of the development shall be 1, 1.5 and 2 story single - family, high quality homes with 2 or 3 car garages that complement the quality of the surrounding homes in adjacent neighborhoods and will adhere to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards Code. Vinyl shall not be permitted as cladding or trim. Permitted Building Height: Maximum height of 35', as per the Dublin Code. Plan Approval: The Muirfield Association shall retain the right of individual plan approval for all single - family homes within the subdivision. Architectural Diversity: The same or similar front elevations shall not be repeated within: 1. Two lots on either side of subject lot. 2. Three lots directly across the street from subject lot. 3. Any lot on the cul -de -sac bulb. A diversity matrix shall be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan. A themed development shall not be required to adhere to the architectural diversity requirements, but must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 11 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield in-7n , PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT STANSBURY AT MUIRFIELD VILLAGE As Submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission April 4, 2013 Special Requirement: Any home proposed for Lot 1 shall be oriented with the front fagade of the home facing south and a side - loaded garage with a driveway to the west of the lot. XII. Landscaping Entry Feature: • The entry feature may include integrated signage and landscaping. • Final location, design and standards for the entry feature and related landscaping and signage details shall be presented and approved during the Final Development Plan stage. • All entry features will be owned and maintained by the Muirfield Association. Street Trees: Street Trees will be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. Final location shall be determined by the City Forester. Fencing: • No fencing shall be permitted unless it is decorative in nature and does not enclose an area. • Fences around pools shall be permitted and conform to the requirements of the governing building code. Cul -de -sac: The cul -de -sac island shall be landscaped with lawn and /or plant material and maintained by the Muirfield Association. XIII. Homeowner's Association All residential property owners located within the Stansbury at Muirfield Village PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in the Muirfield Association. SECTION I : EXHIBITS Page 12 of 12 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10'700 n­ l­ DA 7 c 4 ityof Dublin Lana Use and Long Range Planning Saco sh er Fan gs Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Dubhn, Ohio 43016 -1236 prone 614.410.4600 0'�c 614 410.4747 RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 4, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting. 2. Stansbury at MulrftM 10799 Drake Road 12 -062CP Plan Proposal: A new Planned Unit Development for the development of an 11.75 -acre site with 19 residential lots. The site is located on the east side of Drake Road, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Spdngbum Drive. Request: Review and feedback for a concept plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. Applicant: WiDlam Adarre, State Street Realty, represented by, Ben Hale, Jr. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us RESULT. The Commission (Mr. Taylor recused) reviewed and commented on this proposal for a new Planned Unit Development for the development of an 11.75 -acre site with 19 residential kits. The site Is located on the east side of Drake Road, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Springbum Drive. The Commission appreciated the applicant's effort to respond to previous Comments and corwems. Commissioners agreed that the previous proposal, which included a clustered site design with greater preservation of open space was the preferred layout. STAFF CERTIFICATION �"�d-A Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II 13 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 moo n rnl,n 0,4 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13 Mr. G dwin said that wa n additional functi ality that t/hav already discussed ing. He said the muc earlier prototype o his had a slider so at you could lide away the ar plan graphic and to a the actual aerial otograph underne h it. r. Budde suggeste that the existing pa could be the Go and then w t the Community P n is could be fuzzy, b colored with the t get and the blue a dots. Amy Kramb sai he had no comme s about the intera ve map and its 7 oing ionality because it id not work for her al Mr. Goodwi encouraged the Co missioners to keep (siting the site to se improve nits. 1,n ra agreed that the p rk plan should be i cluded. She said r arding the text t eneral, when g xt, it needed to b kept short and si le. She said that s me very long sent ces had been added o the Community an part of the to .She said the sec d sentence of th National Church Resi nces update was I g with five comma , three of which co d be deleted. She commended that wh in doubt, make a w sentence, rather han keep adding re. Ms. Kramb sai if there is a comma fo wed by the word ` nd' there needs to e a full sentence w' a noun and verb not a fragment. S id the comma se rates two sentenc s. She said to m e sure that the s cond clause is a II entence, otherwise delete the `and'. Mr. Goodwin ask9H Ms. Kramb to emo specifics. Ms. Kramb s4 in the Avery Road xt, `historic structu s' were specifically eferenced which c Id cause problems lat for the City. She id when federal m ey is tied to any p jest; the word `hi ric' has a very signifi nt impact as far a environmental reg ations go. She rec mended not calli something `historic' less necessary, b ause that meant t ey were eligible t be on the Nation Register for Historic aces versus the Oh' Historical Invento (OHI). Ms. Atorose Groomes invyfed public comment9f [There was no one/eft in the audience Mr Goodwin said that be Community Pla was included on t October 11 mee ng agenda. He said t t a Community Pla)f report will not be iifcluded in the pack-If , but that he would eport what had been . dded to the websit 2. Stansbury at Muirfleld 10799 Drake Road 12 -062CP Concept Plan Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this application requesting review and non - binding feedback on a concept plan for a new planned unit development on an 11.75 -acre site with 19 residential lots. She said the site was located on the east side of Drake Road, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. Richard Taylor recused himself from this case due to a conflict of interest because he is an employee of the Muirfield Association and a member of the Muirfield Design Review Committee. Warren Fishman disclosed that he had attended a Muirfield Village Board meeting where the applicant, Bill Adams, had presented a plan for this project. He said that the Law Director's Office had informed him that it would not prevent him from participating in the capacity of a Commission member regarding this application. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13 Claudia Husak presented this concept plan application. She explained that a concept plan is the first step that the Dublin Zoning Code sets aside for the establishment of a PUD, Planned Unit Development District. She said the concept plan is a step above the Informal as a required step for sites that do not meet the Community Plan or that are over 25 acres, and it is a voluntary process. Ms. Husak explained the steps following the concept plan are the preliminary development plan, which in the PUD process is the rezoning of the property, and then the final development plan, which typically includes the final plat. She said that out of all of these processes, the concept plan can be reviewed by City Council if the applicant chooses and the preliminary development plan requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Ms. Husak said the site consists of two parcels with access from Drake Road. She said the 2007 Community Plan Future Use Map shows the site as the lowest density which is what is what the zoning currently prescribes for the parcel, the R, Rural District. She said surrounding lots in Muirfield are in the medium density, 1.5 to 2.0 -units per acre, in the Community Plan. Ms. Husak said that the applicant came to the Commission for an informal review application in August and there were concerns about the proposed density which was 2.0 -units per acre. She said the applicant has lowered the density on this proposal to 1.6 -units per acre, the lower end of the surrounding densities. She said that meant the proposed number of lots was reduced from 24 to 19 lots. Ms. Husak presented a comparison of the site plan proposed at the Informal Review with this Concept plan. She said the Informal Review Plan focused on a cluster -type development where open space was preserved around the site on the perimeter as well as the center in some areas, and the lots were more clustered in an east /west arrangement. She said those proposed 24 lots were empty- nester style housing, with a density of 2.08 -units per acre with approximately 50 percent open space. Ms. Husak said this concept plan shows 19 traditional single family lots located along one main road, coming off Drake Road with a loop road at the end of the road. She said the open space included on the lot, is included in the applicant's open space calculation, which would not be counted typically. Ms. Husak said with the numbers and plans available, Planning estimated the common open space as 20 to 25 percent for this concept plan. Ms. Husak said the lots were very large because one road accesses them and there are lots on either side. She said that along the front of the road, a black dotted line on the plan showed approximately a 30 -foot setback from the road for all of the lots. She said there is also a yellow line on the rear of the lots. She said Lots 1 through 12, the line is 50 feet from the rear lot line, and Lots 13 through 19, the line is 30 feet. Ms. Husak said the intent for the area is to function like a No -Build Zone so that new development would not be able to take place in the area, such as homes, driveways, patios, decks, or outdoor amenities. She said that the applicant is also intending to use this area for tree replacement, based on the Tree Replacement Ordinance. Ms. Husak said that this proposal includes a sidewalk on the south side of the proposed road with a tree lawn and street trees on both side of the road. She said that Planning and the applicant are aware that this is not the typical Muirfield Village street -type design. She said, however the Subdivision Regulations require a sidewalk on both sides of the street, and the sidewalk as shown would connect to a path for the open space which would then connect to the Muirfield public path system in the south side as well as in the northwestern portion of the site. Ms. Husak said that Planning is encouraging the applicant toward the sidewalk arrangement for these lots. Ms. Husak said that the proposed open space is shown in the area of the stream and Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ), which is required. She said that it was discussed at the last meeting that there is also on the Geographic Information System (GIS) that the City maintains, a SCPZ in the southwestern area of the site. She said at the preliminary development plan stage, the applicant would have to study both areas to determine if the area warrants a SCPZ, and specifically, the width of the Zone. Ms. Husak said in the open space areas, the area south of the road, and the cul -de -sac bulb, stormwater 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13 management is proposed. She said that preliminary stormwater management data would be required at the preliminary development plan stage. Ms. Husak said regarding Lot 1, which is pie- shaped and therefore has a triangular buildable area, concerns Planning in regard to home and driveway location as well as lack of usable outdoor spaces. She said that Planning would like the applicant to address the buildability of uniquely- shaped Lot 12 and where the side yard and rear yard setbacks are to ensure that those requirements would be stated in the preliminary development plan. Ms. Husak said that a 60 -foot road frontage requirement is included in the Subdivision Regulations, but Lot 13, which is shaped uniquely to avoid the SCPZ, has 20 feet of frontage and Planning is concerned that is not enough space to access the lot adequately. Ms. Husak said that Planning is recommending that the applicant move forward to a preliminary development plan stage, incorporating comments and feedback from the Commission based on the following proposed discussion questions: 1) Is the reduction in density from 2 units per acre to 1.6 units per acre adequate to address the Commission's previous concerns regarding density? 2) Should the applicant make changes to the proposed layout? 3) What architectural character is appropriate for this development? 4) Whether or not including the proposal as part of the Muirfield Association and making the Muirfield Architectural Review Board do architectural review for this area, whether or not that is sufficient, or do we want to see more in a potential development text? The applicant, Bill Adams, State Street Realty, 6580 Cook Road, said that they realized that engineering details, stormwater management, a stream corridor study, and tree surveys are required at the preliminary development plan stage. He said they understood that those types of issues would be addressed in detail and that it was a condition of the project moving forward to create satisfactory conditions to meet those requirements. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application. Walter Zeier, General Manager, Muirfield Association, 8372 Muirfield Drive, said that the Board of Directors and the Design Control Committee had reviewed this plan and would like it to move forward. He said they would like to review all of the stormwater management, tree replacement, and all that type of information in the future which they understand is included in the following step. He said they wanted to make sure they had a commitment from the developer to bring it within The Muirfield Association and have all of the deed standards as well as design control restrictions placed on this property. Mr. Zeier said that they were interested in having a sub - association to look at how they are going to manage the open space. He said whether management of the open space would be up to The Muirfield Association or a sub - association would be decided by the Board of Directors and the developer. Russ Randall, 8883 Belisle Court, said that this property is currently zoned for a density of 12 to 15 units. He said they realized when they purchased their property that there would someday be a development. He pointed out that the Commission had disapproved other proposed plans based on various reasons, and he was not sure what he saw here was other than the convenience or expediting of getting this off the rolls into the Muirfield Association. He said he was not sure this proposal causing a change in the variance is any different than other previous proposals. He said the plan is nice, but the developer will be able to clear out the trees completely, except on the greenbelt with disregard for the current wildlife and the runoff. He said this was a much nicer plan than the previous one and he commended the developer for taking time to come up with a nicer visual. Mr. Randall said he did not want to see the density maintained from what it was set years ago which was in the best interest of the community. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 107QQ r)raka Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13 Alesia Miller, 8445 Gullane Court, said if the existing stream is taken away, it would fill in a flood zone and take away part of the ecosystem. She said everyone lives downstream and we are all connected to the nature of this small rural area and will be affected if it is overdeveloped. She said she thought the low density is the only density acceptable, considering the precious stream is a riparian habitat which is like a sponge that absorbs the pollution coming from existing yards and the earth. She said it gives a chance for the pollution to be extracted out of the water before it reaches the next capillary or river. She said it is not preserved there will be more pollution and run -off from driveways, sidewalks, and yard chemicals. She said it is all going to runoff and cause flooding, and eventually the houses will have problems with their basements, as she has now. Ms. Miller said she thought it should be preserved and that low density was the only thing she could find acceptable. Jamie Zitesman, 5701 Springburn Drive, said he was concerned how long it would take to develop and construct the project. He said he would like to see the site development be completed as quickly as possible. He asked if the residents would be able to get assurances from the Commission to help control site development for a reasonable period. Mr. Zitesman was concerned about Lots 1, 12, and 13 being usable lots and requested assurance to the community that Planning will work with the developer to come up with plans for good usable lots that are not odd - shaped. Mr. Zitesman asked regarding drainage, whether retention ponds are going to be created to deal with the water issues and concerns of the community. He asked if working with the Commission and the developer that they would come up with a plan where these issues would be addressed. Ms. Amorose Groomes said with a number of them, yes. She said that regarding timing of construction, they will apply for a permit which would be good for a specific duration of time. She said the permits are renewable, but the Commission does not have the authority to limit them to a number of days. Mr. Zitesman asked how long it would be before typical permits would expire. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the permit is good for a year and it is renewable. Mark Chambers, 5790 Springburn Drive, said there had been many concerns about the stream. He said that Mr. Kinzelman's previous comment that there was no water flow was probably regrettable. He said he thought he was talking about the collection area on the site near the road is that tends to be dry from time to time, as opposed to the stream, which everyone knows that there is water flow most of the time. Mr. Chambers said he believed the density is probably appropriate for the area, but he was not sure how it became significantly lower than the surrounding homes. He said he knew it was something that the City did before, but he was not sure how it occurred or the purpose for doing that as opposed to being characteristic to rest of the area. He said they were not in place when Muirfield Village was first developed in the 1970s. He said there was not a lot of building and development control exercised at that time. He said he was comfortable that the run -off controls and storm sewer, and things like that can be addressed. He said addressing the requirements may fix some existing problems. He said he thought the developer would have to work to make the lots buildable. He urged the applicant to move forward in the process. He said in the process itself, everything will be worked out to where it was acceptable to everyone. Mr. Chambers said regarding construction traffic, time is money to the developer, so he did not expect it to be prolonged. He encouraged the Commissioners and Planning to continue working with the applicant to support the process in this in working with the Muirfield Association and the developer. Jeff Schoener, 5825 Springburn Drive, said he was not anti - development. He said he was impressed that the developer had one of the better landscape architects in the City. He said he brought photos of the large amount of water coming through the area, starting at where the line meets Drake Road, after a large 20- minute rainstorm. He asked if as the flow comes through the new development, would there be something in place to prevent more back up before it goes downstream. He said he wanted City Council to be made aware that there is a lot of water that could come back up towards the homes along Lots 4, 5, 3, 2, and 1. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 n7QU r)raka Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13 Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Commission has a rule that they cannot accept any new data the evening of a hearing. She explained that it had to flow through Planning. She said this was not the last time this will be heard and that he could give the photos to Ms. Husak. Mr. Schoener said the amount of traffic from 19 lots would be a lot on the skinny street. He said he supported a smart development, but not 19 lots and that the amount of traffic needed to be considered on the street. Jean Fox, 8860 Braids Court, suggested that an independent third party engineering firm be consulted to study and assess the stormwater runoff through the existing and new homes. She said she concurred with the others that there was wisdom put in place initially when the site was zoned low density and she thought there was wisdom in keeping it that way. Patti King, 8882 Nairn Court said that where the bikepath behind her dipped, it filled with rain during storms. She said they also got runoff from the farm and a mound that Muirfield built. She said people cannot use the bikepath when it rains hard. She said she feared that Lots 17 and 14 will cause more runoff in that area. Ms. King said she would like to see some evidence that it will not happen after development. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the correspondence received regarding this application had been distributed to the Commissioners to read. Mr. Randall asked that the process steps and timeframes that follow a concept plan be described. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this is a concept plan where the Commission provides non - binding feedback to the developer. She said the Commission discusses and provides the applicant some direction that they would like to see them go. She said the applicant does not have to take the direction, and the Commission has the right to change it. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that no vote is taken. She said afterwards, if an applicant decides to move forward they'd be required to file a preliminary development plan application which is the rezoning to a PLID. Ms. Amorose Groomes said a large list of issues is given to the applicant by Planning that they will have to provide at the preliminary development plan stage. She said the application is submitted to Planning who will review everything. She explained that the City's Engineering Department will then carefully review, verify, or ask for additional information or clarification of how the applicant came to the decisions they came to in a series. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the application will be placed on the Commission meeting agenda, and it would also require two visits to City Council. She said it was a long process designed to be lengthy so that the Commission has the opportunity to vet all the issues and so that the public gets to be involved in the processes and hopefully when it gets to the finish line, everyone is comfortable. She said that was the goal and why it was laid out the way it was. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the timeframes are guided by the developer who will be required to submit a lot of information. She said the rate at which the developer gets that information to Planning will determine how quickly the process moves. Ms. Amorose Groomes said after an application is submitted, they have a significant period before they have to begin those submissions and there are not real deadlines of when those submissions happen. Ms. Husak explained that there are time requirements if the applicant is aiming for a certain meeting date, and for that meeting date, they have to bring in all the application materials. She said once the application is filed and has been reviewed internally, the fire, parks and open space, engineering, and building departments and others as part of the review team, put together comments, revisions, and requests that the applicant has to address prior to being placed on an agenda. She said that how much time it takes to address those comments is up to the applicant. Ms. Husak added that for all the steps for public meetings, whether at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing or the ordinance for rezoning scheduled at City Council, property owners will be notified automatically if they are within 300 feet of the 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stan,bury at Muirfield Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13 site. She said if someone is not within that area or did not receive notification for this meeting, addresses would be taken, and notifications will be sent every time public meeting notifications are mailed. Mr. Randall asked if this would be a part of the Muirfield Association. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that would have to be agreeable by the developer and by the Association and its Board of Trustees or Directors. Mr. Randal asked Mr. Zeier if he was acting as an official representative of the Muirfield Association in saying that they would welcome this plan into it. Ms. Amorose said that Mr. Zeier explained that he had the blessing of the Board of Trustees to begin the conversation to incorporate them into the Homeowners Association. John Hardt clarified that when documents are submitted to the City, a long list of existing stormwater and site design regulations that have nothing to do with whatever action the Commission takes, exist today and at the local, state, and federal level, and that is what the City Engineers will compare the applicant's calculations and design to for compliance. He said one of the hallmarks of all those regulations is that when an entity takes an undeveloped site to develops, it is not permitted to have any impact on the surrounding sites. He said they have to have stormwater that falls on their site, close to their site, and they cannot let it run off the property. He said that the regulations already exist, are outside the Commission's scope, and are something that any applicant would have to comply with for any development within the City. Warren Fishman said that the applicant's effort was commendable in trying to make everyone happy. He said he liked the first plan better. He said the problem with this plan is that there is not any usable common area. He said there are woods, trees, and water, but no place to play ball or anything. Mr. Fishman said that this area is probably the biggest sea of houses built in Dublin without open property. He said even though there are 1.6 units per acre, there is no common area close to it. He said he liked the previous plan if the lots were cut down on that plan, somewhere close to 19. He said there could be a spectacular development that he thought the neighbors could be happy with, that would rival the Bob Webb patio homes because there would be useable space within the development. Mr. Fishman said it could work to buffer the neighbors and they could walk onto usable space. He said the previous plan was much more creative and pretty. Mr. Fishman said with a few lots missing, it has some real nice usable space. He said ideally, if there were 19 lots on the previous plan, this would be a knockout development with wonderful open space. Mr. Fishman gave the applicant credit for the creative layout. Joe Budde complimented the applicant for listening to the feedback last time and returning with a density at the lowest level of the surrounding neighborhood. He said he thought the problems with Lots 1, 12, and 13 are going to force the applicant to come up with something different. He said regarding architectural character, the fact that the applicant is in discussions with the Muirfield Association addresses that so it will be adequately addressed. Victoria Newell thanked the applicant for listening last time. She said she liked the lower density. She said it was fair keeping it at 1.6 units per acre, given the surrounding properties there. She said when comparing the open space on both plans, they looked similar except for the large reserve area near the current farm residences. She said she liked the entry feature and a lower density. Ms. Newell said a little compromise could be gained between both plans, but she definitely liked the lower 1.6 units per acre because she thought it was more respectful to the surrounding site. Ms. Newell asked how confident staff was in regards to the stream area. She said looking at the photograph she could see that there is probably a swale there, but that it appeared to be nothing more. 13- OO9Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13 Aaron Stanford referred to the Planning Report, on page 6 of 9, and said the yellow highlighted area was what Engineering has currently identified as a SCPZ. He said if there is a portion of the SCPZ that currently would not meet Code, what they were referring to is the lower branch, where Lots 15, 16, 14, and 13 are located. He said without the applicant providing a further analysis and study, which would not be permitted and would be against that Code. Mr. Stanford said that they could see that area being applied for an exemption, and one of the more common exemptions that is successful in these areas are areas that may have a low area that does not have vegetation, an established channel, or a stream bed that can establish vegetation. He said this area currently starts where the existing structure is located. He said it looks similar to areas where we have exempted for that reason. Amy Kramb said she still was not set on a certain number of lots. She said through the process, as they go through and get to the preliminary development plan when all the surveys have to be done and they have to know exactly where the stream is located, it will let them know how many lots can reasonably be built on the site. Ms. Kramb said the Community Plan states a density of 0.5 to 1 units per acre and the current zoning would allow 1 per acre or 11 homes on the site. Ms. Kramb said the reason the density was set at that was that the site had never been developed. She said everything around it used to be 1 per acre before it was developed. She said she was okay with raising the density to what was around it. She recalled a recent plan before the Commission where a full room of residents was very concerned about water and what it would do to their yards. She said if this gets rezoned as a PUD, Planned Unit Development, all these details can be addressed, as opposed to in the Rural Residential District, where 11 houses could be built on the site without saying what they would look like, within basic reasoning. She said that with a planned unit district, greater setbacks, preservation zones, no -build zones, SCPZs, architectural standards, stormwater management, all can be required in the text. She said that the first plan was more interesting and this was a very typical neighborhood. Mr. Hardt said the three big issues that this development brings are the issue of stormwater management, the stream corridor, and tree preservation. He said all three are governed by existing City regulations and are hoops that the applicant will have to jump through. He said regarding density, that the 12 to 15 unit density that exists on this site was not put there per se, but left there. He said all of this area originally had the same R, Rural zoning classification and when it was up zoned to let Muirfield Village happen, this property was left behind, so he did not know if it was a deliberate or a conscious decision made. He said he thought it was justified to go through this process and allow the applicant to build 18 or 19 homes because this process allows along the way to negotiate. He said the applicant is in exchange subjecting themselves to the Muirfield Design Review Process and the Muirfield Architectural Standards, establishing No -Build Zones in the rear of the lots, offering to place the same deed restrictions in place as the existing homes, and open space management, which are things that do not exist today. He said ultimately, they will provide long term protection for the homes surrounding to make sure that the site is developed -well and maintained -well and fits with the rest of the community. Mr. Hardt said absent this process, someone could build 5,000- square -foot homes with all stucco exteriors and a pre - manufactured barn in the backyard where they tinker with their racecar on Saturday afternoons, and there would be no way to control that. He said he thought the trade -off was worth it. He said 19 homes is certainly more than is allowed today, but what we get back for allowing a little bit greater density is worthy it in the long run. Mr. Hardt said there were aspects of the last plan that he liked better. He said it was a little more creative. He said he would like to see a density in line with what the surrounding neighborhoods have. He said some modification or hybrid between the two plans would be ideal. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed this plan was more creative, however the green space is too close to the waterway and she would like to see additional space. She said she would like to see the waterway protected as much as possible. She said she liked the placement of the cul -de -sac on the new plan better than the previous one because it provided more relief from the edge of the stream. Ms. Amorose 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 4, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13 Groomes said instead of the rear yards being No -Build Zones, she preferred to see them dedicated back to the Muirfield Association. She said many times, it is easier for people to ask for forgiveness than permission, and she would hate to see some of that area torn down and a swing set pop up overnight. She said if that happened and the area belonged to the Association, it would be considered trespassing. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that the applicant should work with the Association to dedicate the No- Build Zones to them. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the timing issue of the construction and development of the site is out of the Commission's purview. She said that she believed that these will be very popular lots and will go quickly. She said there was a level of confidence that the engineering issues will be resolved with the PUD process. She said it was her thought that the stormwater management will be better when this is finished than as it is now. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Muirfield Design Standards were being updated and she encouraged the applicant to stay be aware of the changes so that the development text is reflected with those changes. She said the only lot that she was uncomfortable with was Lot 13, not because of the narrow driveway, but that she would like to see the wetland expanded. Ms. Kramb explained that a PUD was a Planned Unit Development which is a type of rezoning that could be commercial or residential. She said that a PUD comes with a text that has many criteria. She said that a text is recommended for approval to City Council by the Commission. Ms. Kramb said it governs the development and is stricter than the general Dublin Zoning Code. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the text can go to City Council with a positive or negative recommendation from the Commission. Ms. Kramb said that the public will have the opportunity to comment on the text at the preliminary development plan stage and at City Council. Ms. Newell pointed out that all of the City's regulations are available on the City's website. She said there are provisions for stormwater and engineering. She said as an architect, she had a great respect for the City of Dublin's regulations. She said that they are extremely good and always have been in the forefront, especially with stormwater engineering before many other Central Ohio communities adopted them. She encouraged everyone to look at the City's regulations which she thought would help them through this process in understanding things that Planning is going to do before it comes back before the Commission as the applicant moves forward with it. Ms. Husak said all of the application materials, as soon as they are filed with Planning, are also available on the City's website. She said the website information is constantly updated with provisions, updates, and information. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the applicant did not have any questions for the Commission. She concluded this case, saying that the Commission does not vote on concept plans. She thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and said she really appreciated their passion about the community. Ms. Amorose Groomes called a recess at 7:43 p.m. She reconvened the meeting at 7:49 p.m. / Mraission Roundta e rdt requested a ok bound PDF /nline Zoning Code /sableto sak said tha the entire Zonin was online. greed to pl/hard DF in the Dr Box nstea. She said i as more updated han Planning update t copies. I ci of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614 410 4747 www d0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 9, 2012 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting- 2. Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Road 12- 043INF Informal Review Proposal: A development of a 11.5 -acre site with 24 residential lots as a new Planned Unit Development, located on the east side of Drake Road, approximately 200 feet south of the Intersection with Springbum Drive. Request. Informal review and non - binding feedback on this proposal. Applicant: William Adams; represented try, Ben Hale Jr., Smith & Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us RESULT: This Informal application was discussed noting density, stormwater management, green space, architecture and a tree survey as areas of interest. There were many neighbors that provided public comment. STAFF CERTIFICATION �4U 0 '4� /OLJ,V Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Re.oning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stan at Muirfield 1 n nCI n.- -.1.., DA Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 21 nk to the City w site wa/been and v:ng forward a,l the /oard and Commiss' n liaisons will be d ' g that so that if in rested, acan s e the documents. Ms. Husak sa' Planning en orking with 1T to ssign the Commis Hers City of Dubli email addresses. a said it something positive f they wanted to ep their Commissi n work separate fr their person siness work. She s if there were ever records request, i ould be focused o heir city emais. She said City of ublin emails can b accessed through t e Internet as a reg r web browserthey have an 'Pho or iPad, they cou also access them rough that technol y. Ms. Husak sld send an email eminding them to end their middle in' als to either her or ora Rogers. She the next packe or at the next meet g, instructions will a prov ded on how t get to the email an ill send a cou a of tests to them. Ms. usak thanked Ms. morose Groomes f r her time and effo A helping Planning ith the elect onic ket proj/rder rose Groomes said at she had brough the paper docume as backup to her i d tonight Administrass Ms. Amorosaid that the plications for Cases and 3 were consei items. She said th Mr. Hardt had rt Case 3 b pulled for commen or questions. Sh announced that th cases would be h of th published agenda. a briefly explaine the rules and proc ures of the Commis 1. Dante Extension 4400]ruller Road CorAitional Use Chair Chris Amorose Gr mes introduced thi request for review (and / l of th conditional use /sent cation fora 6,760- ,uare -foot dances dio with n an exist' g buil the rth side of Tinier , approximately , 000 feet east of a intersect on wi Riversve. he swore in City tives inten ng to ad/eh mmission on this c sent casAm rose Groomes note the neither the pplicant ntative were prese but there o nditions that need their agre ement. he invited Commiss oner c ments regis application. [T e were none.] Mr. Taylor mo d to approve tnal Use appli tion because it the review criteri of the Zoning Code nd the developmrds within t area with no cs. Ms. Newell conded the motion. he vote was as fo. Kramb, y , Mr. Fishman, yes; rdt, yes; Mr. B de, yes; Ms. Amor Groomes, yes; Ms es; and Mr Tayior, yes. (Appro 0.) 2. Stansbury at Muirfield 12- 043INF 10799 Drake Road Inf ormal Review Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this request for informal review and non - binding feedback for a deve opment of an 11.5 -acre site with 24 residential lots as a new Planned Unit Development located or the east side of Drake Road, approximately 200 feet south of the intersection with Springburn Drive. R chard Taylor recused himself from this case due to a conflict of interest because he is an emp oyee of the Muirfield Associat on and a member of the Muirfield Design Review Committee. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 – Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 21 Claudia Husak presented this request for informal review and feedback. She said the site is located south of Glick Road and north of Carnoustie Drive, accessed by Drake Road. She showed a photograph of the site surrounded by single- family Muirifield Village residences in all directions, which were platted in the late 70s and developed in the early to mid 80s. She said a vacant house and several outbuildings are located on the site. Ms. Husak said City maps show two forks of a stream located within the boundaries of the site that have not been studied as far as the width or depth. She said a Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) overlays the two forks of the stream. Ms. Husak said the intention of the SCPZ is to preserve any floodwater capacity of existing drainage ways and the width has to be determined by studying the area. She said if the applicant were to move forward, that is nformation that needs to be submitted as part of a Preliminary Development Plan. Ms. Husak said that the applicant has provided a site analysis indicating where undeveloped open spaces are located, showing where significant green spaces are, and showing a 100 -foot minimum clear area around a certain area of the SCPZ, but not on the southern fork. She said at this point, it would not meet Dublin's SCPZ requirements, and any disturbance of natural vegetation with buildings or stormwater management would not be permitted unless the applicant submits a study and receives a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Husak said what the applicant is proposing would result in a density of two units per acre. She sa d according to the data provided, large portions of the site totaling 52 percent are proposed to be preserved as open space. She said the development statement provided by the applicant to the Commission explains the intended market for the houses as well as the type of home to be built on these lots. She presented a plan with one cul -de -sac type street from Drake Road with open areas in the center of a cul -de -sac to the east and a reserve loop area in the center of the site with lots on both ends of them. Ms. Husak said that the Fire and Engineering departments have concerns about the road layout and will work with the applicant in the future to ensure that all the roadway geometry would be adequate for vehicles to turn, stop, and make movements around intersections and the cul -de -sac areas. Ms. Husak said also for the site, there is a proposal for a an open rear yard, which has not yet been defined and then larger open spaces around the perimeter of the site, keeping the lots a little smaller, but through the design allowing larger setbacks around the perimeter and the against existing homes. Ms. Husak said a scaled plan had not been submitted, so the lot size cannot be determined. She said however, they are comparable from what surrounds the site. She said that Planning wants to ensure that there is adequate space to accommodate the large homes as well as outdoor living spaces, such as patios, decks, or fireplaces. Ms. Husak said that Planning would want the applicant to move forward with layout changes to the environmental concerns as far as tree preservation and the Stream Corridor Protection Zone. She pointed out that in the center of the site there is definitely room to open it up and cluster the lots more to either end. Ms. Husak said the 2007 Community Plan shows this site as Low Density, one -half to one -unit per acre. She said all the surrounding area is shown as medium density or high density. She said the lot sizes here are similar to those surrounding the site. She said the current zoning for the site is R, Rural District, which would require approximately 40,000 square feet for a lot to develop on the site, depending upon how much right -of -way would be required, it would potentially be eight to 11 units per acre on this site. She said the applicant 's looking at a density higher than the Community Plan suggests and the existing zoning on this site permits. Ms. Husak explained that the site was zoned in 2003 as R, Rural District, with the idea that the owner at the time wanted to retain some allowances for horses or farm animals on the site which can only happen in that district. Ms. Husak presented a zoning map showing the surrounding areas of Muirfield ranging from 1.6 to 1.9 units per acre. Ms. Husak said a Commission discussion was being requested for this Informal Review by the applicant and Planning, and the following questions were suggested: 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1r)700 n.- j— o-1 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 21 1) Does the proposal warrant a greater density than that outlined in the Community Plan, and if so to what extent? 2) What other layout considerations should be made with this proposal? 3) What architectural character should the applicant strive for with this development? 4) What should the applicant consider when laying out the roadway and pathway system? The applicant, William Adams, 6580 Cook Road, Powell, Ohio ntroduced Brian Kinzelman, their planner. Brian Kinzelman, Landscape Architect and City Planner, MKSK, 462 Ludlow Alley, Columbus, explained that they had no preconceived notions as they first walked onto the site. He said that they decided to do a site analysis to understand the tree cover, topography, hydrology, and the surrounding neighborhood. He said the southwest branch of the watercourse was not shown on the analysis because it was rather insignificant to the extent that he did not even see it with the tall grass. He said as this project progresses, they will work further with Planning to protect any water corridors that need protected. Mr Kinzelman said that his approach was to not disturb any more trees than they have to, not move more dirt than they have to, and cross the Swale at its most advantageous location from the topography standpoint. He said working with the land, attempting to create reserves in the front yards what is largely two pods of housing, and use those possibly for stormwater management and reforestation of the site in the front yards, preserving the entire perimeter of the site as it is seen today, leaving all the trees and undergrowth, bolstering the tree perimeter to the extent possible with reforestation. He said he believed in touching as lightly as possible and not doing more manicuring than needs to be done. Mr. Kinzelman said that regarding the rear yard easements that Planning mentioned, his notion is that they will restrict development, including mowing of those rear yard areas. He said they were proposing this to be an empty- nester market, with small 1 /2-story to 2-story houses, and to bring them forward on the lots, preserving as much of the perimeter green space as possible, reforest that green space and take back some of the rear yards and cause them not to be developed. Mr. Kinzelman said that Planning made a logical point about the need for livable outdoor space, and they understood that, but they did not look to have any development in the rear of those yards. He said they may sell these lots in fee, but they take the green space back to the surrounding neighbors, and also their community itself, they have that green space buffer. Mr. Kinzelman said because this is a conceptual diagram, not a site plan, it does not show the whole notion of linkage to the community pathway system. He said they proposed that they would have sufficient interior linkage to all of their home sites, to their street corridor and to the pathway system to their perimeter. He said they were proposing to be a part of not only Muirfield Village, but of Dublin, and tie into that infrastructure system as well. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application. She requested the comments to be as close to point as possible because the Commission wanted to hear from everyone present. She explained that the Commission meetings are recorded and kept, and that each speaker should begin with their name and address so that it will be known who participated in the meeting. Public Comments Barry Boyles, 8890 Belisle Court, said in 1978, they purchased their lot because of the beautiful woods and peace and tranqui ity of the Buckner property. He said this project should not happen. He said 24 homes are over the top, and typical of developers' greed. Mr. Boyles said they realized someone would eventually develop the property, but this proposal is ridiculous. He suggested saving green space with maybe ten homes. He said this proposal would totally wipe out all green space in spite of what the computer - generated p;an shows. He said cluster homes at $650,000 are unbelievable when they cannot sell similar homes n °artan Fields. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 107g9 nrakP Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 21 % Boyles said we many other issues in Mr. Adams' deve opment statement that were incorrect, but they need to focus on reasons to not change the density of this property. Mr. Boyles asked about the traffic flow of 40 to 50 vehicles on Springburn Drive, two to three times a day. He said school bus drivers occasionally have to ask residents to move cars so that they can get the buses through on Springburn Drive now. He said they have watched se•ious whitewater on this site, but the developer says that the creek has dried. Mr. Boyles suggested the Department of Natural Resources should analyze the water flow and the impacts on the surrounding a ~ea. He said three culs -de -sac from his home, when it rains, their backyards flood. Mr. Boyles said this project will greatly affect their home values. He suggested if this property is going to be developed it be six to ten homes to save some of the last green space. He said Muirfield and Dub n will be a better place by saving some of the beautiful trees, flowers, and animal habitats. He suggested a similar project like was done with the Dublin Bait Store where money was spent for 31 acres, which turned out beautiful. He said he could not see why that could not happen on this site instead. Mr. Boyles said that the green spaces shown on the pian no longer exist. He said he proposed ten homes to keep the density where it was. Warren Ashton, 8864 Belisle Court said his property was adjacent to this site. He said he selected his residence in Dublin 14 years ago because of the chance to invest in a place that had some stability. He said he asked his real estate agent what was the potentaai for this site and the agent assured him it was zoned low density and that Dublin had a zon ng committee that really provided stability. Mr. Ashton said he would like the low density zoning to remain for the site. Mr. Ashton said that a risk that could occur due to this proposal was to their quality of life. He said he felt that 24 homes were too many for what was being proposed. He encouraged the Commissioners to walk the dry creek. He said the tree roots were undercut and this year someone placed riprap along the creek due to the erosion just beyond the culvert under Cruden Bay. He said as a professional engineer he believed the culvert was undersized for the runoff from building 24 homes and a road on the site. He said someone had constructed a wall with screening downstream. He said the culvert underneath Ayrshire Drive was enlarged about five years ago which he was confident was a waste of money because there were only two streams that fed :t and this stream was one of them. He said that the possible flooding of neighboring homes needed to be considered. Mr. Ashton said there is low land or a wetland on the site, and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources needed to evaluate the flooding and the effect on the environment if they change the creek. He said that some of the proposed lots actually span the creek. Mr. Ashton asked the Commission to really look and evaluate this proposed development. Russ Randall, 8883 Be isle Court said they moved to their adjacent property 12 years ago. He said his children have enjoyed playing in the field and seeing the wildlife. He said they realized that this property would inevitably be sold and they factored in that it would be 6 to 12 homes, which was okay. He said he could not understand the rationale behind changing it from 12 to 24 homes, a low density to a high density, other than as the numbers it takes for certain profitability in purchasing this property for the developer to profit. He said they totally supported the landowner's right to sell this property and the right to sell to a developer within the current constrains or what it is zoned for, but with the limited open , and that they have in Dublin, it was hard to understand how they are going to reverse it and take away some of that beauty. He said once developed, they cannot get it back. He referred to the bottom corner of plan and said that there was no way to avoid disrupting the view. He asked who would be the steward of the property o the interest of the Dublin community after the development begins when trees needed °.o be removed. i encouraged the Commission not to rezone this property. He said they had no prob6em if the deve'oper wants to come back with the current zoning. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield I n700 n— In n RA Dublin Planning and Zoning Commissio- August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 21 -inda Swear'ngen, 8881 C uden Bay Court said that the creek ran beside them and often filled up high although they were not in the floodplain. She said that she did not think this was the right place for a high density development. She said she was in the development business, and she had investigated the potential for this site before she purchased her property. Gary Kaiser, 9015 Picardy Court said he lived downstream, north of this site. He said that his property was originally in the floodplain, but after the new culvert was put in, it was not in the floodplain. He said in June 1989, there was a floodplain study for Deer Run Creek which indicated that it was a very close margin where they are no longer in the floodplain. He said the EMH &T Engineers' study indicated an elevation in their backyard of 879.9 feet was the 100 -year floodplain, and the elevation that would flood would be 880.0. Mr. Kaiser said they had no tolerance for a runoff in this area from 24 homes which would include new streets, rooftops, driveways, and patios all contributing to the runoff in this particular area. Mr. Kaiser said that he thought a lesser density would be appropriate, but as a homeowner who has a very short tolerance for flooding, he was very concerned about what was being proposed from the developer's point of view. Pete Welsh, 8440 Gullane Court, a resident for 26 years, read into the record an August 6, 2012 letter addressed to the Commission from Britta Campton of 9184 Leith Drive that stated her concerns for the viability of the existing wildlife and wildflowers if this proposed high density zoned development came to fruition. Gretchen Randall, 8883 Belisle Court said that her property is adjacent to the farm. She said her father, Roger Berlin, was one of the original builders of Muirfield Village. She asked that the density not be changed on this site. She said it was not possible to take a 3,200- square -foot footprint into a one -floo plan and not have every square inch of the property be covered. She said although a medium density is being proposed, the percentage of the area covered by actual structure then does become high density, and that was something that they really need to think about. Ms. Randall said they bought their house based on the low density, as many did. She said the environmental implications of this are huge. Ms Randall said they were always told that the east end of the property would never be developable because of the watershed, the runoff, and the wetland. She said that the Commissioners needed to walk the site. She said she took offense to it being said that the creek is not a creek. She said it was humongous and unbelievable. She said it was torrential at times and except for the week or two they were out there. She said it almost always has water in it. Ms. Randall pointed out on the plan the trees where the home footprints would have homes that cover the entire lot. She said there was no way the trees could stay and they would have to go. She said the reserve area will probably not survive the development process. She said she really took offense to what was an embellished picture where someone greened the area. She said it should in reality look like small twigs. She said her yard was embellished in the brochure to make it look greener for the developer's gain. She said that the proposed home price was ridiculous and unrealistic because at $625,000 to $650,000 per unit it is not doable and the market will not support it. She said one of four things will happen when the market does not support a price: 1) The development will take years to be done, in which case there will be constant noise and disruption to the neighborhood; 2) They will sit and get dilapidated, possibly be vandalized, and become an eyesore; 3) The price will have to come down in order to sell them which attracts a level of residents that s not consistent with the neighborhood; and 4) That the building is not able to make a go of it, and then the neighbors have a huge problem In their backyards and their property has been ruined for no reason. Ms. Randall said she would like to see the park idea revisited. She said they had been told that the site was not going to become a park because of the price. She said the price is now half of what it was 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1.0799 Drake Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 21 several years ago. She said as Mr. Boyles mentioned, the city purchased the Bait Store and made a beautiful park out of it. She said her goal was to find out how to get the park Idea revisited. Greg Cunningham, 5801 Springburn Drive said he lives where McIntyre and Springburn Lane came together. He noted that the two accesses into Springburn Lane, which enters Drake Road and the extra traffic that will come through went straight into his house. He said he was concerned that there will be approximately 75 cars a day using the accesses and that had not been discussed. He said his main concern was the buffer zone. He said he purchased his home two years ago with the understanding this site was zoned low density and that it would be developed some day. He said if these 24 homes are built, they will not be anything special or different than can be found anywhere in Dublin. He said a 3,200- square -foot house on a 0.23 -acre lot needs the buffer zone behind it because there would not be room for a yard. Mr. Cunningham said 50 percent of the trees in the buffer zone are problematic ash trees. Mr. Cunningham said that water from the farm flows into his backyard, so he knew the site was not dry. Alesia Miller, 8445 Gullane Court said she had lived there for four years, and that her home was previously owned by Mr. Adams. She said she walked these paths every day. She presented a photograph of a redheaded woodpecker she saw recently on the site. She said it was one of the rare varieties of birds that will be lost if disturbed in any way. Ms. Miller said mammals depend on the waterway, and if It was not a good quality, they would not live there. She said the habitat was important. Ms. Miller said the proposed development is going to create more flooding, cause the homeowners grief in the future, and take away the one small green space that they have. She suggested that if it cannot be a preserve if somehow it can be saved so that everyone can enjoy it that is not much to ask because that is all they have left of the past and she would like to see it left alone. James Zitesman, 5701 Springburn Drive said his house backed up to the site. He said they moved in 18 years ago when there were horses. He said when he was a member of the Muirfield Civic Association, they discussed the property and called the City regarding options for the land. He said whether it is this project or any project it has to be balanced with the community and the desires of everyone with the use of the premises. Mr. Zitesman emphasized that it was neither the neighbors' nor his property, but the Buckner Estate's property, and they have a right if they can sell it, to do what they want with their property. Mr. Ziteman said the use of the property will obviously be negotiated between all the Inte -ested part'es. He said whether it is going to be this plan or a variation of this plan, there will no doubt be an impact unless somehow it is bought by someone else who decides not to do* anything with it. He said .t was interesting to hear the sentiments of the community, but he did not agree w th all of them. He said there is no right or wrong answer. Mr. Zitesman said this is a process o` developing what may be the outcome in the end. He encouraged the community, the developer, the Commission, and the city to go through the process. He said he did not see the density that much different from what they saw on the chart of the surrounding areas. He said if one or two lots were lost, the density would be very similar to the density in his neighborhood. He said he appreciated this forum being an informal meeting, allowing the community to speak because it gave insights to everyone to all the issues invo'ved. Mr. Zitesman encouraged everyone to keep a reasonable perspective and civil tone to have a good discussion, and perhaps a solution for this property will be found. Peggy McDaniel, 6005 Springburn Drive said her home was at the corner where all the traffic turned into the site. She pointed out that Drake Road was a dirt road that was smaller than her driveway. She asked how the construction trucks would use the road. She said currently, on Carnoustie Drive there is a lot of traffic and this development will add to the problem. She said she did not want to see McMansions on small lots. Ms. McDaniel said her concerns were with the added traffic and lost green space. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 n700 rlrnlro Rrl Dublin Panning and Zoning Commisson August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 21 Steve Bownas, 5975 Springburn Drive said he was worried that selling 3,200- square -`oot homes on such small lots at $650,000 would be difficult and would take a long time. He recommended that the applicant have good information about how much space there really is, how usable it wou d be, and how appealing he could make the product to work for him. He said he thought what worked best for the applicant might very well work better for the rest of them also. Jack Burns, 9035 Picardy Court, said that he lived at the end of the s where the Deer Run Creek intersected with this site. He said there has been a bridge across the stream since he moved there in 1986, and numerous times water from the 'dry' stream rose ove: the bridge. He said in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, they had water in their home. He said what changed between 1986 and 1989 was that the Glick Road swimming pool was built. He said that was what parking lots and Phase 33 rooftops did to the small stream coming down the Deer Run to the inadequate culvert. He said he involved the Army Corps of Engineers and paid for his own flood study. Mr. Burns said that he had a 20 year -old video that showed the whole basin where this small stream came down. He confirmed that it was whltewater. He said he was worried about the safety of children. He said that Mu rfield has rebuilt the bridge at least three times since 1986 because it was washed out. Mr. Burns said that the Commission needed to take a hard look at this proposal for the site. Jeff Shanner, 5825 Springburn Drive, said that he lived at where the street began and the pool was on the left side. He sa d he understood that the stream Issue was because of all the drainage from Muirfield- He said that how much runoff that came out of the drain directly under Springburn Drive needed to be determined before the Commission makes a decision on this development. He said when it rains hard, the drainage is at least two or three feet deep in his backyard. He said he also was concerned about the additional traffic. He said low density was fine at ten units per acre, or less. He reiterated that the water needed to be studied at the bottom and beginning of the stream. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that this was an informal hearing and that there had been no forma application for this project submitted to the city. She said that the developer said that he would like to pursue this kind of idea in this kind of area. She said the Commissioners are volunteers and residents of Dublin just like the neighbors. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that they were not city employees per se, and are not engineers. She said they sit on the Commission and try to think of what is best for this community as a whole. Ms. Amorose Groomes said what will happen next is the Commission will have a discussion and provide feedback to the applicant. She said with the Commissioners' and neighbors' feedback the applicant wil' try to assemble what their strategy might be from that point. She said it may be nothing, pursuing a rezoning, or going with the existing zoning on the property. Ms. Amorose Groomes said given this is an individual property and there are property rights associated with that, they have the freewill to pursue what they feel :s in their best interests. She said this is a very informal review and the Commission's feedback is not binding, nor is what the applicant says to the Commission binding. Ms. Randal' pointed out that they were told signs would be posted to announce this meeting, but the only sign they saw was on Drake Road, a dead -end gravel road. Ms. Amorose Groomes said unfortunately, legally signs cannot be placed on property that is not subject to the application and there are resident al homes right to the right -of -way of the street. She said a notification sign can only be placed on the property itseI. Ms. Randall reiterated that Drake Road dead -ended so no one drove on it. She asked if it was possible to place a sign elsewhere. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that perhaps an adacent resident would want the sign in their yard. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 21 Ms. Husak said property owners within a certain distance of the property are notified by mail. She said that staff would mail public notifications to residents that provide their addresses. She sad that the City website includes all active applications filed, and if this were to move forward, it would become a new application and would be posted on the City website as soon as it is processed. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak in regards to this case. [There was none.] Victoria Newell said she would have some difficulty changing the density requ rements to increase to what is proposed. She said the Commission did not have a lot of Information in the meeting packet to make a good judgment on what might transpire with the deve opment that is here. She said there are times that she thought high density could be done where a substantial amount of green space Is preserved with that doing zero lot development or clustering the homes in very small clusters. Ms. Newell said she *did not see that evolving out of what has been presented tonight. She said she thought it would disturb a tot of the older growth on the site that she thought would be better preserved. She said there is a po nt at which you start to take the shade and reduce that into the center of those growth areas that the mature trees will eventually die, even when a preserved area is left, they have grown up with each other and tf ere is very little under branch growth within them. Ms. Newe said there s noth ng to delineate what this proposal is architecturally, and she thought if they ever got to a point where they will look at this property with more dense zoning on it, what would have to be here would have to be spectacular, and she did not see that in this initial presentation tonight. Joe Budde, said he thought it behooved Mr. Adams and Mr. Kinzelman to take into consideration the comments that the neighbors have provided. He said he agreed that the density was too great as it has been presented and It was imperative that the appropriate study of the water flow and its impact on this property and the neighboring properties be undertaken to make sure that there is adequate drainage and that it does not affect the development to be developed and the neighbors that could be affected. Mr. Budde said he thought the architectural character should be in keeping with the surrounding development. He said the road width and the radii of all the turns are very important for emergency vehicles. He said existing heavy traffic on Springburn Lane made it difficult to turn into driveways. He said he thought less than half the number of building sites and not so much lot coverage would be better. He said he liked Ms. Newell's suggestion of doing that and maintaining the green space. Mr. Budde asked if anyone had contacted the Muirfield Association about acquiring the property to make it part of their green space. Warren Fishman sa d the residents had made excellent po nts. He sa d when he flew over Muirfield Village and Dublin, he not ced when there is high density there is always open space around it. He said he was a Commissioner when the area developed around this site. He recalled a developer's comment that he would not live ".ong enough to see the Buckner Farm developed. Mr. Fishman said he was not happy with the 1.9 units per acre density of these neighbors' home because he thought that was too dense. He said in the beginning, they tr ed to keep the density at 1.25 units per acre including the open space. Mr. Fishman said he agonized over this proposed deve opment because he would like to see it less dense than 1.25 units per acre because the overall plan of the community around it is dense compa, ed to the rest of Muirfield Village. He said he would never support a density over what was prescribed in the Community Plan. He suggested the density should even be lower. He said if spectacular housing not available in Dublin is built, perhaps the density could be higher, but he did not envision that. Amy Kramb said to rezone this as a planned unit development she thought was the better and best option because it g ves the Commission more control on the number of buildings and how they are laid out, as opposed to leaving it open, as a rural zoning. She said when residents comment that they do not want something rezoned, she likes to remind them that it provides much more control such as who wil 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield I n - 70o r)raka Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commiss on August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 21 control the trees that fall in the preserve areas and maintain the property. She said those controls can be placed in the PUD, but tLhey are not available if the existing zoning remains. She said a PUD can state the number of units in the development. Ms. Kramb said she was for the PUD and as far as the number or units, it was how many lots can they fit on the site and still preserve the water and be able to have it flow the way it should, preserve as many mature trees, and lot coverage than necessarily a set number of houses. She said she would rather see something that has 20 to 30 percent lot coverage and not 80 percent lot coverage. She said 12 houses with 30 percent lot coverage is a lot better than 12 houses with 80 percent lot coverage. Ms. Kramb said she was not yet ready to say how many the set number of houses is. She did not think as drawn, all the lots will fit as proposed with the stream. She said perhaps 16 to 18 houses would fit depending upon all the natural features and having to fit all the setbacks in, as part of the PUD, they can say where those preserved zones are and how much lot coverage there can be. She said if the current zoning states 15 to 11 houses, it might be okay, depending upon how they are arranged. She said if this came back to the Commission, she would want to see the reports of the stream and how many trees can be preserved, and other things the Commission always rev ews. Ms. Kramb said the site will be developed and she thought PUD was the best option. John Hardt said regarding the residents' comments wondering why this cannot become a park. He said that the Commission's only task with reacting to the proposal in front of them. He said that the Commission does not get to propose alternatives. He said specifically, the decision on whether to acquire and buy land is a decision that is made by City Council. Mr. Hardt said the stormwater and drainage comments and concerns were completely valid as something that obviously needs to be addressed before this property can be developed. He said that any developer that wants to develop this property will have to hire a team of engineers who do this for a living and they will do remarkable calculations. He said after the work is done, it will be submitted to the city that has a group of talented engineers who review and check the calculations. He iterated that the stormwater and drainage issues were something that they need to keep their eyes on because they do not want to make them any worse. Mr. Hardt said regarding tree preservation, he also is inte -ested in the overall configuration of the proposal and making sure that as much green space and trees are preserved as can be. He said when he walked the site, he noted that many trees on the site are not great trees or are sick, dead, or dying. He said in other developments, it has been recognized that there are trees in Dublin that are better than others are. Mr. Hardt said that the applicant needs to submit a detailed tree survey early so that what trees are there can be identified. He said he would not want to revise the proposal in order to save trees and find out that it ends up being a worse plan because trees that were going to die anyway were saved. Mr. Hardt said one of the things that the Commissioners are keenly aware of whenever they look at development is that they have to be very careful about unintended consequences. He said he always asked himself what would happen if they said 'No' to the development. He said one of the things that might very likely happen, is that someone would come along, and develop this site as a series of one - acre lots under the current regulations. He said if they did that, using similar lot coverage, it could end up being six to eight, 10,000- square -foot homes dropped on one -acre lots. He said in doing so, they would not have to devote any of the reserve or green spaces or no- disturb zones that are being proposed by this developer because they would not have to go through the PUD process that Ms. Kramb mentioned and they would not have to make those commitments. Mr. Hardt said at times, they have to be careful what they wish for and he agreed with Ms. Kramb that in some ways rezoning this property could be the best thing for everyone because it gives the opportunity to put controls and restrictions in place that are not there today. He said he could support a rezoning of this property and even lifting the density somewhat over what the Community Plan calls for to bring it into alignment with what exists around the site, but he would not support going above the density that surrounds the site. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10799 Drake Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 21 Ms. Amorose Groomes said. that the city always requires a tree study from any application, and this one would probably have to be a particularly detailed study, although typically we get the caliper, condition, and genus of the trees. She said if this application were to move forward, she would be very interested in reviewing the tree study. She said that one of the key standards that the Commission tends to hold developers to that come before them is that they cannot do more than what is in the neighborhood. She pointed out that the vast majority of this property is surrounded in two directions by a density of 1.6 units per acre. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed it was very reasonable for the residents of this area to think that whatever development would happen on this site would be subject to the same constrictions that they were subject. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not support anything over 1.6 units per acre, because that was what was a reasonable expectation in her opinion given by the neighborhood because that was the standard that they were held. She said she also was a Muirfield Village resident who walked this path with great frequency and she appreciates this beautiful property. Ms. Amorose Groomes did however, want to keep in mind that the Buckner Estate did have rights because they own the property. She said they just needed to be held to the same standards that everyone else has been held to so that the playing field is level. She said she did not know that a $200 per square -foot home is out of the realm of possibility for this site if the architecture, spaces, and finishes were great. Ms. Amorose Groomes said obviously, it has to be done very well and they have to be held to the same standards. She said she believed that they were likely to get families rather than empty nesters. She said she was really encouraged by seeing this quantity of residents come to something like this meeting who were passionate about their community. Ms. Amorose Groomes encouraged all of them to remain passionate about their community. She said she thought that was what made Dublin great and separated it from other communities. Mr. Fishman said he it clear to the rest of the Commission that he agreed with Ms. Kramb in the way that he fervently agreed that it had to be a PUD because it would benefit everyone. He said the only way he disagreed was that he would like to see it no denser than it is now, but possibly less dense because when the Commission agreed to allow the density of 1.9 units per acre, it was a maximum density. He said the existing homes are sitt.ng on the maximum density. He agreed that the development should be at least the standard of the existing homes, but because there is no real open space around those homes, he thought the Commission should pay very close attention to ensure that it is no denser, but maybe less to accomplish the open space. He said he also walked the site and saw many dead trees. He said it was not a lovely, healthy grove of trees. He reiterated that they should not even think about not having the site zoned PUD and should look at the density closely to make sure that it is at least the same density of the surrounding area, however he would like to see it less dense, using some imagination and making It something to be real proud of as the last piece in that area. He added that they should learn from the mistakes as he said with three -car garages. He agreed that there will most likely be families with children who will want yards than empty nesters. Mr. Fishman said that in Muirfield he had observed that people with small yards have a tendency to mow Into the green space areas, their yards expand over the years, and the green space areas are lost. He reiterated that the density should be as low as possible to make the development something that Muirfield can be proud of having. Ms. Amorose Groomes said a PUD would provide a great amount of protection to the surrounding properties in terms of architecture, lot coverage, and a number of things. She suggested if anyone was \interested in a better understanding of what benefits might come from the PUD, they should contact the Planning staff for more information. She explained that a PUD was not necessarily tied to density She said it was a tool for development, not a prescription for development. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited Mr. Adams to ask questions that would help him go forward. Mr. Adams said his questions were for the benefit of the seller with whom he would be meeting tomorrow. He said the property was zoned as Rural in 1993, and he understood under a Rura zoning 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 n7QQ nraka Rri Dublin Planning and Zoning commission August 9, 2012 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 21 format, 40,000- square -foot lots are required which would be approximately 12 lots on this property without deducting rights -of -way and that type of thing. He said he knew there had been other proposals that went wall -to -wall at a much higher density than what they were proposing. He said they supported the PUD process and obviously, that was the way it was being proposed to be able to provide the amount of open space that they have proposed, the flexibility in lot design, product type, and that sort of thing. Mr. Adams said that he understood that under the Rural zoning, if they prepared a pan or pat that complied with those zoning regulations, no presentation to the Commission was required and they would simply file a plat. Ms. Husak said a plat would require a subdivision review and approval by the Comm ssion and City Council. Mr. Adams said also, rural zoning permits farming enterprises, which can be . vestock o - agricultural plantings. He asked if someone chose to go that route, were there restrictions as to how the property could be developed under that zoning. He asked if they were exempt from tree removal as a rura property that would be implied or restricted as a residential zoning change. He sad there are many regulations that have to be complied with that people not in the business might not realize what they have to do. He said that a PUD is a text tool, but they have to go through tree preservation, tree, water quality, and runoff studies. He asked if someone developing a rural property would be exempt from that. Gary Gunderman exprained that if the property were divided into a rural subd vs on, some of those restrictions in the putted arrangement and the single - family homes that he assumed would come with the plat would still app y. He said the City would not lose all that control on trees. However, he said if t was not platted and kept in a truly agricultural setting, a great deal of flexibility would be gained with the trees and things. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Mr. Adams had all the information that he needed. Mr. Adams thanked the neighbors for attending this informal review because they needed to hear their concerns. He said the r comments were appreciated. Ms. Amorose Groomes requested a sign -up sheet for notifications to be placed in the obby. She thanked everyone for com,ng to the meeting for the review and discussion. She called a Five - minute recess at 8:25 p.m. before starting the next case. 3. Oh ioHealth )tam pus, Subarea 2f OhioHealth U 12- 041ZPPDP/ FDP ire & Dublin Hea h Center 6905 and 955 Hospital ing /Prelimin Development F nal Development P n (Tabl 6 — /lication th Preliminary De lopment Plan and nal Development an) John ardt recusem this case due to confl ct of interest. h C it Chr s Amoes introduced his rezoning /prelimi .ary development p n and fina evelopment plan n requesting view and approval for modifications t the approved development text combinatio of wall and ground igns, directional Sig to exceed size limitations, and off onal signs r a portion of an ex mg medical office ca pus. She said the 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 107Q0 r)r�[ c DA L1 FY Of DUMAN Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone/TDD• 614.410.4600 Fax: 614.761.6566 Web Sile: www ilublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Area Rezoning 03 -055Z — Muirfield Lots Area Rezoning Location: Four parcels comprising an area of approximately f 14.33 acres, as annexed from Concord Township in 1973, and generally on the east side of Muirfield Road, within the Muirfield Village Development. Existing Zoning: Township Districts. Request: Review and approval of an ordinance to establish Dublin R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Property Owners: Everett Buckner, 10799 Drake Road, Dublin, Ohio, 43017; Jack Beatley, c/o Glick Road LLC, 6713 Glick Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; James Green, 6548 Glick Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. MOTION: To approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification for effective development administration, will maintain the established development pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan. VOTE: 6 -0. RESULT: This area rezoning was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAR CERTIFICATION 'l _ J Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield i n799 r)raka Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes • September 18, 2003 Page 2 ma rial of the rlote wall? She thou the Commission d agreed if it were of brick, that it ould match. ed to have Mr Harvey double c k this for the re rd. With that tation, Mr. Geed for approv of the August 14 2003 meeting min es. Mr. Ritchie seconded, and thas: Mr. Me ineo, yes; Mr. S holtz, yes; Mr. Sg gue, abstain, Mr. Zimmerman, yes ring, yes; . Ritchie, yes; an . Gerber, yes. ( proved 6 -0 -1.) Mr. Gerber sVd the seven cases tghight would be hea/d in the published Benda order. 1. Adr4th istrative Reques 03- 013ADM — Co a Amendment — P need District Mr. G er said this was scussed at length the August 28, s cial meeting. The m c ' y new direon given was to c ge the Category and Category B guage. Mr. Gun erman said the aft ordinance is c sistent with that I guage. Staff has de a few other co tions. Vs. Boring refer why a minimum situation for a mi amend it. In cec� ,4o page 2, AD I( nsity is included. ium density. If types of projec , b) She understood Mr. Gunderman s I is included in th there may be a ce Aa (e maximum den 3 it does not set t, it would requi density you w7 4, but she asked � "do" or "don't" Council action to to achieve. Ms. Boring as uncomfortable cause the lan a begins with " requirements th are necessary" d asked for r explanation. Gunderman said v t, these were things fisted, we know a need to go back o City Council f or ) future amendm Mr. rber made a moti for approval bec se this ordinance or planned distric is a City Co it goal, and it wil larify planned dis ct procedures and rocesses, and the visions will frRitchie, line and enhanc the overall public eview process. . Zimmerman sec ded, and the ed vote was: . Messineo, yes; . Saneholtz, yes; . Sprague, yes; s. Boring, yes; yes; Gerber, yes; an Mr. Zimmerman, es. (Approved 7 0.) Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Gun rman. Mr. Ritchie d Ms. Chinnici -Z erche. for their wo 2. Area Rezoning 03 -055Z — Muirfield Lots Area Rezoning [Mr. Zimmerman recused himself due to a business relationship with Jack Beatley.] Anne Wanner showed a location map for the area rezonings. She said this 14.33 -acre area rezoning involves land south of Glick Road, and west of Dublin Road in the middle of Muirfield Village. These areas were annexed around 1973 but were not part of the Muirfield PUD. Three of the four parcels contain houses. Staff proposes R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District for the area north of Glick Road. R, Rural District is proposed for two other parcels. Ms. Wanner had received inquiries regarding future development of the property located south of Drake Road. Nothing is planned. She said staff recommends approval. Mr. Gerber said Ms. Wanner had done a nice job of summarizing this. These are primarily housekeeping efforts and do not affect most property rights. Mr. Ritchie made the motion to approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, will provide for effective development administration, will maintain the established development pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan. Mr. Gerber seconded, and the vote was as 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 1 n744 r)raka Rd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 18, 2003 Page 3 follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Mr. Ritchie, yes. (Approved 6 -0.) 3. Area ezoning 03 -070Z — ost Road to Bran oad, West of Mu' field Drive and E2At of land -Croy Road Anne anner said this includes 150 acres d estate lots on ery Road, parts of very Par d the Trabue Na a Preserve, and sev churches. She s ' these pockets were of part of adjacent zoning an, and R -1, Res ' ted Suburban Resi ntial District is pr sed for ost parcels. R, R District is propose or the agricultural ' ce east of Post Pre rve. Ms. Wanner sai is application inv es the Humbert p petty, on which th e is a pending PUD request. the Humbert prope is rezoned first, s will withdraw it om this case. A few residen ttended the info 'onal meeting. Se eral church represe fives called her. This is con ' tent with the Co ty Plan and staff r commends approva Mr. Ge r moved for appro of this area rezo ' g because it will ap y an appropriate in zonin classification, will ovide for effective development a ' ' tration, will main ' the e ished development attem, and is consi ent with the Comm ty Plan, provided at the F hwater/Humbert tr 5t of 5.26 acres (Fil o. 03- 092CP) will a deleted from this rdinance it has been appro v d by City Council or to this case m ing forward. Mr. immerman seconded, and the v to was: Mr. Ritchie yes; Ms. Boring, ye , Mr. Sprague, yes; Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messine , yes; Mr. Zimmerm , yes; and Mr. Ger r, yes. (Approved 7 ) 4. Area R g 03 -071Z — C fman a Ro rain oad Anne W er sa this area in lves estate lots, mo ly along the south ' e of Brand Road, to the w st /blished man Road One lot is north of rand Road. She sai this is a request for -1, Restri ed n Resid tial District, the a as the zoning m as shown for y She said venas atte ed the information meeting, and she spoken to seve on the p ne. Msr s ' staff is recommend' g approval of this usekeeping matter. Mr. Saneho the motion to appro this area rezoning cause it will apply appropriate Dublin zosification, will ovide for effectiv development a ' istration, will maintain thished developme pattern, and is co stent with the Co unity Pla n. Mr. Ritchie secand the vote w : Mr. Gerber, yes; s. Boring, yes; Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Spragu r. Messineo es; Mr. Ritchie, yes and Mr. Saneholtz, s. (Approved 7-0.), 5. A ea Rezoning 03 -07 — Co/ Dublin Road, be en Brand Road a I Fub 2 Wanner said this vol ese south side of B d Road and the w t side of n Road plus ffrnan High requests R -1, estricted Suburban esidential District for most o the land. Th is to be R, al, i reflect the toric zoning map. She show e slides. She said nded the in rmatio meeting. he has spoken to one owner p Ralph Feasel fro ools. Sh aid staff comme approval. 13- 009Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat Stansbury at Muirfield 10700 nraka RA